1386 replies to this topic

[RealityCheck]

Although I advocate 0.08 damage per round, the above makes sense. No matter how much, a damage buff needs to be included in any buff to the machine gun. The ultimate trick is going to be convincing the devs TO TRY ANYTHING.

RealityCheck

[Deathlike]

HammerSwarm, on 22 April 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

So returning to my assertion that all mechs suffer from not having a viable light ballistic:Two mechs I'd like to focus on for this. The Atlas D and the Trebuchet 7K. The Atlas D has 2 ballistics slots as does the trebuchet, both are in a torso opening up the AC/20 as an option but adding that removes the flexibility of the XL engine. Other options that you can use there can be stacked but become quite heavy very quickly. Weight is less of a problem but is certainly relevant in an atlas. This is the bottom line. Having a viable light weight ballistic would benefit both mechs because they could include a short range defense weapon while relying on long range missiles or lasers to remain balanced. Any effort to use both slots otherwise adds lots of weight and takes up many critical slots limiting flexibility for being unique. Currently to utilize both ballistic slots in the torso you have a minimum of 12(13) tons and a maximum of 22(23) tons. The weight to utilize to energy slots? 1 ton. Two missile slots? a more moderate 2(3) tons.

Highlighted part of flawed argument in bold. People don't bother using XL engines in Atlases for obvious reasons.. unless clueless.

[RealityCheck]

I've had a new thought. Why can't PGI have their cake and eat too? Keep the machine gun a crit seeker, but still buff its damage. Then adjust the crit modifiers as required. With the damage buff they can look at manipulating the ammo per ton to adjust for increased damage. Now pilots with machine guns can strip armor and strip components (with damage buff, component striping might actually be feasible). There's only one problem, deciding which to dedicate your limited ammunition stores too (or both). This fact will be even more apparent in 12v12. So, why not?

RealityCheck

[HammerSwarm]

Deathlike, on 22 April 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

Highlighted part of flawed argument in bold. People don't bother using XL engines in Atlases for obvious reasons.. unless clueless.

But you might in a Trebuchet 7K, and you could in an atlas, but not if you use an A/C20, 2 LBX 10, or 2 UAC/5. It's not a question of whether it's wise, instead it's a question of flexibility. All mechs with ballistics slots are inhibited by ineffective machine guns. The point of my post is that because you're using heavier weapons in those slots for instance you might be inclined to use ER ppc instead of PPC so you can have something in the case where things get too close instead of using regular PPCs and 2 machine guns. This would allow you to use the machine gun instead of other weapons to cover that short range area. Large mechs with ballistics slots are victimized by machine guns being worthless too, just not in the same way, think about it.

[Wildstreak]

Loler skates, on 21 April 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

Nothing, they still wouldn't be worth taking over the larger AC weapons which have better alpha strikes and engagement ranges.

A statement that I believe argues we need a new Ballistic weapon somewhere between the 0.5 ton MG and the 6 ton AC/2.

stjobe, on 21 April 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

Actually, you're wrong.

1. There were MGs in BattleTech before there were infantry. The only target we had were 'mechs. And the MG did 2 damage versus those, same as the AC/2 but with shorter range. Then when infantry got introduced in CityTech, the MG got a large bonus to damage versus infantry (2d6 infantry hit) - but it still retained its 2 damage versus 'mechs.

True however sometimes game designers do thing based on plans they have not released yet as rules, I have seen this done and heard about it from designers bafore there were even computer games. So FASA could have had unfinished rules for Infantry thus added the MG before Infantry were added.

stjobe, on 21 April 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

2. There's lots of heavier 'mechs carrying MGs. Off the top of my head; Thunderbolt (65t), Crusader (65t), Battlemaster (85t). In MWO, with its harpoint systems, those 'mechs could put a serious ballistic weapon there instead. The reason we're talking so much about the lighter 'mechs is because they CAN'T do that. They don't have the tonnage.

So, you see, the ones that are forced into taking these useless crit-weapons as primary weapons are the ones least suited to it. Low armour and high speed doesn't mesh well with a need for getting up close and personal OR the need for continuously facing the enemy. Especially not if the weapon they rely on doesn't actually DO anything worthwhile to bring down the enemy.

If the MG did decent damage, perhaps these light ballistic 'mechs wouldn't collect dust.

Those heavier Mechs have listed in their descriptions that all their MGs were added for anti-Infantry use, the same description on most other Mechs using MGs.

Terror Teddy, on 21 April 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

The problem IS universal to all designs that can carry ballistics - The weapon is underperforming even in PGI's designated role - crit seeking. It's not even good at that.

