154 replies to this topic

[Nik Reaper]

Dremster, on 21 April 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:

With public test servers in the works hopefully they will be more willing to play with the machine gun numbers. That way it can be tested and if the Spider 5K starts reaping Atlai with machine guns of DOOOOOM! Then we simply tune them down and there wont be any QQ because it didn't happen on the live servers.

^ This , if they think MG's would be overpowered with 2 or 3x the current damage... prove it to us on the test servers.

[TOGSolid]

Taemien, on 21 April 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

I'm not a game designer, I'm a player. So yes I'm going to use a player solution to an issue. You totally ignored the fact that I did give an option for the developers though. Its obvious you have an agenda however and its bleeding into your posts very badly. You're faliing to understand any of my statements and are trying to put words into my mouth.



No clue what your trying to ask. My suggestion would cause the 4 Ballistic slot spider to be capable of dealing more DPS than a Gauss Rifle. In fact filled in with machine gun arrays you'd effectively be hit with the same damage as 4 gauss rifles every 12.5 seconds (Doing virtually the same dps in those 12 seconds, past 12 seconds the machine guns do more). For only a weight of 4 tons for the weapons plus 1 or 2 tons of ammo, you have a zero heat group of weapons that weighs 5 to 6 tons and has more dps than a weapon that weighs three times as much.

If you try to increase the DPS of the machine gun it will still suck because it takes up an entire ballistic slot. Buffing it to the dps of a weapon that should taking an entire weapon slot makes it OP. Its only ever .5 tons and that is why it would be OP. If you make it generate heat, change the firing mechanics to that of a small pulse laser, then you have a small pulse laser that fits in a ballistic slot... -yawn-.

At least my solution gives it competitive DPS for the slot it occupies and still takes up more tons and criticals, keeping the things balanced. Apparently I -DO- know how to do game design, despite never claiming to before, unlike what you've claimed that I've said.

Funny, I double checked the thread and the only thing I ever saw from you was "hurr durr use lasers," "just use GXP to bypass it" and "why do you all want the MG to do AC/2 DPS?"
At no point have you provided ANY constructive feedback in this entire thread. Nor have you said anything intelligent or productive. It is rather adorable that you altered your position to go from accusing us of wanting overpowered MGs:

Quote

I know many of you want a AC2 DPS weapon for only .5 tons, but that isn't going to happen. It was never even used for that function in either the TableTop nor the video games.

to actually thinking that's a good idea though. The sad part is is that your current argument is complete bunk. By your logic, small lasers should be bumped up to do AC/2 damage too since they occupy an entire slot as well and we wouldn't want those to feel left out too!

But, yanno, I have an agenda! There's a giant conspiracy around here! God help us all, some of us want MGs to be decent and at least vaguely on par with a small laser so that lighter mechs with lots of ballistics have something they can use that isn't embarassing!

JudgeDeathCZ, on 21 April 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

You will get light variants of existing weapons(ACs,PPC,gauss and maybe some) and heavy also(including lasers).We just have to w8 to get them...

I don't think waiting up to 10 years from now is an acceptable solution.

Edited by TOGSolid, 21 April 2013 - 12:11 PM.

[Yokaiko]

TOGSolid, on 21 April 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

to actually thinking that's a good idea though. The sad part is is that your current argument is complete bunk. By your logic, small lasers should be bumped up to do AC/2 damage too since they occupy an entire slot as well and we wouldn't want those to feel left out too!

You are missing the point where AC2s are actually near the highest DPS in the game tied with the AC10 and only eclipsed by the AC20.

....so why aren't there eleventy billion nerf AC2 threads?


I'll tell you, uptime.

DPS<Alpha period.

Edited by Yokaiko, 21 April 2013 - 12:09 PM.

[TOGSolid]

Yokaiko, on 21 April 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

You are missing the point where AC2s are actually near the highest DPS in the game tied with the AC10 and only eclipsed by the AC20.

....so why aren't there eleventy billion nerf AC2 threads?


I'll tell you, uptime.

DPS<Alpha period.

All of those weapons weigh a hell of a lot more than the machine gun. 4 DPS out of a .5 (1.5 if you include the ammo) weapon is just absurd. I figured that whole "weight -> damage" thing would be kind of obvious. A spider jetting around with 4 MGs doing 16 DPS would be ******** ludicrous.

Edited by TOGSolid, 21 April 2013 - 12:16 PM.

