1386 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Lord of All, on 03 May 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

MG's are not MAIN weapons! If you want them to "Get to the Squishy inside" then they should not tear that inside up 12 TIMES faster than everything else.





I would have no issue with changing the role but I see nothing about toning down the CRIT Seeking, only Buffing damage because most of the people advocating a damage Buff have not looked past the end of their nose.

when they are the only thing a Light can realistically USE in their ballistics they might not be MAIN weapons, but they need to be able to compliment them. And if you actually READ most of the posts, I would venture they have spent more time thinking on it than you have.

[Lord of All]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 May 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

when they are the only thing a Light can realistically USE in their ballistics they might not be MAIN weapons, but they need to be able to compliment them. And if you actually READ most of the posts, I would venture they have spent more time thinking on it than you have.

I did and I have and that global comment was not directed at you as you should have gleamed from the "most" Qualifier I used.

[FupDup]

Lord of All, on 03 May 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

MG's are not MAIN weapons!

Tell that to mechs that carry four of them.

Lord of All, on 03 May 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

If you want them to "Get to the Squishy inside" then they should not tear that inside up 12 TIMES faster than everything else.

Tearing up the squishy inside is fairly useless anyways. How about we make them unable to deal crits whatsoever in exchange for a damage buff that is tangible and spread removal?

[Critical Fumble]

Belorion, on 03 May 2013 - 04:37 AM, said:

I think you may be underestimating what MG's will be able to do after the buff for the amount of tonnage it takes up.

4 MG's will have a dps roughly equal to a ppc with a fraction of the weight.

Yes, 3.2 DPS at 90 meters fading to zero at two hundred some-odd meters for 50 seconds per ton of ammo. Unimpressive, let's go through the list again.

MGs are knife fighting weapons, you have to be effectively on top of the target to do full damage. That's not a good idea for anyone, even the dreaded 6-MG Spider, (I should really lay off that comment but its just too funny) because to hit anyone who's not being entirely stupid you'd have to expose yourself to weapons that likely total more than your tonnage. High risk, low reward.

Comparing DPS between continuous and single point weapons is apples and oranges. For instance, the AC/2 fires so fast it may as well be a continuous-fire weapon and has better DPS than the Gauss or PPC. The fact is though that the long range peekaboo snipers will favor the lower DPS of Gauss and PPCs because of the greater damage concentration and less exposure/aiming time.

And lastly, it isn't worth what it costs you. People are quick to point out how little tonnage it takes up, but it also takes up a hardpoint. Because part of the mech balance is based on having a similar hardpoint count, some mechs get more ballistic slots than they can use other than mounting MGs. This doesn't make MGs see daylight; it makes that variant not worth having when there's another one that can mount the same number of MLs as it can MGs.

[Lord of All]

FupDup, on 03 May 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

Tell that to mechs that carry four of them.

Those Mechs are not designed to fight other Mechs, Get over it.

Quote

Tearing up the squishy inside is fairly useless anyways. How about we make them unable to deal crits whatsoever in exchange for a damage buff that is tangible and spread removal?

I totally agree with this and have no issue with it whatsoever and If you hadn't stated the above I would have liked your post. actually I did but cannot like a part of a post and disagree with the other, would hate to send conflicting signals.

[Deathlike]

Lord of All, on 03 May 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Those Mechs are not designed to fight other Mechs, Get over it.

Right... like those 6 MG Jagermechs that I've been seeing. They usually come with 2 ERPPCs and I die laughing because those MGs still do squat.

[Utilyan]

Lord of All, on 03 May 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

MG's are not MAIN weapons! If you want them to "Get to the Squishy inside" then they should not tear that inside up 12 TIMES faster than everything else.





I would have no issue with changing the role but I see nothing about toning down the CRIT Seeking, only Buffing damage because most of the people advocating a damage Buff have not looked past the end of their nose.

The crit seeking already got toned down, but you wouldn't know......cause you don't use MGs.

Its just as bad as any other weapon.

Now im in favor of your point of view concerning keep them weak against armor targets like tanks and battlemechs.

But what MGs are great at Vs UNARMORED targets......They are not.

As is MGs is the WORST weapon against UNARMORED targets. And even vs. UNARMORED targets its effective range and DAMAGE is NERFED down to vs ARMORED targets.

So if your a UNARMORED target, lets say a UNARMORED RIGHT TORSO 2000m away........the MGs don't even touch you.

NO DAMAGE AT ALL.

I call BS.