Not a "few" units suffer - ALL units that can carry ballistics suffer - just because some are heavier and can carry OTHER ballistics does not mean that they dont suffer WHEN they decide to carry MG's.

At the least, I will thank you for seperating the 'certain Mechs suffer' argument from the 'buff the MG' one as they should be.

Terror Teddy, on 21 April 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

Fixing unit design might also be problematic since they are so tied up into the stock design mechs loadout.

Still, some redesign would be possible - like allowing the 5K to have 2 energy torso slots and only 1 ballistic slot per arm.

True, certain slots cannot be taken away because of stock design but added slots can be changed.

Terror Teddy, on 21 April 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

Proposing NEW weapons is also a problem due to the timeline. If they decided to push the game to 3068 I'd have no problem since we would have several light weapon options. But as it stands, not in 3050.

Also, the harrass and annoy designation and purely anti-infantry weapon I disagree with.

Nothing wrong with proposing new weapons so long as they are not copies of existing items no matter when they are in the timeline. I actually believe that is a valid argument, that there should be some option fitting somewhere between the 0.5 ton MG and 6 ton AC/2. As for the anti-Infantry designation, it has been around since before there was a MechWarrior 1.

Critical Fumble, on 21 April 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

Furthermore, changing a few variants around won't actually fix the deeper problem that's been exposed by the way MGs were handled. The fact that there isn't a light ballistic worth having deeply damages their "a hardpoint is a hardpoint" design to the point where they would need a fairly complicated model to balance hardpoints on mechs. Doable, of course, but if they ever add in more weapon content it could result in breaking the model yet again. The simplest, most reliable, and most effective answer is to add in lightweight ballistics that are at least passable at killing other mechs. It doesn't even have to be the MG, that's just the quick, obvious solution.

(To be honest, I'm not familiar enough with TT tech to know what, if any, post 3050 weapons they could add in without imbalancing the game. Though it seems like you could just make a ballistic version of the SL and ML, dramatically reducing the heat/burst but requiring ammo)

Thank you for seperating the 'certain Mechs suffer' argument from the 'buff the MG' one as they should be. We have already seen what happens when things from future time periods are added in ECM-Stealth.

FrostCollar, on 21 April 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:

If we finally decide to break from the timeline, the Magshot would be a swell idea and I heartily support its inclusion. Before that however, the MG is all we have, so for the sake of small ballistic mechs it has to be buffed.

If we decide to break from timeline, this opens the crazy door and slides down the slippery slope of 'why can we just do whatever we want regardless of timeline?' Let's just add in Clans before invasion, oh wait I like this Mech even though not available until 3063, let's add that, let's add this because I like it, let's just add everything. Might as well argue to change the MWO game year.

Deathlike, on 21 April 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

Every single time people refer to the Spider-5K and don't think MGs are a problem, please share a build that consistently nets you a win or a decent shot at winning a match (outside of just capping) or at least contributing some decent firepower.

Mind you, noone seems to complain about the lame disparity between the Spider-5V and the Spider-5D because the 5V still can use some decent weaponry despite a lesser # of energy hardpoints that are available. If you can't use MGs on a 5K, then the only options start from the AC2.... and that is 12 times the weight of the MG (not factoring in ammo).

I stopped trying to point out the Cicada-3C and Raven-4X because TBH there are some actual OPTIONS that they can use given their current hardpoints.. the Spider-5K has a CT energy hard point, limiting what weapon can be used to "open a hole" in the enemy AND 4 ballistic hardpoints... which you have to "figure out" a "useful" ballistic can be stored in it.

It should not take a genius to figure out that the Spider-5K as currently constructed has no alternative... not a different variant to grind with (like the Cicada-3C has) or a decent option (I used a UAC5 with 2 meds on a Raven-4X to some degree of success)...

I scratch my head about why the Spider was added in the first place. Of all the time appropriate Mechs to choose from, they picked the Spider? Alternate 30 tonners:
Falcon
Firefly
Hermes
Hussar
Javelin
UrbanMech
Valkyrie
All stock much more usful than ANY Spider.

[Terror Teddy]

Merchant, on 22 April 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

I scratch my head about why the Spider was added in the first place. Of all the time appropriate Mechs to choose from, they picked the Spider? Alternate 30 tonners:
Falcon
Firefly
Hermes
Hussar
Javelin
UrbanMech
Valkyrie
All stock much more usful than ANY Spider.

That's a very good point. After all, the Commando, Jenner and Raven all provide the Scout angle and they are ALL fast light mechs. A 30 tonne Urbanmech would have been a fun break by adding a slow light just to mix things up a bit. With the current engine limitation the Spider has no advantage against any other light who can perform at equally fast speeds and better firepower.

