99 replies to this topic

[Elizander]

Tennex, on 21 April 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:

so what suggestion do you have ? knowing what PGI will and will not do since you seem to have a good grasp of that

You appear to be barking up the wrong tree here. There is no point arguing with me about this because I am in no position to change anything. If you want MGs changed, the continue to lobby for it. I have said my part for MGs and I'm leaving it up to time to decide if anything will happen with it. I'm merely going with alternative suggestions to push to PGI.

My focus is not the MG. My focus is making lighter mechs with multiple ballistic slots more useful because right now they aren't. I don't believe that the MG is the only solution to the problem so I am going with various suggestions to help solve the perceived problem and those currently are:

• Buff the MG (already being pushed by everyone)
  
• Add lighter ballistic weapons (Light AC/2 Light AC/2, Light Rifle)
  
• Lower the value of Ballistic slots on lighter mechs (instead of 1 ballistic = 1 energy it should be 2 ballistic = 1 energy).

[Thorn Hallis]

FupDup, on 21 April 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

I'd like to see one of the MG-opponents argue against that.

Easy. It's WizKids.

[Tennex]

Elizander, on 21 April 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

You appear to be barking up the wrong tree here. There is no point arguing with me about this because I am in no position to change anything. If you want MGs changed, the continue to lobby for it. I have said my part for MGs and I'm leaving it up to time to decide if anything will happen with it. I'm merely going with alternative suggestions to push to PGI.

My focus is not the MG. My focus is making lighter mechs with multiple ballistic slots more useful because right now they aren't. I don't believe that the MG is the only solution to the problem so I am going with various suggestions to help solve the perceived problem and those currently are:

• Buff the MG (already being pushed by everyone)
  
• Add lighter ballistic weapons (Light AC/2 Light AC/2, Light Rifle)
  
• Lower the value of Ballistic slots on lighter mechs (instead of 1 ballistic = 1 energy it should be 2 ballistic = 1 energy).

I don't think you have as a good grasp of what PGI will and will not do now as you did when you said they wont be buffing the MG.

because if you were right and they won't be buffing the MG. they also won't be doing any of the things you just suggested

Edited by Tennex, 21 April 2013 - 10:33 PM.

[TOGSolid]

Elizander, on 21 April 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

You appear to be barking up the wrong tree here. There is no point arguing with me about this because I am in no position to change anything. If you want MGs changed, the continue to lobby for it. I have said my part for MGs and I'm leaving it up to time to decide if anything will happen with it. I'm merely going with alternative suggestions to push to PGI.

My focus is not the MG. My focus is making lighter mechs with multiple ballistic slots more useful because right now they aren't. I don't believe that the MG is the only solution to the problem so I am going with various suggestions to help solve the perceived problem and those currently are:

• Buff the MG (already being pushed by everyone)
  
• Add lighter ballistic weapons (Light AC/2 Light AC/2, Light Rifle)
  
• Lower the value of Ballistic slots on lighter mechs (instead of 1 ballistic = 1 energy it should be 2 ballistic = 1 energy).

WTB 12 MG Jenner.

Seriously though, the only option out of that list that's even remotely sane is to just fix what's already broken instead of potentially ruin more things. The weapons you list don't exist for years and going nuts with adding slots doesn't fix the original problem that MGs are just bad. It also doesn't address how many bigger mechs have filler ballistic slots like the HBK-4G and the DRG-5N. What are they supposed to do?

It all comes back to just making the MGs not bad being the only tenable solution.

Edited by TOGSolid, 21 April 2013 - 10:34 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Escef, on 21 April 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

You want to pay 3 tons plus ammo for a weapon that will do 0 damage?

Just think of the crit-seeking potential!

I think it all boils down to: Buff the Machine Gun damage. Nothing else will give a use to all the 4 ballistic slots on the Spider, Raven or Cicada.

[KinLuu]

There are no light ballistic weapons apart from the MGs. The only thing that comes close is the light AC/2, but this weapon does not fit in the current timeline.

The light rifle is no battlemech weapon. It is mounted on absoluteley zero battlemechs.

In my oppinion, there are only two ways to make light mechs with ballistic HPs more viable.