Check this out:
Sarna:
These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns.^[4]Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins.^[5]


Support Machine Guns are large crew-served support weapons mounted on vehicles or emplacement turrets. Too massive for a single trooper to carry, these guns fire large-caliber bullets at much greater ranges than most other ballistic weapons and with enough firepower to be a threat to heavily-armored vehicles. Support machine guns achieve superior accuracy at these ranges thanks to their stable, static mounts and built-in recoil compensation.^[1]



Now Battlearmor/elemetals.......those tiny mini-wanabe mechs got upgraded versions:
Essentially a generational improvement over the Heavy Machine Guns of the 20th Century this weapon fires High Calibre rifle rounds in the vicenity of 12.7 mm or 0.50 calibre. This calibre of round is better able to damage BattleMechs, BattleArmor and Combat Vehicles. Rarely used as a squads main weapon due to requiring a crew of two, it is more often used in a supporting role or Mounted on vehicles, in fortress turrets or emplaced positions. Extremely long ranged for a slug-throwing ballistic weapon.



And then you got BATTLEMECH's MG which is GREATER then those MGs. Unless you think the MG mounted on a elemental/battlearmor ought to be more dangerous then a mech's mg.

Isn't it a little.....strange.....that every MG is mentioned as being damaging vs mechs except for superior Mech's version who magicly has the worst range, can't hurt armored targets, and apparenlty does NO damage to unarmored targets.


TL;DR MGs does no damage to armor, fine. Let it do its FULL damage vs UNARMORED at 5000m .

[Bishop Steiner]

Lord of All, on 03 May 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Those Mechs are not designed to fight other Mechs, Get over it.



I totally agree with this and have no issue with it whatsoever and If you hadn't stated the above I would have liked your post. actually I did but cannot like a part of a post and disagree with the other, would hate to send conflicting signals.

Not designed to fight other mechs......

so tell me, in a game that has ummm... NOTHING but Mechs to fight, what are tehy used for then? Decoration?

Your argument is flawed. Get over it.

[Utilyan]

From a powergamer perspective the machine guns should do just as "awful" as a AC/2 does in close range. Have a mech with 4 ac/2's light you up close then you get idea what a cicada with 4 mgs would do. Only the MGs wouldn't over heat. It would be brutal.

From a fun perspective I wouldn't buff the MG, maybe keep the crits when they were good, maybe a huge extended range vs unarmored. But the total visual range of the weapon I'd make across the map. Good enough to be a ballistic "tag" without any benefit other then visual attention any other gun gives.

Theres a reason weapons like flamers and MGs got nerfed in the first place. These weapons were brutal up close enough to steal the spot light of other weapons in the game.

If your ok with that deadlyness, then you got to rework the proportions of the damage, things like small laser that have dps 1, would have dps of 6 instead (after comparing it to ac/2's dps of 4 that would be the matching dps of machine guns).

[stjobe]

Utilyan, on 03 May 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

From a powergamer perspective the machine guns should do just as "awful" as a AC/2 does in close range. Have a mech with 4 ac/2's light you up close then you get idea what a cicada with 4 mgs would do. Only the MGs wouldn't over heat. It would be brutal.

You're forgetting one thing: The AC/20 is 20 times more powerful in MWO than it was in BattleTech. 2 damage per 10 seconds in BT, 40 damage per 10 seconds in MWO.

The other weapons are also more powerful than in BT; AC/10 has 40 DP10S as compared to 10, so it's 4 times more powerful, AC/20 has 50 DP10S, so it's 2.5 times more powerful, the PPC has 33.3 DP10S, so it's 3.3 times more powerful... You get the picture.

The MG? 4 DP10S, twice as powerful as in BT, and 10 times weaker than the AC/2. After the patch it'll have 8 DP10S, or 5 times weaker than the AC/2, and 4/5ths as powerful as the Small Laser (although in practice it'll be more like 2/5ths, since the MG has spread and 100% uptime needed).

What we have been trying to say for 42 pages here, and over 7,000 posts in other threads, is that the MG due to it's spread and continuous-fire mechanic (100% time-on-target needed to get its listed DPS) needs to have a higher DPS than the Small Laser - just going with the 2/3rds it had from BT is as stupid as putting it at 4 DPS like the MWO AC/2.

About 2 DPS would probably be right - it'd translate to roughly 1 DPS in practice, and if someone stood still in front of you it'd be brutal. But they'd have to be close, or the spread would still lower damage.

I'd almost accept the 0.8 they're going with if they'd also remove the spread - it'd still be a bit lacking in raw power, but at least you'd be able to hit where you aimed. Ideally, I think 1.0-1.2 DPS is right for a non-spread MG; continuous-fire would still lower that to about the 0.8 they're going with now.

Oh, and they can remove the crit-buff, it's as useless as a bicycle for a fish.

[FupDup]

Lord of All, on 03 May 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Those Mechs are not designed to fight other Mechs, Get over it.

Implying that there's anything else to fight with them and that other weapons like Medium Lasers wouldn't be 100 times better at fighting those other non-existent targets than MGs, get over it.

Edited by FupDup, 03 May 2013 - 07:36 PM.

