111 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

jakucha, on 05 June 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Let me find it.

Edit: http://mwomercs.com/...e-and-feedback/

Yeah, that's what I thought. The one thread by the guy that swears MGs are fine on his dual ERPPC + 6 MG Jager. That one gets sent to the balance team.

I despair for light ballistic 'mechs if that's what they take as truth, "the MG is fine if you use the one 'mech that can boat six of them, while also sporting dual ERPPCs, top speed and full heavy 'mech armour".

Edited by stjobe, 05 June 2013 - 10:36 AM.

[General Taskeen]

stjobe, on 05 June 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Yeah, that's what I thought. The one thread by the guy that swears MGs are fine on his dual ERPPC + 6 MG Jager. That one gets sent to the balance team.

I despair for light ballistic 'mechs if that's what they take as truth.

While the 2 MG Spider still cries itself to sleep. Shh little Mech, death will only hurts for an instant.

[jakucha]

stjobe, on 05 June 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Yeah, that's what I thought. The one thread by the guy that swears MGs are fine on his dual ERPPC + 6 MG Jager. That one gets sent to the balance team.

I despair for light ballistic 'mechs if that's what they take as truth, "the MG is fine if you use the one 'mech that can boat six of them, while also sporting dual ERPPCs, top speed and full heavy 'mech armour".

He's decent with them, but if you take the time to read you'll see he says it needs to get better and how it can be made better in the bottom of the post.

[Tibs]

true needs buffed but i still use it no heat. so i have weopan when others are over heated

[stjobe]

jakucha, on 05 June 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

He's decent with them, but if you take the time to read you'll see he says it needs to get better and how it can be made better in the bottom of the post.

If you take the time to read you may notice I have several posts in that thread.

His argument is flawed since he argues from a position of boating six MGs, something only a single variant in the whole game can do (and no, it isn't a Spider). Any balance you do to six MGs will make them useless to the other 34 'mechs that can only mount four or less - and especially the lights that can't mount much in the way of other weaponry.

He also has the mechanics of the MG wrong, saying the projectile speed is too low. The MG doesn't have a projectile, it hits instantly. In short, he doesn't understand the weapon he's talking about balancing.

Don't get me wrong, I love that the devs get MG feedback - I've been trying to provide just that for more than six months now - but it irks me that that particular thread got dev attention when the 5,000+ feedback thread has gone without since it was moved to the nether regions of the balance subforum.

Edited by stjobe, 05 June 2013 - 11:11 AM.

[jakucha]

stjobe, on 05 June 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

If you take the time to read you may notice I have several posts in that thread.

His argument is flawed since he argues from a position of boating six MGs, something only a single variant in the whole game can do (and no, it isn't a Spider). Any balance you do to six MGs will make them useless to the other 34 'mechs that can only mount four or less - and especially the lights that can't mount much in the way of other weaponry.

He also has the mechanics of the MG wrong, saying the projectile speed is too low. The MG doesn't have a projectile, it hits instantly. In short, he doesn't understand the weapon he's talking about balancing.

Don't get me wrong, I love that the devs get MG feedback - I've been trying to provide just that for more than six months now - but it irks me that that particular thread got dev attention when the 5,000+ feedback thread has gone without since it was moved to the nether regions of the balance subforum.

It's still a good starting point because MGs should be powerful when grouped together, doesn't have to be in groups of 6.

[stjobe]

jakucha, on 05 June 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

It's still a good starting point because MGs should be powerful when grouped together, doesn't have to be in groups of 6.

But that's what he's arguing; that they're "almost there" when grouped by six.
Where does that leave the dual MGs on the Catapult?
Or the quad MGs on the SDR-5K?

Again, there's a single 'mech variant (out of 78 total, and 35 capable of mounting MGs) that can mount six MGs. Using that 'mech and its six MGs as a baseline for MG balancing isn't "a good starting point" - a good starting point is to make a single MG worth mounting - or at the very least dual MGs.

It's the same as with LRMs - balancing LRMs for quintuple LRM-20s only makes taking a single LRM-10 useless - and there's a lot more 'mechs with single launchers than there are with five.

[CutterWolf]

stjobe, on 05 June 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

- MG's are not supposed to be this bad.
- MG's are anti-'mech weapons that are also extremely effective against infantry.
- MG's role as secondary or tertiary weaponry does not in any way, shape, or form justify them being as bad as they are in MWO.

In BattleTech, with half the armour values we have in MWO, 2 damage to a light 'mech was a sizable chunk of the armour on that section and not something to take lightly.

Don't know what your smoking but MG's are "Not" anti-'mech weapons. In fact from the Battletech master rules book " Though rarely carried by BattleMechs, the high rate of fire produced by machine guns makes them excellent anti-infantry weapons"

[MasterErrant]

Trauglodyte, on 04 June 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

MGs broke my JJs - GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!! (I do agree, though, that the "cone fire" needs to go away)

if the cone of fire goes. then the mg loses it main function and when npc armour and infantry are deployed we'll need that.
trusr me tryinf to kill infantry with ppcs sucks

[Pyrrho]

That there are still people who don't understand that MGs are supposed to damage 'mechs (regardless of some flavor text from a rule book somewhere) makes this debate just a little bit harder to have.