[Wildstreak]

FupDup, on 21 April 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

For those special few who still think Battletech MGs are anti-infantry only:
Source: TechManual, page 341. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

And I say look up the descriptions of a lot of Mechs.

Spider, look for the 5K.

Quote

SDR-5K - The -5K Spider removes one of the Medium Lasers and replaces it with two arm mounted Machine Guns for anti-infantry use.

For a BattleMaster, look under Armaments.

Quote

Finally, the BattleMaster was equipped with two Sperry Browning Machine Guns, which deterred infantry attacks.

Next the Crusader Armamnets.

Quote

Finally, to deter infantry attacks against the Crusader, two M100 Machine Guns are mounted on the 'Mech.

The Thunderbolt Armaments.

Quote

Finally, for anti-infantry use, the Thunderbolt has two Voelkers 200 Machine Guns.

I can find a lot of such references.

HammerSwarm, on 22 April 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

Thank you for your well reasoned reply, I disagree and here is why. Machine guns are not limited to a few variants and within the current system I don't believe that their is a simple redesign that could fix this issue.

Any mech with ballistics slots suffers from not having a viable machine gun. Your point that a larger mech could use machine guns is well understood. I understand this and I want to point out why this is in my opinion incorrect. The reason is range. The range of a machine gun is 90m the max range is 200 meters. The A/C 2 is 720/2160. That is reason enough for me not to fear that as a primary weapon. It's simply not a good idea to boat machine guns because their range is not sufficient to close open ground.

Further more there is 1 mech with six ballistic slots, 4 mechs with four, and three with 3. There are eight mechs that would substantially benefit from a change. But that also means there are only 8 that could really pack in the machine guns. This in my opinion negates much of the argument that making these better would make them too powerful. When something like SRM or Lasers can already be boated in this way and have greater, and in some cases much greater range.

So returning to my assertion that all mechs suffer from not having a viable light ballistic:Two mechs I'd like to focus on for this. The Atlas D and the Trebuchet 7K. The Atlas D has 2 ballistics slots as does the trebuchet, both are in a torso opening up the AC/20 as an option but adding that removes the flexibility of the XL engine. Other options that you can use there can be stacked but become quite heavy very quickly. Weight is less of a problem but is certainly relevant in an atlas. This is the bottom line. Having a viable light weight ballistic would benefit both mechs because they could include a short range defense weapon while relying on long range missiles or lasers to remain balanced. Any effort to use both slots otherwise adds lots of weight and takes up many critical slots limiting flexibility for being unique. Currently to utilize both ballistic slots in the torso you have a minimum of 12(13) tons and a maximum of 22(23) tons. The weight to utilize to energy slots? 1 ton. Two missile slots? a more moderate 2(3) tons.

Because of hard point restrictions, because of range, weight, and critical space machine guns need to be viable not just for mechs that can carry 3-4-6, but for mechs that can carry 1-2. 32 mechs have ballistic slots, and all 32 of them a currently forced to use a 6(7) ton weapon if they intend to fill that slot with anything useful.

So the question for me isn't should we buff the machine gun, it's to what level should we buff the machine gun. I personally think 2-3 DPS would be reasonable for a weapon with a range of 90m, that is ammo dependent, and has to be constantly fired to be effective. Some people would argue more but I think when the ridiculous cone of fire is removed the level I have suggested will be sufficient to see some machine guns used.

I also contend this is an argument for alternate weapons ranging between the 0.5 ton MG and the 6 ton AC/2. Just so long as there is no attempt to copy something existing or change time periods, it can be done, seen similar done in other games. Part of gaming no matter how the game is played (board, card, computer, etc.) is the ability to be creative in coming up with solutions, here creating alternate light or even medium Ballistics.

[FupDup]

Merchant, on 22 April 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

And I say look up the descriptions of a lot of Mechs.

Spider, look for the 5K.


For a BattleMaster, look under Armaments.


Next the Crusader Armamnets.


The Thunderbolt Armaments.


I can find a lot of such references.

References which don't contradict the fact that MGs in the lore are able to do 2 damage to mechs. Delicious red herrings, those are.



They're certainly a lot better against infantry than mechs, but they're not useless against mechs. There are better anti-mech weapons out there that are of similar weight and have more range without the ammo asplosions. An example of similar logic but a different topic: A UAC/5 is pretty much always more effective than an AC/5. Does that mean the AC/5 is useless? No.



