1386 replies to this topic

[Enigmos]

In 32 matches 12,694 rounds of MG were fired, of which 7,900 actually hit the target (62% accuracy) to deliver 2,699 damage. Damage per round per hit = .07. Damage in ten seconds (cooldown of .1) is 7.012658 at 100 rounds/second. Damage in ten seconds times 62% accuracy is 4.36. The only weapon less valuable in terms of damage is the LRM5. However if you are packing six MGs and enough ammo that comes to 42.075 damage in ten seconds, or at 62% accuracy 26.185 damage/10 sec., which is not inconsiderable to an overheated mech. To gain 100% accuracy requires nearly point blank range. Bottom line: Don't simply ignore the MG toting spider on your six if you can help it.

Edited by OriginalTibs, 26 July 2013 - 11:00 AM.

[Wildstreak]

stjobe, on 20 July 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

(ACs evolved from Rifles, which evolved from the main guns of modern-day tanks),

?????

stjobe, on 20 July 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

Ideally by making it a very short-ranged AC/2.

All they need to get that is remove the fire cone and fix the RoF.

[stjobe]

Merchant, on 26 July 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

?????

Sarna.net entry on the Light Rifle:

Quote

The Light Rifle is the smallest of the "Rifle" family. The precursor to the modern Autocannon, the Rifle was based on the main guns used by tanks on pre-spaceflight Terra.

Merchant, on 26 July 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

All they need to get that is remove the fire cone and fix the RoF.

Not quite, that would indeed make them useful. But to be a true "very short range AC/2" they'd need a serious buff to damage as well - remember the AC/2 did 2 points of damage in 10 seconds in TT, just like the MG. The MG in MWO does 1 DPS, the AC/2 in MWO does 4 DPS (2 damage every 0.5 seconds) - or four times the damage output of the weapon it had the exact same damage as in TT.

Not that I'm actually advocating 4 DPS MGs, I think that might be a bit over the top. But it needs to lose the random spread, and it could do with a DPS boost as well.

[General Taskeen]

Basically what stjobe said.

Does anyone really cry that an AC/2 does 20x more damage than it does in TT?

There's really no problem with upping the damage of the MG within reasonable terms, but by also adjusting its ammunition per ton. Cuz that's how balance works.

Basically the MG needs to be fixed to a point where it is just slightly less useful than 1 Small Laser, but better the more are equipped (as it should be). That cone of fire is also ridiculous. Plus the MG needs to be made the "standard" MG, otherwise LMG will be usless and the HMG will only be slightly less useless.

[FupDup]

General Taskeen, on 26 July 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

Does anyone really cry that an AC/2 does 20x more damage than it does in TT?

Actually, Unbound Inferno does. He's pretty much on a crusade against the smaller autocannons with a focus on the AC/2.

Edited by FupDup, 26 July 2013 - 11:59 AM.

[Wildstreak]

stjobe, on 26 July 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

Sarna.net entry on the Light Rifle:

I am not sure about trusting some descriptions on Sarna. Stats, yes but not descriptions, just check the Autocannon entry.

Quote

It is, basically, a giant "machine gun"...

Seems contradictory one entry says the Rifle led to Autocannon while the other says it is evolved from the Machine Gun.

stjobe, on 26 July 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

Not quite, that would indeed make them useful. But to be a true "very short range AC/2" they'd need a serious buff to damage as well - remember the AC/2 did 2 points of damage in 10 seconds in TT, just like the MG. The MG in MWO does 1 DPS, the AC/2 in MWO does 4 DPS (2 damage every 0.5 seconds) - or four times the damage output of the weapon it had the exact same damage as in TT.

Not that I'm actually advocating 4 DPS MGs, I think that might be a bit over the top. But it needs to lose the random spread, and it could do with a DPS boost as well.

Well, the damage boost they did from 0.08 to 0.12 should have resulted in ammo changes. I have not tested with 0.12 but I am pretty sure using the method I did before at 0.08 compared to other weapons, going above 0.08 damage should result in ammo changes since all other Ballistics require just over a ton of ammo to kill the same target, more damage increases throws the MG out of line with that.

RoF increase would increase DPS anyhow and the time comparisons on the tests I did appear to back that as being needed compared to the Small Laser and maybe AC/2 times.

General Taskeen, on 26 July 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

Basically what stjobe said.