[Yokaiko]

TOGSolid, on 21 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

This has nothing to do with anything relevant to this discussion.

All of those weapons weigh a hell of a lot more than the machine gun. 4 DPS out of a .5 (1.5 if you include the ammo) weapon is just absurd.

....and who asked for 4dps from machine guns, please, go back through the thread and find that request once.

I dare you.

[TOGSolid]

Yokaiko, on 21 April 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

....and who asked for 4dps from machine guns, please, go back through the thread and find that request once.

I dare you.

Quote

My suggestion would cause the 4 Ballistic slot spider to be capable of dealing more DPS than a Gauss Rifle. In fact filled in with machine gun arrays you'd effectively be hit with the same damage as 4 gauss rifles every 12.5 seconds (Doing virtually the same dps in those 12 seconds, past 12 seconds the machine guns do more). For only a weight of 4 tons for the weapons plus 1 or 2 tons of ammo, you have a zero heat group of weapons that weighs 5 to 6 tons and has more dps than a weapon that weighs three times as much.

That was easy.


So why are you bringing up people not asking for AC/2 nerfs and DPS vs alpha strikes here? I have no clue what your post was talking about because at this point it's now entirely nonsensical.

Edited by TOGSolid, 21 April 2013 - 12:20 PM.

[Yokaiko]

TOGSolid, on 21 April 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

That was easy.


So why are you bringing up people not asking for AC/2 nerfs and DPS vs alpha strikes here? I have no clue what your post was talking about because at this point it's now entirely nonsensical.

You quoted two different people.


...and that was a counterpoint argument into ridiculous land.

I said find someone asking for 4 dps machine guns. I'l wait.

[TOGSolid]

Yokaiko, on 21 April 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

You quoted two different people.


...and that was a counterpoint argument into ridiculous land.

I said find someone asking for 4 dps machine guns. I'l wait.

I just did?

I don't even know what your point here is. I want MGs to do roughly small laser dps. I was demonstrating how wrong the other guy is about everything and then you waltzed in quoting **** and talking about I don't even know what the ****. What is your point here? Do you have anything to actually add or did you tab into the wrong thread by mistake and are just spouting crap off?

Edited by TOGSolid, 21 April 2013 - 12:26 PM.

[Yokaiko]

TOGSolid, on 21 April 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

I just did?

I don't even know what your point here is. I want MGs to do roughly small laser dps. I was demonstrating how wrong the other guy is about everything and then you waltzed in quoting **** and talking about I don't even know what the ****. What is your point here? Do you have anything to actually add or did you tab into the wrong thread by mistake and are just spouting crap off?

So you have a reading comprehension issue? My issue how?

[One Medic Army]

I have only one thing to say:
If energy weapons were like ballistics, we'd have like 5 different types of Large Lasers, and the Flamer, and nothing inbetween.

Ballistics need a Medium Laser/MPL equivalent.
If everyone is so scared of a .5ton MG with 90m (270m) range doing enough DPS to eclipse it's terrible burst damage, then just introduce heavy MGs and MG arrays early so you can make it weigh more.

[TOGSolid]

Yokaiko, on 21 April 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

So you have a reading comprehension issue? My issue how?

Because what does any of this:

Yokaiko, on 21 April 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

You are missing the point where AC2s are actually near the highest DPS in the game tied with the AC10 and only eclipsed by the AC20.

....so why aren't there eleventy billion nerf AC2 threads?


I'll tell you, uptime.

DPS<Alpha period.

Have to do with a ******** thing in this thread? It's not even relevant to what you quoted.

Edited by TOGSolid, 21 April 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[stjobe]

TOGSolid, on 21 April 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Because what does any of this:

Have to do with a ******** thing in this thread? It's not even relevant to what you quoted.

The AC/2 has a DPS of 4.0.
Nobody complains about it being overpowered.
Why?

Because, just like the MG, it's very hard to get even close that DPS due to the weapon's high rate of fire and low per-projectile damage.

The MG has 5 times the RoF and 50 times lower per-projectile damage than the AC/2. According to my research, the effective DPS of the MG is about 50% of its listed DPS (0.22 vs 0.4). So even giving it a boost to 4 DPS would only see it dealing 2 DPS in practice.

Also due to the low per-projectile damage, the MG's alpha is non-existent, which is quite a drawback in this game where alpha means everything.

Edited by stjobe, 21 April 2013 - 01:01 PM.

[Taemien]

Yokaiko, on 21 April 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

So you have a reading comprehension issue? My issue how?