I'm going to now deploy a hyperbole to show the issue with the Sarna descriptions:

Sarna said:

Designed as an anti-aircraft platform and long-range fire support unit, the JagerMech was intended to correct several perceived faults of the original Rifleman....In its favor, the long range of its autocannon, combined with the excellent Garret D2j targeting and tracking system (made famous by the Rifleman), make it a prime choice for anti-aircraft work.

Does that mean that Jagermechs shouldn't be able to damage anything but aircraft? Let's try another:

Sarna said:

The most notable feature of the weapon was its ability to fire both standard HEAP rounds and a specialized anti-'Mech cluster round.

Does that mean the LBX cluster shots can't damage anything other than mechs?


I think you get the idea.

Edited by FupDup, 22 April 2013 - 01:11 PM.

[Esplodin]

Merchant, on 22 April 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

I can find a lot of such references.

Yet you missed this:

Edited by Esplodin, 22 April 2013 - 11:39 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Maybe one should ask:
"What are your intentions for the Machine Gun?"
- "To make it a noobie trap?"
- "To ensure that no light mech utilizing 3-6 ballistic slots has a chance of using them for something good?"
- "To have a few non-viable weapons lying around just in case-"
- "To give the complicated crit-system some use in which a mech can lose a hit location in 1/2 the time it took the enemy to click the armour on that location away?"
- "To avoid it being as effective as in Mechwarrior 3 or 4"
- "To avoid it being as overpowered as it was in the broken Solaris rules?"

[stjobe]

Merchant, on 22 April 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

Alternate 30 tonners:

Falcon - In 3050, it's a clan 'mech. Production restarted by Wolf's Dragoons in 3060.
Firefly - In 3050, it too is a clan 'mech, used only by Wolf's Dragoons.
Hermes - Only has two variants usable by MWO
Hussar - This could work, but it's a really weird-looking 'mech. Chicken-legs and arms on the nose? WTH?
Javelin - This could work too, but it has nothing that either the Commando or Jenner doesn't have
UrbanMech - No comment.
Valkyrie - Unseen design

Seems that you could stand to think a bit more about this topic as well as on the topic of MGs.

[Deathlike]

I took a closer look into the Spider chassis in general after a particular thread.. and am actually scratching my head more when I think about the Spider...

I'd personally need a to write up a specific "Spider needs serious balancing" thread... because from my understanding, the Spider-5K's ballistic slots are merely filler spots, relative to the Spider-5V.

[stjobe]

In an effort to look at the spread of the MG, I decided to take my 6 MG 4 MG Spider to the testing grounds.

Round 1: I find an AS7-D and position myself 88m in front of it, aim for the CT and hold the trigger.
2000 rounds later, this is the result:

Spoiler

As expected, I didn't even breach the armour (AS7-D stock CT has 94 armour, 1 ton of MG ammo is 80 damage). The damage was mostly done to the CT, with some splash to the LT and RT.

Round 2: I choose a smaller target, a CPLT-A1. Again, I stand 88m in front of it and aim straight at it's nose. Result?

Spoiler

CT breached (48 armour), some head damage, but the 42 points of internal structure stopped me from killing it. Not a single bullet found its way to the LT or RT.

Round 3: I want to kill an Atlas from behind. I hear Spiders can do devastating effects there. So I find an AS7-D, stand 88m behind it, aim for the RCT and hold the trigger:

Spoiler

The damage spreads a bit to the LT and RT, but most of it's on the CT. Too bad that CT has 28 points of armour and 62 points of internal structure... That's 10 more than my max damage. I did manage to destroy the two MLs though, so that's something.

Round 4: I know! I'll aim for the LT! That only has 20 armour and 42 internal structure! I can finally kill an Atlas!

Spoiler

No dice. The damage spreads to the LA and the CT, and I can't get 62 damage to the LT. I do manage to kill the weapons in there, but the ammo refuses to explode. The Atlas kill eludes me.

Round 5: So now I want to find out how large the spread really is. I find a COM-1B and stand 199m away from it. At this range I'll hardly do any damage, but at least the paperdoll will light up where I hit. Here's what happens:

Spoiler

Less than 1% damage, and every single hit location hit - I even managed to hit the rear locations... That means that at 199m, the spread is at least 9m in diameter (the height of the Commando). But now I want to kill something!

Round 6: Bloodlust. I find a COM-1B, stand 89m in front of it, aim for the CT, and pull the trigger.
Did I get my kill?

Spoiler

I did, and with 400 rounds to spare. It only takes 1,600 rounds from quad MGs to kill a stock Commando! The damage spread all over the place at this range too, only the legs didn't take damage.