Does anyone really cry that an AC/2 does 20x more damage than it does in TT?

I would honestly ask how but this is a MG thread and there are other breaks with TT anyway plus the AC/2 has the overheat issue compared to the AC/5. I don't know why some use the AC/2 given all the heat I see them build up and how many Jagers I have seen shutdown from it.

Anyhow, I am going back to figure out how we can get near 600 Ping and why PGI have not checked the line near their servers, what good is fixing any weapon when connection issues exist.

[Curccu]

Merchant, on 26 July 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

I would honestly ask how but this is a MG thread and there are other breaks with TT anyway plus the AC/2 has the overheat issue compared to the AC/5. I don't know why some use the AC/2 given all the heat I see them build up and how many Jagers I have seen shutdown from it.

Well if it's used correctly (means not shutting down on open ground) 1 x AC/2 can deliver that 4 dps, If you take 5 of them it's 20dps. How many weapon loadouts you can create in this game that can do same? with possible pinpoint accuracy. +same ammo speed as PPC and also with better range.

Oh and my jager with those weapons can shoot 8 seconds before overheating, that means 160 damage. not bad in 8 seconds?

edit: typos.

Edited by Curccu, 26 July 2013 - 03:54 PM.

[stjobe]

Merchant, on 26 July 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

I am not sure about trusting some descriptions on Sarna. Stats, yes but not descriptions, just check the Autocannon entry.

Most of the descriptions are lifted verbatim from official sources like e.g. the TechManual. Each page has its references clearly listed towards the bottom, so if you doubt the veracity of a specific page you can easily check the relevant BT rule or fluff text.

My experience is that sarna is seldom wrong.

Merchant, on 26 July 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Seems contradictory one entry says the Rifle led to Autocannon while the other says it is evolved from the Machine Gun.

It does not say that. It says the Autocannon is like a giant machine gun - not that it evolved from it. Notice the scare quotes around the word machine gun:

Quote

An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts. It is, basically, a giant "machine gun" that fires predominantly cased explosive shells though models firing saboted high velocity kinetic energy penetrators or caseless ordnance do exist.

Meanwhile the Rifle page clearly states that the Rifle is the precursor of the Autocannon and itself based on MBT guns of pre-spaceflight Terra:

Quote

The precursor to the modern Autocannon, the Rifle was based on the main guns used by tanks on pre-spaceflight Terra.

[Amsro]

Merchant, on 26 July 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Well, the damage boost they did from 0.08 to 0.12 should have resulted in ammo changes. I have not tested with 0.12 but I am pretty sure using the method I did before at 0.08 compared to other weapons, going above 0.08 damage should result in ammo changes since all other Ballistics require just over a ton of ammo to kill the same target, more damage increases throws the MG out of line with that.

RoF increase would increase DPS anyhow and the time comparisons on the tests I did appear to back that as being needed compared to the Small Laser and maybe AC/2 times.

Anyhow, I am going back to figure out how we can get near 600 Ping and why PGI have not checked the line near their servers, what good is fixing any weapon when connection issues exist.

Machine Guns are still in a sad state, 4xMG just causes lots of noise pollution, I tried them without any supporting weapons for a few matches, HAHAHAHA, No real damage to be found here;

4xMachine Gun, 195 Macthes, 102,573 Bullets, 7,769 DMG.
1xERLarge Laser, 183 Matches, 4,236 Shots, 18,937 DMG.

That is a whopping 39.8 damage per match for all 4 MG, or 9.9 per gun !!!!

These stats are comical, I run this mech to "hone" spider piloting skills, but even that is skewed due to poor hit detection.

Not sure what people are testing when they say machine guns are good. They suck still 1+ year after the game started. o.O

[stjobe]

Amsro, on 27 July 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

Not sure what people are testing when they say machine guns are good.

Usually a JagerMech with 6 MGs and either dual ERLLs or dual ERPPCs.

[MaxStr]

MG damage is ok, the range needs to be increased.

Also for gameplay reasons we really need a ballistics weapon that weighs between .5t and 6t, no other weapon type has such a huge tonnage gap. I don't play tabletop but I'd be surprised if there doesn't already exist several good options here.

[Amsro]

MaxKarnage, on 28 July 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

MG damage is ok, the range needs to be increased.

