Jump to content

When You Buff The Mg, Please Do It Properly


339 replies to this topic

#1 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:44 AM

Here's what Paul said on Dec. 12th:

Quote

I've been looking at Machine Guns lately (because they're equipped on my griefer Mech) and decided to make each bullet do 500 damage. Ok.. seriously I'm looking into either a very slight damage increase or to make them crit at a higher rate with a crit damage boost. What does that mean? When you blow off the armor on a component on an enemy Mech, every shot done to internals from a machine gun has a chance of doing much higher damage than normal. I'll be working with the engineers on this and will update you as we progress on this.

source: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1591483

I'm seriously worried about this, because the MG will not become a viable weapon by either "a very slight damage increase" or "crit at a higher rate with a crit damage boost". It needs a substantial damage boost, even in conjunction with a crit boost.

Let's start with where we are now: The MG does 0.04 damage per round, 10 rounds per second, for a total of 0.4 DPS. This means it takes 2.5 seconds to do 1 damage, and 25 seconds to do 10 damage. Crit-wise, it has the same crit chance as any other weapon, but it only does 0.04 damage per crit, so it would take 25 seconds of non-stop critting to destroy a single component. If every crit was three hits (a 3% chance per shot) and they all hit the same component, it would still take 8.3 seconds to destroy that component.

Clearly the MG is underpowered and needs a buff, and it's good that the devs see it that way too. However, this buff needs to be huge, not "very slight". It needs to be on the order of a 300% damage increase.

Here's why: Compare the MG to the Small Laser. The Small Laser does 3 damage over a beam duration of 0.75, and has a recycle time of 2.25 seconds, giving it a DPS of 1.0.

The MG, with its continuous-fire mechanism, does 0.4 DPS. Let's say we buff this to 1.2 DPS, a 300% increase, by increasing the damage per round from 0.04 to 0.12. Would this make the MG overpowered?

The answer is no. To understand why, we need to look a bit at how different weapons deliver their damage:

Instant-hit weapons like ballistics or PPCs deliver their damage all at once, and then recycles for a long period. This means that to do your full damage you need only to keep the weapon on-target for an instant as you press the trigger. There is no partial damage with instant-hit weapons.

Beam weapons like lasers deliver their damage over a short period of time, and then recycles for a long period. This means that to do all your damage you need to keep the weapon on-target for the beam duration, but not for the recycle.

Now the continuous-fire weapons like the MG deliver their damage in a constant stream. This means that to do all your damage you need to keep the weapon on-target for as long as it takes. Any time not on-target is lost damage (as opposed to the other weapons where you can go off-target for the whole recycle duration without losing any damage).

What does this mean for the hypothetical 1.2 DPS MG? Let's again compare it to the Small Laser. In 0.75 seconds, the Small Laser delivers 3 damage. In the same 0.75 seconds, the 1.2 DPS MG delivers 0.9 damage, a full two-thirds less than the laser.

Over ten seconds, the Small Laser will deliver 12 damage in four beams with a total of 3 seconds duration. In 3 seconds, the hypothetical 1.2 DPS MG would deliver 3.6 damage. Only if you can hold it on-target for the full 10 seconds would you do as much damage as the Small Laser.

I don't think it's overpowered to have the MG do as much damage as a Small Laser over 10 seconds.


Now let's have a look at that crit increase. A "higher [crit] rate with a crit damage boost" is what they're looking at, so let's look at a huge boost to that; let's make the MG crit 100% of the time, and always do three hits (which is normally a 3% chance per hit). So 100% crit rate and 3x damage boost.

With a buff that huge, it would still take (10 / 0.04 * 10 * 3 ) = 8.3 seconds of continuosly hitting the same location and the same component to destroy that single component. That's not really enough to make the MG viable, is it?

With the hypothetical 1.2 DPS MG and the above crit buff, the time taken to destroy a single component would become (10 / 0.12 * 10 * 3) = 2.8 seconds.

So you see, not even with a 300% damage increase, a 100% crit rate buff, and always doing three hits per crit would the MG be overpowered. It would, however, become a viable back-up weapon, and the crit-seeking weapon it is sometimes referred to as.