[Deathlike]

I would ONLY be OK with MGs if they either do one of the following:
.8 DPS w/o cone of fire
or
1 DPS w/cone of fire

Outside of that, these changes are still not good enough.

[Terror Teddy]

Deathlike, on 03 May 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

MGs are hitscan weapons like lasers

Are they? Truly?

They have a bullet speed of 100 while lasers have no speed at all. So they DO have travel time.

Either way my spider and I will do some heavy field testing after they have patched it.

Perhaps I can become a ballistic anti-ECM hunter with a BAP...

I wonder if not the BAP became TOO powerful? Unlike the ECM EVERYONE can use a BAP to counter ECM - and it does not weight very much.

[stjobe]

Terror Teddy, on 04 May 2013 - 12:19 AM, said:

Are they? Truly?

They have a bullet speed of 100 while lasers have no speed at all. So they DO have travel time.

This is easily tested (incidentally I too thought it was a ballistic weapon before doing this test):
1. Drop on the training grounds with a MG 'mech.
2. Find another target and position yourself 199m from it
3. Fire your MGs
4. Notice how the damage paper doll *instantly* starts flashing - not after 1.99 seconds.

So yes, they are hitscan. No travel time. The bullet animation is just smoke and mirrors.

[Deathlike]

Terror Teddy, on 04 May 2013 - 12:19 AM, said:

Are they? Truly?

They have a bullet speed of 100 while lasers have no speed at all. So they DO have travel time.

Either way my spider and I will do some heavy field testing after they have patched it.

Perhaps I can become a ballistic anti-ECM hunter with a BAP...

I wonder if not the BAP became TOO powerful? Unlike the ECM EVERYONE can use a BAP to counter ECM - and it does not weight very much.

The first part of HSR was with lasers... which happen to include Flamers and MGs. These two unlikely weapons are hitscan.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

FrostCollar, on 02 May 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

So, upcoming doubling of damage for MGs and a slight range buff. What does everyone think?

I still think it's too little. On the one hand, I'm very happy increases in damage are being considered. On the other, since the increases are still relatively modest I'm concerned that the devs will consider the job done and not revisit any further changes for quite some time, as it was when MGs got their elevated crit chance.

It's a step in the right direction, at least the damage per ton of ammo will be on par with other weapons with the buff. I think we will simply need to continue providing feedback as we try MG's with the changes.

I wouldn't be concerned that the job is done. I think they will keep an eye on MG's, but I'm sure they will keep looking at all the weapons since AC/5s got a range buff also and the LB10-X will get that tweak to its cone of fire. And I figure missiles are a bigger priority (I wonder how they'll feel with that speed increase, I might try using LRMs again on my Flame).

At any rate, we just gotta keep providing feedback, both here and by playing the game.

[NotEnoughDakkaDakka]

I'd say either give it an additional 20-30% spread decrease, or double the damage again (Yes, you read that right; 0.16 damage per bullet) until the ROF glitch is fixed, at which point you can lower it to 0.12 damage per bullet, and cut the ammo to 1000/per ton, for 112 damage per tonne. DPS will be 1.12 (ehrmegerd, MORE THAN SLas? BS), which is spread all over the place unless in facehug range and has 100% uptime.

[Deathlike]

Has anyone compared the laser duration with the MG ROF to see if the "less than 10 bullet effect" is affecting the lasers in the same way? It's just for satisfying my curiosity.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 04 May 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

Has anyone compared the laser duration with the MG ROF to see if the "less than 10 bullet effect" is affecting the lasers in the same way? It's just for satisfying my curiosity.

I just tried this out in-game with a Raven 2X on Alpine Testing Grounds. My results:

Small Laser:
0.69s
0.72s
0.71s
Expected value: 0.75s

Medium Laser:
0.79s
0.93s
1.04s
Expected value: 1.0s

Large Laser:
1.09s
1.07s
1.08s
Expected value: 1.0s

Linked-fire for SL, ML, LL, and ERLL:
3.75s
3.56s
3.63s
Expected value: 3.75s


I'm guessing that human error on my part played a significant role in these results. I basically started a stopwatch at the same moment that I clicked left mouse and stopped it when I visually saw the beam disappear.

Edited by FupDup, 04 May 2013 - 07:00 PM.

[Deathlike]

Well, I meant in terms of translating to damage. Does the full beam do the exact damage as stated in the mechlab/data?

The reason for why I'm saying this is that if MGs are suffering from a ROF (hitscan issue), it would stand to reason the damage dealt for lasers would be LOWER like MGs would be.

So, if you can estimate the time for a kill and see how it would be in the training grounds (or in the game), it would improve my understanding of this behavior. If this doesn't affect lasers, that would suck.. but if it did... it would make things interesting and fixing MGs would also indirectly buff lasers.