1. Buff MGs damage.
2. Buff AC/2s ammo/ton and reduce their heat/shot.

[Keifomofutu]

MustrumRidcully, on 21 April 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

Just think of the crit-seeking potential!

I think it all boils down to: Buff the Machine Gun damage. Nothing else will give a use to all the 4 ballistic slots on the Spider, Raven or Cicada.

Or the founders hunchback. Or the triple ballistic dragon. Currently the only use of those variants of mechs is really a very niche ac2 build.

[MustrumRidcully]

KinLuu, on 21 April 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

1. Buff MGs damage.
2. Buff AC/2s ammo/ton and reduce their heat/shot.

The AC/2 is still way too heavy to justify 4 ballistic slots spread across two locations. (If they were spread across 4 locations, then at least you could argue that you have more choices where to mount your guns.)

[Barghest Whelp]

Escef, on 21 April 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

You want to pay 3 tons plus ammo for a weapon that will do 0 damage?

Oh, you mean kinda like we currently pay 0.5 tons + ammo for machine guns?

Edited by Barghest Whelp, 22 April 2013 - 12:21 AM.

[MonkeyCheese]

Please for god sake give me ballistic weapons that I can use at speed with decent ammo in my raven 4x. The larger ballistics only get you so far when they are so heavy that to have decent ammo and back up weapons means you are going sub 100kph. And don't start me on mgs or heavy *** ac2 that I can't really bring 2 of.

[One Medic Army]

Team Leader, on 21 April 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

First part is true. Kinda. Every weapon got only 1 shot per turn, so everything got 1 shot per 10 seconds (as far as I know, I've never played TT). Unfortunately the second part is not correct. The machine gun in MWO does .04 damage a bullet, at 10 bullets a second, which equals out to .4 damage per second. Which is 4 damage over 10 seconds. Compared to the TT of 2 damage over 10 seconds. It got doubled, however seeing as every other weapon had its DPS raised sky high from the TT (AC2 anybody?) the MG got the horrible, moldy, chewed on short end of the stick and has been sitting collecting dust at the back of mechlabs since early 2012.

And they nerfed the potential damage/ton of ammo to 20% of it's TT value (80 vs 400), 10% of TT value when you count in doubled armor/internals.

[Pelador]

Must build uber light Mech now!!!!!

[KinLuu]

MustrumRidcully, on 22 April 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

The AC/2 is still way too heavy to justify 4 ballistic slots spread across two locations. (If they were spread across 4 locations, then at least you could argue that you have more choices where to mount your guns.)

The AC/2 itself is a great weapon. It is very effective for its weight... A light mech has enough space and tonnage to mount one AC/2, one ton of ammo and 3-4 medium lasers or MGs as backup weapons. This would be a very effective setup, if one ton of AC/2 ammo would last a round (and if MGs would be worth taking). But in reality one needs to take at least 2 tons of AC/2 ammo and one additional double heat sink. And now the AC/2 is no longer effective for its weight and space requirements.

[MustrumRidcully]

KinLuu, on 22 April 2013 - 12:39 AM, said:

The AC/2 itself is a great weapon. It is very effective for its weight... A light mech has enough space and tonnage to mount one AC/2, one ton of ammo and 3-4 medium lasers or MGs as backup weapons. This would be a very effective setup, if one ton of AC/2 ammo would last a round (and if MGs would be worth taking). But in reality one needs to take at least 2 tons of AC/2 ammo and one additional double heat sink. And now the AC/2 is no longer effective for its weight and space requirements.

I disagree that it's a great weapon, but even if it was - you can still carry only one - what are the other 3 ballistic slots for? There must be at least some weapon combination where it makes sense to use these slots. Otherwise 1 or 2 ballistic slots would be suffice, and then the Spider would look as if it had a bit too few slots and needed something to compensate.

[stjobe]

Blackfire1, on 21 April 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

All they would have to do to "fix" MG's is this.


-Machine Gun damage have been increased from .04 to .07.

Sorry, but that's too low. See below.

Blackfire1, on 21 April 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

-Machine Gun spread and fire rate has been left alone.

You want to leave the RNG spread in? It's one of the large issues with the MG that you don't hit what you aim at. PGI proudly states that they've "removed the RNG in favour of skill" - but the MG still has its RNG spread.

