51 replies to this topic

[Rocdocta]

I see so many posts literally screaming for an MG buff. Why? As a TT and now online player I have always thought of MGs as for attacking infantry or srm tanks etc and are just included for completeness. But it sounds as though some players expect a mech with 4 MGs etc to be able to hold its own with the same weight class. Something that I worry about is dev time spent balancing and tweaking a minor insignificant weapon at the expense of other more pressing and popular items. I would be interested in seeing how many people are really concerned about MG damage and cone of fire compared to how many aren't. Please let me know what you think. Spiv

Edited by Rocdocta, 06 May 2013 - 10:27 PM.

[FunkyFritter]

Mechs are the only thing to shoot at currently. If a weapon is worthless against mechs it needs to be changed or removed.

[James Warren]

I just think for the sake of gameplay balance they should be worth their tonnage (ie roughly equal to spending the same tonnage on small lasers).
There's no point in having features just for 'completeness' if they don't add anything to the game. We need a decent, light-weight ballistic weapon that will make smaller mechs with a reliance on ballistic hardpoints viable.

[MustrumRidcully]

Machine Guns in the table top where not very powerful, obviously, but - they were worth their weight, at least if you started to take multiple ones. 1 ton of ammo would last forever for a single MG, so it would be kinda wasted. But 2 to 6 MGs, and you had something. For their weight, te hy dealt decent damage (2) and produced no heat, which made them easy to add on mechs with spare weight, and also always possible to use, even if you were under heat pressure. They had the same drawback as small lasers - low range. That made it often unwise to use them, simply because the mechs that could easily get into close range risked exposing themselves to melee, and the mechs that didn't need to worry about melee being pretty slow. but in this capacity, it worked as a deterrent, too - a light mech that believed it could safely approach a heavier mech at close range was still in danger from small lasers and MGs.

The only reason the machine gun was a "bad" weapon was because it was a very light weapon. You can't expect any miracles from 0.5 tons and 1 crit, but you got something that was worth the 0.5 tons and 1 crit. If you really wanted, you could build a mech around Machine Guns (example mech the Piranha) as a primary weapon. It would be a very short-range mech, so I would not necessarily recommend it, but if you got into that short range, the mech would be very dangerous. The damage stacks up, in the end.


---

There's also another view to this.

The Machine Gun as is presents interesting challenges. It's a weapon that basically needs to be fired continously. That makes it hard and dangerous to use.
1) You can't use brief windows of opportunity to deliver massive damage, like you could do with a heavier ballistic.
2) You can't deliver damage and fight defensively at the same. A slow rate of fire / high DPS weapon like the AC/10 or the AC/20 allows you to spend a lot of time twisting and maneuvering between shots, without you losing any damage.

If the devs could manage to balance these drawbacks against other weapons, they would have probably figured out something very useful about the weapon balance in MW:O, something that might improve balance on other fronts as well.
If the devs figure decide it can't be done, they will have to change the MG mechanics to something more useable - say, a laser like approach with a short, continous stream of MG fire followed by a longer firing pause.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 May 2013 - 10:31 PM.

[James DeGriz]

OP whilst I agree with you in principle, the problem is that there are a few light mech variants that have a bias towards ballistics in their hardpoint configurations. Given that most of the ACs in game have prohibitively high slot and weight requirements, the only option for those light mechs is to fit MGs. If the MGs are a bit naff, you have to ask what the point of those variants is.

[Atheus]

This poll is a bit of a mess. There are two identical questions with different options for answers, but both assume you do use machine guns. Just delete the poll and start over with better organization - combine questions 2 and 4, and all options should be check boxes, since nobody is going to have just one reason for deciding whether or not to use machine guns.

If you have a question that assumes you DO use machine guns, be sure to include an answer that indicates you don't use them, since the polling software requires people to submit an answer for every question.

[Victor Morson]

Please edit this poll. You ask the same questions twice, offer no way to vote "I do not use MGs" at points, etc. It needs an edit.

Also why does everyone that played TT think machine guns sucked there? Sure they sucked on a lot of the 3025 'mechs where you have 2 of them a ton of ammo, but have you seen builds with 6-10 MGs and a half ton of ammo? It's just beastly close range firepower for almost no drawbacks (including ammo burn that's fast enough it won't blow up). For the tonnage of a single backup weapon you can have a total monster light/medium boating MGs.

