29 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

imagine the
devastating effect
that a
6 MG spider
could do to the
back
of an
Atlas!

[Critical Fumble]

Bagheera, on 13 April 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

One thing that would help is if we could actually crit all of the components in a given section. For example, if we crit a hip-actuator the mech slows down. If we crit an arm actuator it looses some articulation. If we crit a gyro it's harder to maintain a steady aim. Stuff like that.

OK, interesting, but - is it actually worth having a weapon that's got dramatically limited range and only does something effective 1/3rd of the time?

Now if crit proofing ended after the section was, say, 25% dead, it might be an interesting mechanic to render the mech more vulnerable and potentially kill it noticeably faster than without the MG's help. However, when you strip a section's armor it's on its last legs anyway. Even if you're trying to maim the armorless leg of a light mech by critting the actuators, you could still crit with any other weapon in the game, or just blow the entire thing off.

[jeffsw6]

Juree Riggd, on 13 April 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

I agree, but I don't think the current mechanic should be abandoned just to give us another generic DPS weapon. I like the critseeking idea, but it needs to actually work.

That's fine, but the problem still remains that there are numerous mechs which are useless. If there were a variety of smaller, lighter ballistic weapons between the MG and AC/2 then the SDR-5K could serve a role other than "grind XP until you elite it so you can master the 5D."

It is not a scout. It has no advantage for scouting that other mechs don't. If it was the fastest mech in the game and had ECM then calling it a dedicated scout would be legitimate. However it does not have ECM and there are about 10 other mechs that can have the same speed and more armaments. Therefore, the SDR-5K is 100% useless.

[Juree Riggd]

I think an armor penetration mechanic could help MG become more viable. if your armor is below a certain threshold, say 50%, the MG has a 10% chance to penetrate the armor and damage internals. Those two numbers are arbitrary and only used as an example. Obviously testing and balancing would have to be done, although I think that coupled with the inaccuracy with the weapon itself, the armor penetration mechanic wouldn't be OP, but just make the weapon more viable.

[Thundercles]

If MG's stand as they are, then we need an alternative lightweight ballistic that *isn't* a waste of time. I figure it'd be easier to re-purpose the MG than it would be to shoehorn in something completely new, though.

Without trying to muddle through the search functions, what is it about MGs that make them "crit seeking" above and beyond dragging a laser over an unarmored component, anyway? Don't lasers register a bunch of tiny hits in sequence to 'spread' their damage?

[Bagheera]

Critical Fumble, on 13 April 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

OK, interesting, but - is it actually worth having a weapon that's got dramatically limited range and only does something effective 1/3rd of the time?

Not really, no.

You'd still be better off hitting that section with something AC10/PPC or greater. Given that most components have about 10 health, you are insta-jibbing them with those weapons, when they trigger a crit. If they don't trigger a crit you are still doing useful damage to the section.

The MGs problems are compounded by the state of the crit system though, and a more robust system is needed.

The core question is if you are better off trying to crit components or trying to destroy the section outright. At the moment, imo, going for the raw damage is almost always a tactically better choice. Crit seeking for known weak/volitile components (gauss rifle, common ammo locations, soon ECM) is our outlier exception here. I think being able to further gimp through crits might make things more interesting/useful.

[MustrumRidcully]

Juree Riggd, on 13 April 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

Even if it did exist, why would you want to take 6 MGs anyways? The point of the answer is to reiterate that MGs aren't for DPS, but for critseeking. That's what they designed MGs to do, and if you don't like what they do, then don't put MGs on your loadout.

I don't like that what they are supposedly "for" is irrelevant in gameplay practice.
I don't take them for that reason.
I remark on the forums that they are useless for actual gameplay and that it would be better to buff them so they serve a useful role.

[jeffsw6]

Thundercles, on 13 April 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

Without trying to muddle through the search functions, what is it about MGs that make them "crit seeking" above and beyond dragging a laser over an unarmored component, anyway? Don't lasers register a bunch of tiny hits in sequence to 'spread' their damage?

Yes, that is how lasers appear to work. You can see this in action by sweeping a laser shot across snow at extreme range. A large laser will make several dozen "hits" on the terrain. One would assume that laser damage is distributed to opponents using this mechanism.

[MustrumRidcully]

Bagheera, on 13 April 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

One thing that would help is if we could actually crit all of the components in a given section. For example, if we crit a hip-actuator the mech slows down. If we crit an arm actuator it looses some articulation. If we crit a gyro it's harder to maintain a steady aim. Stuff like that.

While I am not oppose to the idea, I am still not sure that this would make it worth it. It still boils down to this. Destroying a hit location happens rather quickly with "real" weapons. There is no reason to just take out indivudal items.

There is a fundamental difference between MW:O and the Table Top game. In MW:O, we can control the hit location we hit a lot better than we can under the standard table top game. In the table top, a random hit to a leg would occur and if you were unlucky, you never hit it more tan twice and cannot destroy it. But if you're somewhat more lucky, you at least got a crit on an item in there, so the shot was not for nothing. Basically, crits can act as a consolation prize for spreading your damage around.

But in MW:O, if you see that a mech has lost his leg armor, you can aim for it, and take out that leg with a good chance of success. And in addition - in MW:O, critical hits must dela 10 damage to an item before it gets taken out, so "stray shots" are not likely to destroy anything.

I think the only thing that could potentially make the MG interesting would be if engines get destroyed. But it might just change the game to something equally silly as we have now with the pea shooter machine gun, just the opposite way - suddenly everyone is trying to load an MG just to get through the engine faster, since that has only 15 hit points while the CT has often much more.

Personally, I think the complete critical hit system is wrong and flawed.

[Bagheera]

MustrumRidcully, on 13 April 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

While I am not oppose to the idea, I am still not sure that this would make it worth it. It still boils down to this. Destroying a hit location happens rather quickly with "real" weapons. There is no reason to just take out indivudal items.

---

Personally, I think the complete critical hit system is wrong and flawed.

Agreed. With the current system, you're nearly always better off doing raw damage to an exposed section. I'd like to think there's a way to make it viable, but not really sure what that might be.