So how bad is the spread? Enough that it takes 1,600 rounds - or 64 damage - to core a stock COM-1B through the CT (16 armour + 16 internal structure). So only 50% of the projectiles actually hit the CT, the rest spread all over the 'mech.

At this point I'd like to take the opportunity again to quote our dear Mr. Ekman: "We’ve removed randomness from weapon firing in favor of skill."

Yeah right.

Edited by stjobe, 22 April 2013 - 03:08 PM.

[Kyzar Kon]

Harmin, on 09 April 2013 - 04:32 AM, said:

It's a bit meh. I built it, then I have done 4 games last night before an opportunity for some 8 manning arose.

In those 4 games I was trying to stay out of trouble initially and just sniped at the opposition with the ER Laser. I used an Advanced Sensor and Target Info Gathering module to have a small edge identifying weak spots.

Once I found an opportune target I closed in at max speed (a measly 133kph due to no elites unlocked) and then machine gunned the weak spot. For example I took down a yellow-back cored atlas within a second or so sitting its back. Annoyingly I didn't get the kill shot.

The problem to me is that the spider is just not a very resilient platform. Out of the 4 games I got killed twice, once one-shotted from a 4 ppc stalker, second had a 150kph raven just not letting go and in a 133kph spider you're just minced meat.

I ended up with a kill-shot in some wild brawl at one point but I couldn't tell if that was MG or ERL fire.

So for now, 0.5 K/d ratio after 4 games.

I will probably do another handful of games tonight and if I get the chance do a screen shot of stats afterwards.

-Armin

I love the SPD-5D

I've playd the 5k enough to realize its worthless in what MWO has become. MG are worthless. Simple as that. I ran a 4 MG 5K. There is no point in going in for a crit kill if it wont ensure its death. Why would you do that when you could hit that same spot form a distance with your ER laz? You are completely exposing yourself. Now with projectile roll back getting legged is almost assured with every assault Bpat with Gauss, Ac/20s and PPC's. Personally I run a 5D with a single PPC and ECM. I'd be luck too get a single kill with the 5K but with the 5D I get 2-4 kills and assists on the whole enemy team with 500dmg.

If mg where ever to be useful would be against light mechs and brawls. Probably still be useless no matter what devs change to the long range combat that has become standard.

[General Taskeen]

Merchant, on 22 April 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

nope

Yo Merchant, check this out:

HERP THE ROMMEL

"If attacked by infantry, or as a last resort, the tank commander can aim a single ASL Small Laser."

Don't be a cherry-picker, you copied descriptions, and bolded things, who cares? There is no infantry in MWO. Period. Never will Be.

By your logic, the Small Laser should be nerfed into nothing, for non-existent anti-infantry duty. There are plenty of the same Small Laser "shooting infantry" descriptions in Battle Tech too. Go browse the hundreds of TROs. MWO has followed basic TT damage values for 92% of the weapons, guess what the other ones that aren't are?

Its time to put an end to that tired logic. Forever. And provide logic to balancing the game with logical suggestions.

MW3 MG damaged Mechs, because the MG could damage Mechs. They did it right. MWO did it wrong. End of story.

Edited by General Taskeen, 22 April 2013 - 03:30 PM.

[Deathlike]

stjobe, on 22 April 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

At this point I'd like to take the opportunity again to quote our dear Mr. Ekman: "We’ve removed randomness from weapon firing in favor of skill."

Yeah right.

He must be playing with a 40 DPS MG instead of the .4 DPS MG.

[James Montana]

I am now with the crowd wanting some big changes to the MGs. For the love of God, add 300m to their current range at least, and reign in the "randomness" even more.

[JC 136]

now maybe this has already been raised in this thread, but i personally believe the machine gun needs more range.
in real life machine guns can have leathal ranges up to hundreds of metres away. i find that most of my engagements with machine guns have rough ranges in the areas of 100m up to 250m roughly. but when i do this i find that the machine gun fire ive been consistantly hitting with for about 30 seconds, the game tells me ive only done 1 damage.
this seems to be a range thing more than anything else, i mean, its a machine gun, not a shotgun.

[Curccu]

Merchant, on 22 April 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

I can find a lot of such references.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Piranha


"The Piranha's main threat is its twelve Series XII Rotary Machine Guns. These are a serious threat on such a speedy 'Mech to any foe, especially if a Star of Piranhas operate in a pack, and such a large array allows a Piranha to chew through an opponent's rear armor almost instantly."

[ICEFANG13]

Now imagine that with 6 MGs on the back of an Atlas, and 30 tons. That would be devastating.