Also for gameplay reasons we really need a ballistics weapon that weighs between .5t and 6t, no other weapon type has such a huge tonnage gap. I don't play tabletop but I'd be surprised if there doesn't already exist several good options here.

Liking your own posts.. well ok.

I do agree the LBX-5 would be a nice start.

But I don't agree about MG damage being ok. Its laughable with 1 and 4 machine guns = 1 Medium Laser.

[Wildstreak]

MaxKarnage, on 28 July 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

MG damage is ok, the range needs to be increased.

Also for gameplay reasons we really need a ballistics weapon that weighs between .5t and 6t, no other weapon type has such a huge tonnage gap. I don't play tabletop but I'd be surprised if there doesn't already exist several good options here.

Most of the weapons in TT that fill that gap and canon come at later time periods than 3050 where we are. Some people have tried even on the CBT forums to petition for an earlier Ballistic to fill in but nothing, I can only guess the #1 reason would be all the retconning to do given all the variants and people that would ask what Mechs came stock with the 'new' weapon.'

Curccu, on 26 July 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

Well if it's used correctly (means not shutting down on open ground) 1 x AC/2 can deliver that 4 dps, If you take 5 of them it's 20dps. How many weapon loadouts you can create in this game that can do same? with possible pinpoint accuracy. +same ammo speed as PPC and also with better range.

Oh and my jager with those weapons can shoot 8 seconds before overheating, that means 160 damage. not bad in 8 seconds?

edit: typos.

Then AC/2s should get a RoF decrease. Still, I don't really like them right now, the way they overheat while AC/5s barely register heat just bothers me.

Amsro, on 27 July 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

Machine Guns are still in a sad state, 4xMG just causes lots of noise pollution, I tried them without any supporting weapons for a few matches, HAHAHAHA, No real damage to be found here;

4xMachine Gun, 195 Macthes, 102,573 Bullets, 7,769 DMG.
1xERLarge Laser, 183 Matches, 4,236 Shots, 18,937 DMG.

That is a whopping 39.8 damage per match for all 4 MG, or 9.9 per gun !!!!

These stats are comical, I run this mech to "hone" spider piloting skills, but even that is skewed due to poor hit detection.

Not sure what people are testing when they say machine guns are good. They suck still 1+ year after the game started. o.O

Well, you are being vague about what you actually expect.

[Amsro]

Merchant, on 29 July 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

Well, you are being vague about what you actually expect.

I expect that machine guns should do damage comparable to similar sized weapons.

.5 - 1.5 tones with ammo, should put the machine gun somewhere between small laser and medium laser.

Right now its trying hard to be garbage with the flamer.

[stjobe]

...Here we go:

Quote

A % of critical damage done to the internals of a component will be applied directly to the inner structure of that component.

That's coming next week, and it could actually make MGs OP - weird as it may sound to a lot of us - depending on what percentage of damage is also applied to internal structure.

[General Taskeen]

59 pages for one weapon type could have been avoided if they simply adopted the better MG of MW3/4. Along with all the hundreds of other threads that litter the forum for MG's, Flamers, LB-X, and NARC.

[Roland]

Why do we have to make some kind of complex system for MG damage doing crazy weird stuff to internals (absolutely none of which any new player is going to even remotely understand), rather than just making it into what it was in TT? A very short range AC2?

The same goes for the LBX... up the damage per pellet, and the thing becomes a good weapon, while not completely eclipsing the AC10 in utility.

This is what frustrates me more than anything at this point, I think.... Things like CW can't be in prior to release due to time constraints, but at the same time the developers are spending huge amounts of time implementing ridiculously complex mechanics changes, which would often be better solved by far simpler changes that would be both more effective at achieving the desired goal, and also easier understood by the playerbase.

Why does everything need to be done in the most difficult way possible?

[Utilyan]

Currently my machine gun is 2 matches behind medium lasers as my favored weapon. Which will prob change today....

I think theres a tightrope walk the devs are playing as to not discourage noobs.

If we had MGs that were as brutal as AC/2z, Lots of noobs would get chopped up by MGs...... I remember playing this game in another life where mgs were so brutal with 200 ammo that it would just be a click zzzzziiiiiiiiiiippppp boom. It was cheesy. So I could see why they nerfed it. So the idea was to make MGs like a filler to the action and streatch out the ammo.

