24 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

The problem with MGs isn't so much their actual stats. There's lot of people calling for increased damage (and they may need a buff as well), but that's not really their biggest weakness. No, that is taking the same ballistic slot of a Gauss Rifle.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't want to make them into their own hard point or the like. Instead (this is an idea brought up on a now dead forum), what I'd like is a new item added to Mechlab: The Machine Gun Array.

Effectively all it would do is serve as a 0 tonnage item that can be dropped in a Ballistic slot, with a set number of free "MG slots" within. Then by simply dragging the MGs into it like you would drag a heat sink into an engine, it adds that gun to the group.

The group then could help the UI (less guns on the weapons screen as an Array could be gun a gun in itself) and hit detection (only needing to scan for one weapon system).

In terms of crit space, you could either make the MG Array take up the maximum crit space for the MGs it can hold, or grow with each added MG.

I should note that I am aware of the TT rules for a MG Array added in 3067. This isn't really the same thing, but is rather more in the fluff descriptions of 'mech machine guns operating in arrays. The TT one offered bonuses to carrying multiple guns where this would merely facilitate it.

tl/dr: By adding a piece of equipment you can "load up" with MGs, you allow them to circumvent the ballistic limit without removing it entirely.

[DeadlyNerd]

What we really need is dynamic HPs.
For example, 1 gauss would yield 7 MGs, but 1MG wouldn't yield 1 gauss.

That'd pretty much solve everything regarding people replacing medium lasers with PPCs and MGs with gausses.

[Billygoat]

I, for one, welcome our new 24 MG Jagermech overlords.

[Taemien]

Problem with Machine Gun Arrays is the tech is 18 years in the future in the timeline. The Machine Gun Array in TT terms is a single cluster fire weapon system (for purposes of weapon attacks). What we actually want in MWO is something else.

Since we don't want to bend the timeline, we can do something much easier. Simply allow the Machine Guns take up part of the hardpoint. Either a third or quarter so one can mount them 3-4 per ballistic hardpoint. This way they still count as individual weapons and aren't bound to the restrictions of the Array (which adds tonnage).

[Victor Morson]

Taemien, on 25 April 2013 - 02:09 AM, said:

Problem with Machine Gun Arrays is the tech is 18 years in the future in the timeline. The Machine Gun Array in TT terms is a single cluster fire weapon system (for purposes of weapon attacks). What we actually want in MWO is something else.

Since we don't want to bend the timeline, we can do something much easier. Simply allow the Machine Guns take up part of the hardpoint. Either a third or quarter so one can mount them 3-4 per ballistic hardpoint. This way they still count as individual weapons and aren't bound to the restrictions of the Array (which adds tonnage).

From the OP:
I should note that I am aware of the TT rules for a MG Array added in 3067. This isn't really the same thing, but is rather more in the fluff descriptions of 'mech machine guns operating in arrays. The TT one offered bonuses to carrying multiple guns where this would merely facilitate it.

Frankly the best idea would be to name it something else, like "MG Cluster" so people don't get the two confused, since their purpose is entirely different (and this would be exclusive to MW:O). The purpose of this equipment piece is not at all the purpose of the MG Array in TT, which is to focus all the MGs in the array (which play by normal rules) into the same spot.

Since that's a non-issue in MW:O, it would be merely to organize them onto the 'mech. So yeah. Pretend the suggestion is just named something else, but operates as described.

EDIT: I'd argue the quarter-hardpoint thing won't work either, because the UI can't handle "massive gun spam." If you had 6 MGs on top of a wide variety of normal weapons, it would break the interface. By combining the MGs into groups, you'd get around that.

Edited by Victor Morson, 25 April 2013 - 02:20 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Machine gun cluster=Machine Gun Array

Dual Heat Sink =Double Heat Sink

A Rose by any other name...

[Theodor Kling]

MGs are not a mech to mech weapon, so they don´t need to get fixed. They are fluff without infantry to use them on. Nothing more.

[qki]

Advance the story to 3060s, when MGAs become available. Otherwise - no dice. Realise that we're operating within the constraints of the Battletech universe, and something that "was cool" in a game set in the 3062-3067 period may not be available in 3050.