The problem here is you can't boat them. I keep suggesting a Container system (like heatsinks with engines) that drops into ballistic points, but anything at all will work. This, combined with the coming double damage would make them an attractive option. As it stands the damage alone will not be enough to sway me I don't think.

Edited by Victor Morson, 06 May 2013 - 10:41 PM.

[Kmieciu]

Rocdocta, on 06 May 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

As a TT and now online player I have always thought of MGs as for attacking infantry or srm tanks etc and are just included for completeness. (...) Something that I worry about is dev time spent balancing and tweaking a minor insignificant weapon at the expense of other more pressing and popular items.

Who gives you the right to decide which weapon is significant and which isn't ?
If the devs took the time and effort to put a weapon into the game, then it is significant. They probably spent more time on mechineguns than on small lasers. Because the lasers only differ in color and stats, and the machinegun has a distinct sound and visual effects. They even took the time to develop special critical hit mechanic that favors the machinegun over the lasers.
All of this should not be wasted.

Rocdocta, on 06 May 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

But it sounds as though some players expect a mech with 4 MGs etc to be able to hold its own with the same weight class.

That is exactly it. 4 MG should hold its own against 4 small lasers.
Lasers are safe and have infinite ammo, machine gun burn fast though ammo and you risk an ammo explosion.
Lasers should be the precision weapon, machineguns should deal more damage. People like having a choice.

Here is the example of machinegun being overpowered:


I don't want machine guns to be overpowered in MWO. I want them to be balanced against small lasers. That does not mean they should be the same. Machine guns should be better in some situations, small lasers should be better in other situations.

[El Bandito]

Doubling the damage is not gonna cut it. Tripling is more like it.

[One Medic Army]

I dunno, would you think there was something wrong with energy weapons if the lightest weapon aside from the Flamer was the Large Laser? Would you wonder why there was no viable energy weapon that weighed less than 5 tons and required many supporting heatsinks?

Congratulations, you now understand the progression of ballistic weapons. There is no ballistic equivalent to the ML, MPL, SL, or SPL.
In TT the MG was the ballistic equivalent to the SL.

Edited by One Medic Army, 07 May 2013 - 12:01 AM.

[S1lent0ne]

Ok, let us do a little nerd math.

1 ton = 2000 pounds
1 ton of mg ammo = 2000 rounds
1 mg round = 1 pound

For scale reference a .50 BMG round weighs about 1/4 pound and 20mm round is a little over 1/2 a pound.

To get a one pound round takes a 25mm projectile, essentially we have an M242 Bushmaster.

So the thing shouldn't chew armor like an AC (for those you need to think of them more like the guns on an MBT) but if it is loaded with APDS it should be able to put a bigger dent in things than it does with the possibility of getting crits through light armor. Cocpits, light mechs, and rear armor should all feel the pain.

[stjobe]

Yes, I really care about the MG. I think my posting history shows it

Why? Because the MWO implementation of them is bad, bad, bad. Not only is it bad, it's lore-breakingly bad, and I do care about the BattleTech universe and would like MWO to preserve the spirit of that, if not the letter. And MG's don't, easy as that.

In the BattleTech universe, MGs were mounted on light 'mechs as primary or secondary armament, for use against infantry, vehicles, and 'mechs. On heavier 'mechs they were mounted as secondary or tertiary armament, as a deterrent against infantry, vehicles, and light 'mechs. And they were effective in that role.

According to the BattleTech rules, MGs did 2 damage, same as an AC/2 or a single SRM, and 2/3rds of a Small Laser. In MWO they do 10 times less than an AC/2, slightly less than a single SRM (0.4 vs 0.43), and 2/5ths of a Small Laser.

I don't want MGs to be assault-shredding weapons, but I do want them to actually come close to what they are in BT - a light-weight, short-ranged, ammo-dependent, light ballistic alternative to the Small Laser.

The only way I see them being that in MWO is for PGI to drop their crit-weapon idea (which in my opinion is a really bad idea anyway), buff the MGs damage drastically (2 DPS with spread, 1-1.2 DPS without spread), and adjust ammo per ton to match.