Same with flamers which could keep your mech shut down.


Perhaps now that they do have test client version like how they test the 12man..........I think it would be a good idea to give folks what they want so they could see for themselves.

So if it turns out horrible or good.....they can come back in this thread and report.

Right now the king weapons seem to be jumping from the sniper ac/guass/ppcs and LRMs....... I think we'd be miserable if the close range weapons were the kings despite the fact you'd think close range weapons that were made for close range ought to be better at close range then the other stuff.

Hardcore players could prob adapt real easy, but I'm guess it would be so brutal on noobs they'd be discouraged, even as is folks still haven't gotten a grip on the idea that standing next to a splat-streak cat is a bad thing.

[Amsro]

Utilyan, on 30 July 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

Currently my machine gun is 2 matches behind medium lasers as my favored weapon. Which will prob change today....

I think theres a tightrope walk the devs are playing as to not discourage noobs.

If we had MGs that were as brutal as AC/2z, Lots of noobs would get chopped up by MGs...... I remember playing this game in another life where mgs were so brutal with 200 ammo that it would just be a click zzzzziiiiiiiiiiippppp boom. It was cheesy. So I could see why they nerfed it. So the idea was to make MGs like a filler to the action and streatch out the ammo.

Same with flamers which could keep your mech shut down.


Perhaps now that they do have test client version like how they test the 12man..........I think it would be a good idea to give folks what they want so they could see for themselves.

So if it turns out horrible or good.....they can come back in this thread and report.

Right now the king weapons seem to be jumping from the sniper ac/guass/ppcs and LRMs....... I think we'd be miserable if the close range weapons were the kings despite the fact you'd think close range weapons that were made for close range ought to be better at close range then the other stuff.

Hardcore players could prob adapt real easy, but I'm guess it would be so brutal on noobs they'd be discouraged, even as is folks still haven't gotten a grip on the idea that standing next to a splat-streak cat is a bad thing.

I don't see how standing in front of splat cats or being smashed by PPC/gauss builds is any more noob friendly. Close range weapons have a range cap, within that range should be deadly.

Trust me when I say that PGI's balancing isn't noob friendly, Spread Sheet Math Heat Penalty, No Pilot Training, Trial Mechs and just down right abysmal matchmaking. Throwing in 2 DPS machine guns in there isn't going to deter them at all.

There is no tightrope here, just stubborn as a bull, I can't seem to understand why they chose the crit system instead of real damage, this has destroyed the weapons its been implemented on, LBX and MG.

The flamer is well... hahaha no idea what to do with that.

As far as machine guns preferred over medium laser... I average 110 damage per match with a medium lasers compared to 40 damage per match for machine guns. Still far from OP.

I'm all for trying better machine guns on the test server... but I think that boat has sailed as Sept 17th is just moments away now.

Edited by Amsro, 31 July 2013 - 02:36 AM.

[DonPablo94]

Having played BattleTech since the original table-top game back in the early 90s, and MechWarrior since the first edition was released, I'd like to set the record straight on what MG's are actually used for - anti-personnel weapons. They aren't meant to take out mechs, or tanks, or star fighters. They are meant specifically to take out troops running around with an SRM2, bombs, or flamer on the battlefield. Same with flamers. They aren't really meant to do damage to a mech. They are meant to fry troops to a crisp and for troops to use overpower the heat sinks and cause a mech to shut down unexpectedly. That's why you see a lot of assault mechs loaded with them on rear-facing mounts - to take out those guys before they start climbing up your legs and attaching bombs.

I can't believe my first post is about this, and I can't believe I'm actually seeing this being discussed. It's a small caliber weapon. Sure, the rules state the MG does like 2 damage, but in reality that would be if you hit the exact spot with probably a ton of ammo. Now an actual round in BT is ~10s. A modern M2 Browning can fire 60 rounds in that time, and will do virtually no damage to a tank. So let's modernize things to 3050. Nope, still ain't doing anything to an armored vehicle except scratch the paint.

So there's my rant. I'd like to think the developers actually care about this game (from what I've read) and are trying to be as accurate as possible. That said, if you want a rapid-fire projectile weapon that will actually damage a mech and produce little heat, get an autocannon and stop hoping for some miracle (cheat) weapon.

Edited by DonPablo94, 01 August 2013 - 09:39 PM.