In closing I must plead to the developers to not underbuff the MG. As the above shows, the MG needs a substantial damage boost to make it even comparable to the Small Laser - and even with that substantial boost, it still won't do as much damage as the Small Laser unless you can hold it on target for prolonged periods of time.

Oh, and to the "'mechs shouldn't mount MGs" and "MGs are anti-infantry weapons" crowd: In Battletech, the MG does exactly as much damage to a 'mech as an AC/2 - a 4 DPS weapon in MWO. In TRO:2750, fully a fifth of the 'mechs mount MGs. So let's try to refrain from the discussion on whether MGs should even be in MWO or not; they are in-game so they should be a viable choice. At the moment they aren't, and I fear that with a too small buff they still won't be.

Edited by stjobe, 09 January 2013 - 07:37 AM.


#2 Arpacolas

    Rookie

  • Knight Errant
  • 6 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:56 AM

Or they could just give C-Bill and XP bonuses for using MG to destroy stuff. I can't wait to roll out my RVN4X with dual MGs, TAG, NARC and SL. BIG MONEY, HERE I COME.

Edited by Arpacolas, 09 January 2013 - 05:56 AM.


#3 Kunae

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,303 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:57 AM

You're doing fancy math there, mate. First you talk about damage over 10 sec, with a 3 sec total duration, then mash that in to somehow comparing the total beam duration damage of a small laser with 3 seconds of continuous fire from a MG. You're comparing apples and oranges, and saying that apples need to be oranger, because they both grow on trees.

#4 rgreat

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bold
  • The Bold
  • 851 posts
  • LocationMoscow

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:58 AM

In BT rules MachineGun do same damage as AC2. Thats all.

#5 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:05 AM

View PostKunae, on 09 January 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

You're doing fancy math there, mate. First you talk about damage over 10 sec, with a 3 sec total duration, then mash that in to somehow comparing the total beam duration damage of a small laser with 3 seconds of continuous fire from a MG. You're comparing apples and oranges, and saying that apples need to be oranger, because they both grow on trees.

Yes, it's "fancy math". Don't let that dissuade you from trying to understand it.

The reason it's "fancy" math is that MGs and lasers have different delivery methods, hence the time needed to be on-target is different. A Small Laser needs to be on-target for 0.75 seconds to do its 3 damage, whereas the hypothetical 1.2 DPS MG would need to be on-target for 2.5 seconds to do 3 damage. The current MG needs to be on-target for 7.5 seconds to do 3 damage.

It really isn't as easy as just to say "1.2 DPS is greater than 1.0 DPS, therefore a 1.2 DPS MG would do more damage than a Small Laser". In practice, it very seldom would, since it needs three times as much time on-target to do that damage.

Edited by stjobe, 09 January 2013 - 06:06 AM.


#6 Texas Merc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Patron
  • The Patron
  • 1,237 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:16 AM

View Poststjobe, on 09 January 2013 - 06:05 AM, said:

Yes, it's "fancy math". Don't let that dissuade you from trying to understand it.

The reason it's "fancy" math is that MGs and lasers have different delivery methods, hence the time needed to be on-target is different. A Small Laser needs to be on-target for 0.75 seconds to do its 3 damage, whereas the hypothetical 1.2 DPS MG would need to be on-target for 2.5 seconds to do 3 damage. The current MG needs to be on-target for 7.5 seconds to do 3 damage.

It really isn't as easy as just to say "1.2 DPS is greater than 1.0 DPS, therefore a 1.2 DPS MG would do more damage than a Small Laser". In practice, it very seldom would, since it needs three times as much time on-target to do that damage.



Agreed.
The MG would also spread that damage out most of the time while the SL is more pinpoint.

#7 GODzillaGSPB

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,028 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:20 AM

And please buff the lbx10, too. It spreads it's 10 points of damage all over CT, RT and LT, so a boost on the crit-chance would be appreciated as a balance. I'd even accept a nerf of it's range (since it's a bit silly that it out-ranges the ac/10) as a trade off for the higher crit-chance.