There's simply no lore- or game-mechanic justification for the way PGI implemented the MG. They are supposed to be as effective (or ineffective) at shredding 'mech armour as the AC/2, but at a severely limited range.

Or, to put it in terms the meme-generation may understand: MG's are bad, and the PGI devs should feel bad.

[jeffsw6]

Your poll choices are not useful

[Joseph Mallan]

FunkyFritter, on 06 May 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

Mechs are the only thing to shoot at currently. If a weapon is worthless against mechs it needs to be changed or removed.

careful with this thinking. A small laser is worthless in my eyes. But we still have one. Making the MG equal to a small laser for damage will be fine. What is hurting the MG is it is a stream of damage type weapon like a laser. It needs a 'stream' duration and cool down just like lasers to do the weapon justice.

[Solis Obscuri]

Yeah, I've seen MGs be a crutch for charging in and holding down the trigger before, They shouldn't be zero-heat IWin button for boating.

I think the doubled damage planned by PGI should put them in a much better spot (especially considering their crit bonus potential).

[Curccu]

Soo... Why I can pick multiple items from
"If you use MGs, why?" and only one from "If you dont use MGs, what would make you?"

and 1st part "Are you concerned with the current MG mechanic?"
should have "I would love to use them, but because I'm not satisfied with them, I don't."

edit: actually you have "If you use MGs, why?" two times, and I think 1st one is supposed to be something else.

Edited by Curccu, 07 May 2013 - 05:33 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Yeah, I care. I'd like to use even 2 MG's from a stock Mech. Hell, I've had more success with 1 Small Laser on some of my stock designs.

I do not agree with the Devs design decision making the MG into a laser 'stream' of bullets, instead of simply making it a ballistic with a fast cool down like past Mech games. That is why it is bad in this game.

Edited by General Taskeen, 07 May 2013 - 06:25 AM.

[Billygoat]

MGs need a complete rework, IMO, not just little tweaks every few months(!) that don't address the problem. The MG in this game is beyond tweaks, it's fundamental design and implementation is irreparably flawed. Basically this:

General Taskeen, on 07 May 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

I do not agree with the Devs design decision making the MG into a laser 'stream' of bullets, instead of simply making it a ballistic with a fast cool down like past Mech games. That is why it is bad in this game.

The MG is supposed to essentially be a very light, very short ranged AC/2. Get rid of the (admittedly great sounding) continuous fire mechanic and just make them fire in bursts and do 2 damage. Change Ammo/ton accordingly. See how it fits into the game and THEN tweak as needed. Done.

Edited by Billygoat, 07 May 2013 - 06:36 AM.

[stjobe]

General Taskeen, on 07 May 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

I do not agree with the Devs design decision making the MG into a laser 'stream' of bullets, instead of simply making it a ballistic with a fast cool down like past Mech games. That is why it is bad in this game.

It's *one* of the reasons it is bad in this game.

Another is the step-motherly treatment it got in the translation from the BT values, that doesn't follow the same progression as any other weapon. Lower damage increase, less damage per ton, lower per-projectile damage than any other weapon, even if you look at ratios instead of absolute numbers (I'm fine with it being the least powerful weapon in the game, it just shouldn't be by such a fantastic margin).

A third is that it has spread, the dev statement "We've removed randomness from weapon firing in favor of skill" notwithstanding. You simply can't hit what you aim at with a MG.

A fourth is that it's continuous-fire mechanic together with the spread makes its actual, practical DPS about half of its on-paper DPS, often meaning that people see "how about giving the MG 2 DPS" and go bananas that a MG would have more DPS than a Small Laser, even though the Small Laser can easily hit its listed DPS whereas the MG would struggle to get over 50% of its.

I just wish the devs would stop being so stubborn about it and just make the damned gun work properly.

[Curccu]

Billygoat, on 07 May 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

MGs need a complete rework, IMO, not just little tweaks every few months(!) that don't address the problem. The MG in this game is beyond tweaks, it's fundamental design and implementation is irreparably flawed. Basically this:



The MG is supposed to essentially be a very light, very short ranged AC/2. Get rid of the (admittedly great sounding) continuous fire mechanic and just make them fire in bursts and do 2 damage. Change Ammo/ton accordingly. See how it fits into the game and THEN tweak as needed. Done.

If you give them same dps(4) as AC/2 they are OP