74 replies to this topic

[Egomane]

This thread started out as another one about MGs. But it evolved, therefore I'll let it life for now, instead of closing and redirecting like all the others.

If it comes back around to being an MG thread, I'll come back to close it.

[Terror Teddy]

hammerreborn, on 10 April 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Oops, supposed to be the 10.

Nothing wrong with the '10. Good fire rate.

[KingCobra]

A Challenge To Pgi About "working As Intended" I assumed this title was about everything in MWO working or not working as intended then it dawned on me? What were PGI'S true game goals and objectives when they started to make MWO? I agree with this----------->>>> (What we need is one thread that as a sticky, contains a table listing every feature and its current 'state' in game. We won't get it mind, just like we will never get a fit for purpose search function for this forum; it is in purpose so that customers cannot easily find information) about MWO from the beginning of production and also about the TT/BT/MechWarrior/MechAssault/MechCommander IP'S.

[Bishop Steiner]

@KingCobra

Hate to break it to you how's, light ac2&5 ARE indeed canon.

And even the machine guns on the Bushwacker in MW3 I actually scored kills with them.

[KingCobra]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 April 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

@KingCobra

Hate to break it to you how's, light ac2&5 ARE indeed canon.

And even the machine guns on the Bushwacker in MW3 I actually scored kills with them.

Yes I know this and I only used the reference to Light AC2-5 as in we don't have them and to the fact Mektek tried to include non canon weapons for lights to make them more viable in combat. And yes MW3 Light guns did do more damage and I also scored kills but most were after other mechs had severely damaged the target.

Edited by KingCobra, 10 April 2013 - 10:35 AM.

[Jonathan Paine]

The year is 3050, not 2013 in the game. Please leave your preconceived notions about machine guns at the door and help us find a way to give small mechs a viable use for more than 1 ballistics point.

[AC]

Thuzel, on 10 April 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

There are times when I read through threads like this and am almost convinced that at least half of the entire MWO player base must be trolls. Arguing reality in the BT world is as useful as throwing $#!^ at a ceiling fan. "But... But... My fyziks!!!"

This is a game. The mechanics should reflect that. If it's not fun or useful in the game, then it should be changed or removed.

If you want realism, go join the army and play there. Get off the game.

This has been my frustration with people saying that MG should do no damage. In BT they did damage....to armor... on mechs tanks and whatever else was in front of the dangerous end of the gun. Battletech made them useful to the point that variants were even introduced. Light MG have longer range and did half damage as the regular MG, Heavy MG do 50% more damage but take a hit to range.

I guess the most frustrating part is that if you go to Sarna and look up machine gun, the description is so completely clear on what they should do that it frustrates me to no end that someone would argue otherwise. (And that PGI could screw them up so bad.)

Quote

The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers, while still being effective at damaging BattleMechs. It should be noted that despite their enhanced effectiveness against infantry, BattleMech machine guns are perfectly capable of stripping the armor off any BattleMech.

[stjobe]

Thuzel, on 10 April 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

This is a BattleTech game. The mechanics should reflect that.

While I don't disagree with the rest of your post, I felt a need to point out the bolded part.

[Nathan Foxbane]

I am confused. Are we arguing the viability of a weapon system or are we arguing that the sole purpose of a light 'Mech or even some mediums (looking at you CDA-3C) is to fight other light 'Mechs? Because you know there are ways to provide serious support to your team without taking a major combat role. Really, you do not have brawl it up to be dangerous. But hey what do I know.

[Ansel]

Every weapon has had a rough 3-4x increase in fire rate over the current MG when compaired to TT stats.

The doubling of armor cut the 200%-300% increase in damage down to a 100%-200% increase in damage over the same 10 second timeframe, keep in mind that is a generalization some weapons have a higher bonus and some lower but is pretty close.

The MG was the only weapon to receive a 0% damage increase when compaired to the TT stats.

It does 4 damage in 10 seconds, it should at a minimum do 8 damage in 10 seconds, or .08 per shot, double its current damage.

[FupDup]

Nathan Foxbane, on 10 April 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

I am confused. Are we arguing the viability of a weapon system or are we arguing that the sole purpose of a light 'Mech or even some mediums (looking at you CDA-3C) is to fight other light 'Mechs? Because you know there are ways to provide serious support to your team without taking a major combat role. Really, you do not have brawl it up to be dangerous. But hey what do I know.

About your second point:

1. This game does almost nothing to reward people for non-damage roles.
2. A damage-oriented light/medium can perform those exact same non-damage roles as well as help with damage dealing.

[Kristov Kerensky]

PGI has decided for whatever reasons to make MGs useless, effectively, against armor but rather nasty against internal components..note I said COMPONENTS and not structure.

As such, they are indeed working exactly as intended by PGI.

I would love to see them working as they have in TT for the past 20+ years and as they have in various MW PC games, but odds are, that won't happen. PGI is designing the game, they make the final decisions on these things. We've expressed our concerns for close to a year now and the current version of MGs is the result.

That said, if you want to have some fun and really torq people off, take 2 Spiders, a 5D and a 5K, all med pulses on the D, 1 LL and 4MGs on the K and work as a team. D tears up the armor with help from the K's LL, then the K opens up with the MGs on the exposed sections. This works best on a Mech with an XL engine btw.

[EvilCow]

MGs are meant to do damage in TT, the same damage of an AC2 but at very short range only.

Stating that the weapon is for infantry only is BS.

I don't understand that "working as intended", it is as useless now as before the changes as crit seeker. Is having useless weapons the intended objective?

Failure to implement this weapon properly made some mech variants not usable at all, is it the intended result to have useless mechs? mechs that are not taking up mech bays nor paint jobs or cockpit decorations I should add.

[KingCobra]

Nathan Foxbane, on 10 April 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

I am confused. Are we arguing the viability of a weapon system or are we arguing that the sole purpose of a light 'Mech or even some mediums (looking at you CDA-3C) is to fight other light 'Mechs? Because you know there are ways to provide serious support to your team without taking a major combat role. Really, you do not have brawl it up to be dangerous. But hey what do I know.

We should be discussing all points that pertain to mechs weapons armor targeting ETC. and there applications and roles by what the title topic suggests?

[Egomane]

And now I'm going to close here and redirect you to the official MG feedback thread.
http://mwomercs.com/...lance-feedback/