He has Serious reading comprehension problems, either that or he's a troll. I gave a solution for players and he claims its bad advice for the Devs. It had nothing to do with Devs. Then I give a good suggestion (even a slightly OP one) and he goes on a tangent about AC2s. Then I address someone who did bring up AC2s and he claims no one said anything about AC2s. even though I quoted it.

He's either a stupid noob, or a troll. I'm going to call both. And thats only how I'll address him further.

[FlyingTurtle]

Hatachi, on 20 April 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

My ballistic based Spider-K cries itself to sleep at night.

You can fit an AC/5 on a spider, barely. LOL

[TOGSolid]

Taemien, on 21 April 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

He has Serious reading comprehension problems, either that or he's a troll. I gave a solution for players and he claims its bad advice for the Devs. It had nothing to do with Devs. Then I give a good suggestion (even a slightly OP one) and he goes on a tangent about AC2s. Then I address someone who did bring up AC2s and he claims no one said anything about AC2s. even though I quoted it.

He's either a stupid noob, or a troll. I'm going to call both. And thats only how I'll address him further.

Lolwut? Your solution isn't a solution. It's just garbage in a post. Telling players to just skip over it entirely is not good discussion in a thread about game balance. It's completely irrelevant. The rest of this rambling crap is just fantasy land tripe that never even happened. Like most people without a point you didn't say anything in response to my actual main post. You just lurked around until you could pounce on what someone else was saying to me and then patted yourself on the back as if you were actually intelligent. Take a hike kid, the grownups are trying to have a conversation.

Quote

Because, just like the MG, it's very hard to get even close that DPS due to the weapon's high rate of fire and low per-projectile damage.

The MG has 5 times the RoF and 50 times lower per-projectile damage than the AC/2. According to my research, the effective DPS of the MG is about 50% of its listed DPS (0.22 vs 0.4). So even giving it a boost to 4 DPS would only see it dealing 2 DPS in practice.

Also due to the low per-projectile damage, the MG's alpha is non-existent, which is quite a drawback in this game where alpha means everything.

Ok, now this is good discussion. My only problem with that is that the primary users of upgraded machine guns would be lighter end mechs. Anything capable of getting really close really quickly will be able to bypass the cone of fire downside and things will become a mess. I think a better solution would be to tighten up the cone on them so that it's easier to focus their damage than to make them do a ton of DPS to make up for the cone. Obviously a DPS boost in general is necessary but that much is just excessive. I think going with 1 DPS and tightening up the cone will be a good starting point.

Edited by TOGSolid, 21 April 2013 - 01:18 PM.

[Yokaiko]

TOGSolid, on 21 April 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Lolwut? Your solution isn't a solution. It's just garbage in a post. Telling players to just skip over it entirely is not good discussion in a thread about game balance. It's completely irrelevant. The rest of this rambling crap is just fantasy land tripe that never even happened. Like most people without a point you didn't say anything in response to my actual main post. You just lurked around until you could pounce on what someone else was saying to me and then patted yourself on the back as if you were actually intelligent. Take a hike kid, the grownups are trying to have a conversation.



Ok, now this is good discussion. My only problem with that is that the primary users of upgraded machine guns would be lighter end mechs. AC/2s can obliterate things if they get close

LOL what?

Seriously, considering that AC2s have a higher HPS than a large laser, that DPS is useless because if you close range, you get owned by overheating when you need them to work.

This is why AC2s a 2 DPS would be nive but not overpowered.

[Taemien]

TOGSolid, on 21 April 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Lolwut? Your solution isn't a solution. It's just garbage in a post. Telling players to just skip over it entirely is not good discussion in a thread about game balance. It's completely irrelevant. The rest of this rambling crap is just fantasy land tripe that never even happened. Like most people without a point you didn't say anything in response to my actual main post. You just lurked around until you could pounce on what someone else was saying to me and then patted yourself on the back as if you were actually intelligent. Take a hike kid, the grownups are trying to have a conversation.

Hey troll, the intelligent people are trying to have a discussion here. Maybe when you can actually counterpoint a post rather than resorting to insults, you'll warrant the same in return. Until then you are nothing but a troll.