#8 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:24 AM

In a turn of fire a MG should do no more damage than a AC2. That would balance a MG to it's TT long range equal. I personally think it is stupid to make the primarily anti infantry weapon into a true Mech scale weapon, but if you are going to buff it, make sure you keep it balanced to what is is intended to be. A very weak weapon.

View PostGODzillaGSPB, on 09 January 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

And please buff the lbx10, too. It spreads it's 10 points of damage all over CT, RT and LT, so a boost on the crit-chance would be appreciated as a balance. I'd even accept a nerf of it's range (since it's a bit silly that it out-ranges the ac/10) as a trade off for the higher crit-chance.

Or just give the LB-X the ability to fire slugs again!

#9 Congzilla

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Messenger
  • The Messenger
  • 1,215 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:32 AM

The machine gun never was a viable weapon against other mechs. It is an anti-infantry / light armor weapon.

#10 GODzillaGSPB

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,028 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:34 AM

View PostJoseph Mallan, on 09 January 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

Or just give the LB-X the ability to fire slugs again!


I know it's in the canon, but I don't think it's a good idea for MWO gameplay. If PGI gives it slugs that do the same 10 damage, nobody would use the ac/10 anymore. They could then try to make the lbx10 the same size and heat, but again, everybody would still use the lbx10 for versability (because it has a slightly higher crit-chance already, firing 10 projectiles at once). So the final step would be to make the lbx10 bigger and / or produce more heat than the ac/10. And then everybody would stop using the lbx10. :)

So...I think it's good where it is right now. Just needs a bit more incentive to use the lbx10 at all, but still give it a certain disadvantage that makes the ac/10 viable, just in another role (direct killer instead of crit-finisher).

.

Edited by GODzillaGSPB, 09 January 2013 - 06:35 AM.


#11 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:36 AM

View PostCongzilla, on 09 January 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

The machine gun never was a viable weapon against other mechs. It is an anti-infantry / light armor weapon.

I think you might have missed this part of my OP:

View Poststjobe, on 09 January 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

Oh, and to the "'mechs shouldn't mount MGs" and "MGs are anti-infantry weapons" crowd: In Battletech, the MG does exactly as much damage to a 'mech as an AC/2 - a 4 DPS weapon in MWO. In TRO:2750, fully a fifth of the 'mechs mount MGs. So let's try to refrain from the discussion on whether MGs should even be in MWO or not; they are in-game so they should be a viable choice. At the moment they aren't, and I fear that with a too small buff they still won't be.


#12 Uller Phrost

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 73 posts
  • LocationMI

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:40 AM

as a point of BT Fluff machine guns cam in various calibers some were heavier and slower firing vs the light ams style mini guns. BT had them all doing 2 damage per firing cycle

I would go for a .2 per shot 5 per second MG

examples 30mm gatling cannon
Kicker MG

or a .1 per shot 10 per second MG
Surefire minigun
20mm gatling cannon
ScatterGun MG
Bulldog mingun

but give it 1 heat too

#13 Rushin Roulette

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • WC 2018 Top 12 Qualifier
  • WC 2018 Top 12 Qualifier
  • 3,514 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:47 AM

Trippling the damage output would be overkill imo because you are not considering other factors in your calculation. The MG does not cause any heat at all as opposed to the laser. On the other hand, the laser does not need to rely on amunition.

A compromise to the damage for the MG would be to double it (0,8 DPS) which would still put it below the small laser in terms of damage, but would be a viable alternative because it would still cause no heat to the mech at all.

#14 kesmai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationPirate's Bay

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:47 AM

but give it 1 heat too
^this
enough said
kesmai

p.s. or just leave it alone
NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE BALANCED UNTIL THE EDGES ARE ROUND

Edited by kesmai, 09 January 2013 - 06:50 AM.


#15 Mahws

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 670 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:52 AM

It already has the extra tonnage for ammo and the risk of ammo explosion to counterbalance the zero heat, giving it lower damage isn't necessary.

Balancing it till the edges were round would require it to be balanced in the first place.