[Taemien]

Victor Morson, on 25 April 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

EDIT: I'd argue the quarter-hardpoint thing won't work either, because the UI can't handle "massive gun spam." If you had 6 MGs on top of a wide variety of normal weapons, it would break the interface. By combining the MGs into groups, you'd get around that.

I don't believe weapon fire has an effect on the UI. Unless you mean having an obscene number of weapons on the HUD going all at once. I'm not sure what the weapon limit for that control actually is. I know MW3 had a hard limit of 16 weapons total. But this is the CryEngine so its limits might be higher.

This is of course unless they only designed the weapon grouping thing to hold a certain number of weapons.

[General Taskeen]

MGA's would not fix MG's.... if MG's stay at 0.04 Damage.

An MGA is either 2 or 4 (LMG, MG, or HMG's). Each MG still takes up crit space btw. So if you have an MG array packed with 4 regular MG's, that takes up 5 crit spots. It does not take up 1 crit spot like in MW4.

And finally, the Flea-19 2xMGA with 8x LMG's would be pointless if the MG itself can't even do moderate damage in the game.

An "fake" MGA could be made in MW3 and actually was pretty terrifyingly amazing, since MG's actually damaged Mechs in that game, as they did in TT.

[Victor Morson]

Taemien, on 25 April 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

I don't believe weapon fire has an effect on the UI. Unless you mean having an obscene number of weapons on the HUD going all at once. I'm not sure what the weapon limit for that control actually is. I know MW3 had a hard limit of 16 weapons total. But this is the CryEngine so its limits might be higher.

This is of course unless they only designed the weapon grouping thing to hold a certain number of weapons.

I really don't think you'd want to deal with 12 ineffective weapons on your grouping thing, honestly.

General Taskeen, on 25 April 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

MGA's would not fix MG's.... if MG's stay at 0.04 Damage.

Why I said in the OP that they need may still need a buff even if this were to happen. 0.4 does not sound like a lot but if you had, say, 2 arrays for a total of 8 MGs, that's 3.2 damage per shot. With the rapid fire, low heat MGs, that would borderline become rapidly overpowered on a light (why 4 might be a high limit for something like this), because 8 MGs + 1 Ton ammo = 5 Tons. Plenty of space to pack other weapons on top of it.

General Taskeen, on 25 April 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

An MGA is either 2 or 4 (LMG, MG, or HMG's). Each MG still takes up crit space btw. So if you have an MG array packed with 4 regular MG's, that takes up 5 crit spots. It does not take up 1 crit spot like in MW4.

Again I address this in the OP. I'm starting to think using the word "arrays" was confusing as people keep bringing up the 3067 tech, despite the fact that a ton the fluff post-3050 talks about "MG Arrays." I also address the crit issue saying that the array could either take the same crit space as the MGs within it, or simply occupy the maximum from the start.

General Taskeen, on 25 April 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

And finally, the Flea-19 2xMGA with 8x LMG's would be pointless if the MG itself can't even do moderate damage in the game.

An "fake" MGA could be made in MW3 and actually was pretty terrifyingly amazing, since MG's actually damaged Mechs in that game, as they did in TT.

Again, 3.2 damage every tenth of a second with no heat is absolutely nothing to sneeze at for a whopping 5 tons. That's more damage delivery than a laser in the same span of time and it never stops.

MGs were like this in TT too ; everyone hates them because 2-3 MGs are a joke, esp. with a full ton of ammo. Once you talk 6+ though (In TT, a half ton of ammo is good for this too), you end up with a monstrous weapon. Try toying with a custom light that's all MGs and 1 ton of ammo sometime. It's horrific.

The bottom line is, since it's a half ton, not heat weapon, the only way they could in fact balance it properly is to allow us to carry a greater quantity of them.

EDIT: I am strongly considering asking for this topic closed and to reform it as "Machine Gun Mounts" because the word "Array" keeps making people think about some really semi-obscure 3067 upgrade which does not do what we're needing, because there are no hard points in TT.

Edited by Victor Morson, 25 April 2013 - 12:20 PM.

[FrostCollar]

If we're adding something from 3067, make it the Magshot. Being able to carry more MGs doesn't make them any more powerful and only enables you to waste more tonnage on the current implementation.

[Victor Morson]

FrostCollar, on 25 April 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

If we're adding something from 3067, make it the Magshot. Being able to carry more MGs doesn't make them any more powerful and only enables you to waste more tonnage on the current implementation.