The high RoF of the MG is also a problematic issue. The higher your RoF, and the lower your per-projectile damage, the harder it is to get anywhere near your theoretical DPS. You can see this in the AC/2 as well; it has a DPS of 4.0, but nobody calls it overpowered - because its high RoF and low per-projectile damage makes it hard to get even close to that 4.0 DPS.

According to the research I've done, the average actual DPS of the MG is 0.22, not 0.4 - this is due in large part to both the high RoF and the extremely low per-projectile damage.

Also, there's plenty of evidence (both mathematical, logical, and video) in the MG feedback thread (consolidating 47 threads and over 7,000 posts) that a single Small Laser in practice outperforms FOUR MGs - this fits very well with the data I collected that the actual MG DPS in practice is closer to 0.25 than 0.4.

Seriously PGI, just buff the MG already.

Apparently, this is my 3,000th post

Edited by stjobe, 22 April 2013 - 03:27 AM.

[Badgerpants]

So either pray for the Piranha or wait 19 years for the AP Gauss Rifle.

http://www.sarna.net...nel_Gauss_Rifle

Developed in 3069 by Clan Jade Falcon^[1], the Anti-Personnel Gauss Rifle is a scaled-down Gauss Rifle meant for work against conventional infantry and battle armor. Functioning similarly to needler weapons, it fires metal flechettes at supersonic speeds, allowing for additional penetration against heavier armor. Though the weapon began life as a battle armor weapon, it was soon adopted by heavier units throughout the Clans.

Technical specifications
Heat 1
Damage 3
Minimum Range 0
Short Range 1-3
Medium Range 4-6
Long Range 7-9
Tons 0.5
Critical Slots 1
Ammo Per Ton 40

Combine the 2 for Maximum Win!

Edited by Badgerpants, 22 April 2013 - 01:11 AM.

[MonkeyCheese]

KinLuu, on 22 April 2013 - 12:39 AM, said:

This would be a very effective setup, if one ton of AC/2 ammo would last a round (and if MGs would be worth taking). But in reality one needs to take at least 2 tons of AC/2 ammo and one additional double heat sink. And now the AC/2 is no longer effective for its weight and space requirements.

Exactly this when it comes to my raven 4x. The ac2 or ac5 just dont seem worth it for their weight/ammo requirements, sure the range is really great but I could do the same with erppcs/erll/lrms with more tonnage to spare.

Machine guns are pathetic so its either go big with a lb10x, ac10, gauss, ac20 or dont even bother with the TWO ballistic hardpoints of the 4x, same goes for the spider and the flea.

[Hammish]

If they don't mind messing with the timeline a little bit, why not just look at incorporating Light ACs? It was actually one of the more balanced suggestions BT came up with in the twilight years.

Less range, little bit of savings on tonnage. Sure, they're still a little heavier than other options suggested here, but they're already balanced for the most part, since you only need to tweak one variable, possibly two (actual range and possibly projectile velocity, since MWO might weight range differently than TT does in terms of item budget).

Light AC/5 in particularly, at 5 tons, would be more than manageable.

Only downside: You'd probably have JM6-DDs running around sporting 6x LAC/5s. But that might be hillarious.

[MonkeyCheese]

just did a match in my 4x raven, 1 ac2 2tons ammo, 1lrm10 1ton ammo, 2ml, 2jj, speed 98kph, just as the match ended i had 320 damage and used up all my ac/lrm ammo, was an ok match but i never got in range of anyone to take any damage.

For me having a light mech under the 124kph max of a 4x is just a death sentence waiting to happen.

Basically need lighter ballistics with more ammo.

Update 426 damage 1 kill with 2ml, srm4 with 1ton, and ac5 with 3 tons, I think the ac5 works best.

Edited by MonkeyCheese, 22 April 2013 - 02:14 AM.

[Eshek]

Badgerpants, on 22 April 2013 - 01:04 AM, said:

So either pray for the Piranha or wait 19 years for the AP Gauss Rifle.[...]

NOPE! It says anti-personnel, by this forum's logic it can never be anything but a waste of crits, tonnage and hardpoints ever.