[stjobe]

TOGSolid, on 21 April 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Ok, now this is good discussion. My only problem with that is that the primary users of upgraded machine guns would be lighter end mechs. AC/2s can obliterate things if they get close and allowing something like the Spider to rack up 4 machine guns doing that much DPS would just lead to Tribes with machine guns (though that would be hilarious). I think a better solution would be to tighten up the cone on them so that it's easier to focus their damage than to make them do a ton of DPS to make up for the cone. Anything capable of getting really close really quickly will be able to bypass the cone of fire downside and things will become a mess.

It's funny that the devs proudly state that they've taken out RNG in favour of skill, but leave the spread in on the MG. Yes, it should go. In the next patch, if at all possible. That much we agree on.

Now I'd like you to think about that lightly-armoured 'mech that needs the MG to be viable. For it to even use its MGs it needs to be in close - and in close is a dangerous place to be for a lightly-armoured 'mech. All other weapons out-range the MG, so even getting in there is hazardous. But let's say you do get in there without being legged or killed. Now you need to face your target 100% of the time to get your weapon to get even close to its listed DPS. And a lightly-armoured 'mech that continuously faces its opponent at close range is what?

Yep, salvage.

Now this wouldn't be such a problem if it wasn't for the fact that you need to face your opponent for such a long time. There's a reason pulse lasers are popular on light 'mechs - they severely cut down the time you need to be in a predictable position. But with the MGs you need to be there constantly - or do no damage.

So you see, the MG has basically no redeeming qualities - the crit buff is useless, and the low damage as well as the method of dealing that damage makes them very dangerous weapons to mount on a light 'mech.

If they were at least capable of dealing some substantial armour damage, that danger might well be worth the risks, but as the weapon is currently implemented, it isn't. And the ballistic 'mechs are therefore broken by design; not the 'mech design, but the MG design.

Edited by stjobe, 21 April 2013 - 01:29 PM.

[TOGSolid]

Yokaiko, on 21 April 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

LOL what?

Seriously, considering that AC2s have a higher HPS than a large laser, that DPS is useless because if you close range, you get owned by overheating when you need them to work.

AC/2s work quite well, I just suspect you don't actually know what you're doing with them. I used them a fair bit and haven't had any issues with red lining my heat. Yeah, they run hot but link firing them helps fix that. Sure, I'd never run them in an 8-man but there's only a couple things even remotely viable in 8 mans anyway so they don't really count.

Quote

Hey troll, the intelligent people are trying to have a discussion here. Maybe when you can actually counterpoint a post rather than resorting to insults, you'll warrant the same in return. Until then you are nothing but a troll.

And my point is proven. Thanks!

Quote

Now I'd like you to think about that lightly-armoured 'mech that needs the MG to be viable. For it to even use its MGs it needs to be in close - and in close is a dangerous place to be for a lightly-armoured 'mech. All other weapons out-range the MG, so even getting in there is hazardous. But let's say you do get in there without being legged or killed. Now you need to face your target 100% of the time to get your weapon to get even close to its listed DPS. And a lightly-armoured 'mech that continuously faces its opponent at close range is what?

Yep, salvage.

Now this wouldn't be such a problem if it wasn't for the fact that you need to face your opponent for such a long time. There's a reason pulse lasers are popular on light 'mechs - they severely cut down the time you need to be in a predictable position. But with the MGs you need to be there constantly - or do no damage.

So you see, the MG has basically no redeeming qualities - the crit buff is useless, and the low damage as well as the method of dealing that damage makes them very dangerous weapons to mount on a light 'mech.

If they were at least capable of dealing some substantial armour damage, that danger might well be worth the risks, but as the weapon is currently implemented, it isn't. And the ballistic 'mechs are therefore broken by design; not the 'mech design, but the MG design.

Your argument is sound, I'm just really gunshy of starting out with that much DPS at the start, especially on a weapon with no real heat and crapload of ammo per ton. As hilarious as Machinegungeddon sounds I'd like to avoid it. I think starting with a modest increase to 1 DPS and raising it as necessary will be a better solution and one that PGI would be much more inclined to roll with. If it needs to go higher we can always raise it. Besides, we need SOMETHING for the HMG to do when it finally gets in game.

Quote

So you see, the MG has basically no redeeming qualities - the crit buff is useless, and the low damage as well as the method of dealing that damage makes them very dangerous weapons to mount on a light 'mech.

Definitely no argument here. MGs are just god awful bad right now.

Edited by TOGSolid, 21 April 2013 - 01:40 PM.

[Yokaiko]

TOGSolid, on 21 April 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

Sure, I'd never run them in an 8-man but there's only a couple things even remotely viable in 8 mans

Way to make my point.