I don't know how many times I could have stated "I am not talking about the 3067 tech" in the OP. I seriously have to shut this topic down and restart it with different wording.

I'm pretty hard core about not bringing in future tech, but the purpose of what I'm talking about has no equivalent in TT, and could be really named anything. They could call it a "Dakka Storage Unit" for all I care.

No Hard points = No reason for a hard point 'container.' That's all this is. This is literally the 'mech equivalent of buying a multi-plug to plug into your wall socket, so you can run more than one device. It has nothing to do with the 3067 tech, which would focus all MGs into a single location, something that already happens in MW:O. They are entirely unrelated.

Edited by Victor Morson, 25 April 2013 - 12:26 PM.

[Sable Dove]

No. Fix machine guns to fix machine guns.
Allowing pplayers to take many grossly underpowered weapons does not count as balancing the weapon.

[Deathlike]

The only suggestion I had was my "prototypish" idea of having a "prototype MG array"...

Specs:
.5/1 ton
1 crit
Reduces cone of fire significantly
Doubles MG DPS at minimum
Increases range (optimal 135m, max 270m)
Must be placed in components/body parts that have a ballistic hardpoint (with MGs in them obviously)

This would best be used for mechs that have 2 or more ballistic hardpoints in the same area (think Spider-5K's arms or Hunchback-4G's ballistic RT).

That's the only way to go... it wouldn't be canon, but would allow for something more useful and "logical" for future developments to supersede it.

[Bobzilla]

Wouldn't it just be easier to change their slot requirement to 0.5? Avoiding over boating. 8 in a 5K could do close to the same DPS as a PPC, with its limited range and spread. Currently at most the DD could have 12, which is only slightly more dps than a UAC5. I'd rather take a UAC5.

[FrostCollar]

Victor Morson, on 25 April 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

I'm pretty hard core about not bringing in future tech, but the purpose of what I'm talking about has no equivalent in TT, and could be really named anything. They could call it a "Dakka Storage Unit" for all I care.

No Hard points = No reason for a hard point 'container.' That's all this is. This is literally the 'mech equivalent of buying a multi-plug to plug into your wall socket, so you can run more than one device. It has nothing to do with the 3067 tech, which would focus all MGs into a single location, something that already happens in MW:O. They are entirely unrelated.

It represents something that is not mirrored in the tabletop at the current time. If we want to go beyond canon, there are better solutions (magshot, noncanon weapon, etc.). If we want to stick to canon, there are better solutions (buff damage, rof, range, etc.). My concern isn't really about timeline, it's that whether you want to stick to strict canon or not there are better solutions than making a special method for containing multiple MGs in one location.

[Victor Morson]

Sable Dove, on 25 April 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

No. Fix machine guns to fix machine guns.
Allowing pplayers to take many grossly underpowered weapons does not count as balancing the weapon.

It's a start, when said weapon weights .5 tons.

Did you not read the damage output 8 of those would cause for a whopping 5 tons? It'd be like an always-on large laser. It's just brutal.

FrostCollar, on 25 April 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

It represents something that is not mirrored in the tabletop at the current time. If we want to go beyond canon, there are better solutions (magshot, noncanon weapon, etc.). If we want to stick to canon, there are better solutions (buff damage, rof, range, etc.). My concern isn't really about timeline, it's that whether you want to stick to strict canon or not there are better solutions than making a special method for containing multiple MGs in one location.

Hardpoints aren't canon either. This tech would exist entirely to deal with a limitation of MW:O's systems. Complaining about the idea not being canon is like complaining that the pilot modules aren't canon, of course they aren't!

I am definitely going to restart this topic and ask for this one to be shut down because the word "Array" has caused way too much confusion and nobody seems to actually read the OP before voting.

Edited by Victor Morson, 25 April 2013 - 01:48 PM.

[FrostCollar]

I have read it, I understand, and I disagree. MGs do not provide the value that .5 tons + 1 ton for ammo should. Allowing for more MGs per hardpoint won't solve that. A quick reading of other posts seems to reveal more support for that option. Timeline or no timeline, it won't fix MGs. So, no.

[Mokou]

If buff MG, also buff some flamer, for dealing real HEAT to enemy.