View PostGODzillaGSPB, on 09 January 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

So...I think it's good where it is right now. Just needs a bit more incentive to use the lbx10 at all, but still give it a certain disadvantage that makes the ac/10 viable, just in another role (direct killer instead of crit-finisher)..

The LBX10 is absolutely lousy as a crit seeking weapon. Especially compared to the AC10, which is the best crit seeker in the game (42% chance of destroying at least one item a shot, best fire rate of any weapon capable of one hitting an internal). The LBX10 may cause crits more reliably, but it's per 1 damage shot with everything barring the Gauss having 10 points of health, so it's really one of the worst crit seekers in the game. Unless they slap a bonus to crit damage on it or adjust more items health down it can't really be balanced by crit damage function. A solid damage boost (or big boost to fire rate + ammo) would probably be a better bet.

View PostCongzilla, on 09 January 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

The machine gun never was a viable weapon against other mechs. It is an anti-infantry / light armor weapon.

Like the AC2? Don't see anyone arguing in favor of pointless nerfing of that. Heck everyone seems fine with it doing 20 times the TT damage.

Edited by Mahws, 09 January 2013 - 06:55 AM.


#16 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:55 AM

I am not sure if 0.8 DPS or 1.2 DPS would be sufficient, but it seems to be the right ballpark. It definitely needs more than a slight buff and I would say: Even if a single MG hit instantly destroys a component, it wouldn't be worth the investment. So any crit buff they can come up with (short off through-armor-criticals) can only come in addition to a damage buff.

#17 Havyek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 1,349 posts
  • LocationBarrie, ON

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:57 AM

The machine gun is and always has been a pointless weapon to have in 'Mech vs. 'Mech combat.

Stop wasting time trying to make it effective IMO and just remove it from the game.

#18 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:59 AM

View PostGODzillaGSPB, on 09 January 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:


I know it's in the canon, but I don't think it's a good idea for MWO gameplay. If PGI gives it slugs that do the same 10 damage, nobody would use the ac/10 anymore. They could then try to make the lbx10 the same size and heat, but again, everybody would still use the lbx10 for versability (because it has a slightly higher crit-chance already, firing 10 projectiles at once). So the final step would be to make the lbx10 bigger and / or produce more heat than the ac/10. And then everybody would stop using the lbx10. :)

So...I think it's good where it is right now. Just needs a bit more incentive to use the lbx10 at all, but still give it a certain disadvantage that makes the ac/10 viable, just in another role (direct killer instead of crit-finisher).

.

i don't understand this mentality zilla. When the M16 came out did the Carbine continue to be used? Newer, better weapon systems "replace" old ones. the only reason to use an AC10 v an LB-X10 is cost or desire. Later in the game Advanced ammo will give standard ACs a renewed place on the battlefield, but for now... Carbine v M16, do we still use the Carbine?

#19 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 09 January 2013 - 07:03 AM

View PostMahws, on 09 January 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

Like the AC2? Don't see anyone arguing in favor of pointless nerfing of that. Heck everyone seems fine with it doing 20 times the TT damage.

i haven't complained cause after using it, it is still little more than a harassment weapon with good range. rate of fire should maybe be slowed down but I don't see the AC 2 being a big threat in combat. And it IS an anti Mech weapon.

#20 Mahws

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 670 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 07:03 AM

In lore the AC2 was more anti-air/vehicle. It did the same damage against mechs as a machine gun, just trading better range for more weight and heat. Don't see the argument that it counts as anti-mech and the machine gun doesn't.

View PostBDU Havoc, on 09 January 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

The machine gun is and always has been a pointless weapon to have in 'Mech vs. 'Mech combat.

Stop wasting time trying to make it effective IMO and just remove it from the game.

Reconfiguring each and every stock variant that includes a machine gun would take far more time and effort than just balancing it. It did the same damage vs. mechs in tabletop as an AC2 and 2/3 that of a small laser. It currently does 1/16th of the AC2 and 1/3 of the SL in MWO. It was no more pointless against mechs than either of those weapons in TT but has been needlessly nerfed in MWO.

Edited by Mahws, 09 January 2013 - 07:05 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users