You know what else is an excellent anti-infantry weapon? A nuke. "Though rarely carried by BattleMechs, the devastating heatwave produced by nukes make them excellent anti-infantry weapons."

[stjobe]

CutterWolf, on 05 June 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Don't know what your smoking but MG's are "Not" anti-'mech weapons. In fact from the Battletech master rules book " Though rarely carried by BattleMechs, the high rate of fire produced by machine guns makes them excellent anti-infantry weapons"

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

Please explain to me then, why an MG in BattleTech does as much damage to 'mechs as an AC/2, albeit at a much shorter range. Explain, please why it does as much damage to a 'mech as a single SRM.

Explain to me why through all the iterations that the BattleTech rules have gone through, nobody has seen fit to give the MG - this "anti-infantry weapon" - a damage penalty versus 'mechs? There's plenty of weapons in BattleTech that can't damage 'mechs, but the MG isn't one of them.

If you're such a BattleTech rules expert, would you care to explain why the MG gets a massive bonus versus infantry but still keeps its 2 damage versus 'mechs? If it's not an anti-'mech weapon it really shouldn't harm 'mechs, now should it?

Finally, if you'd care to explain why the original BattleTech rules had MGs, when infantry rules weren't introduced until two years later with CityTech? Why would a game with no targets apart from other 'mechs have an anti-infantry weapon?

Not that I expect you to answer any of these questions, people that drag in the old, beaten-to-death "MG's are anti-infantry, hurr durr" horse never do.

[MustrumRidcully]

At least this topic never gets old, stjobe. There will always be a new face on the boards that still hasn't heard the arguments 10 times over.

10 years from now, we will probably re-enact the famous MG battles. Maybe not on these by then defunct forums, but maybe Weisman will run a Battletech Returns kickstarter or something.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 05 June 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[Deathlike]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 June 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

At least this topic never gets old, stjobe. There will always be a new face on the boards that still hasn't heard the arguments 10 times over.

10 years from now, we will probably re-enact the famous MG battles. Maybe not on these by then defunct forums, but maybe Weisman will run a Battletech Returns kickstarter or something.

I seriously don't want to participate in any future MW-game discussion about MGs, because it'll probably get "balanced" better in that game (or not).

[General Taskeen]

Cutterwolf, you must be new - "Piranha: These are a serious threat on such a speedy 'Mech to any foe, especially if a Star of Piranhas operate in a pack, and such a large array allows a Piranha to chew through an opponent's rear armor almost instantly." Evidence below of the MW3 MG that was based on the Battle Tech MG: And that's just 2 MG's Young Padawan.

[CutterWolf]

stjobe, on 05 June 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

Please explain to me then, why an MG in BattleTech does as much damage to 'mechs as an AC/2, albeit at a much shorter range. Explain, please why it does as much damage to a 'mech as a single SRM.

Explain to me why through all the iterations that the BattleTech rules have gone through, nobody has seen fit to give the MG - this "anti-infantry weapon" - a damage penalty versus 'mechs? There's plenty of weapons in BattleTech that can't damage 'mechs, but the MG isn't one of them.

If you're such a BattleTech rules expert, would you care to explain why the MG gets a massive bonus versus infantry but still keeps its 2 damage versus 'mechs? If it's not an anti-'mech weapon it really shouldn't harm 'mechs, now should it?

Finally, if you'd care to explain why the original BattleTech rules had MGs, when infantry rules weren't introduced until two years later with CityTech? Why would a game with no targets apart from other 'mechs have an anti-infantry weapon?

Not that I expect you to answer any of these questions, people that drag in the old, beaten-to-death "MG's are anti-infantry, hurr durr" horse never do.

All your question answer themselfs, The game Battletech is base off the the books about Battletech which they indeed had "infantry" to worry about. If you knew anything about Battletech you would already again know the answer to that. But you go ahead and keep thinking that they are for Mech combat and let me know how that works out for you....

[FupDup]

CutterWolf, on 05 June 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

All your question answer themselfs, The game Battletech is base off the the books about Battletech which they indeed had "infantry" to worry about. If you knew anything about Battletech you would already again know the answer to that. But you go ahead and keep thinking that they are for Mech combat and let me know how that works out for you....

You didn't refute any of jobe's points. The biggest error was that you ignored his point about Machine Guns existing in Battletech before infantry were implemented. Furthermore, even when there was infantry to worry about, the weapon still did 2 damage to Battlemechs.


Something that jobe didn't bring up (but I will) is that you really shouldn't argue for a weapon to have a role that doesn't even exist. Show me infantry in MWO (outside of your cockpit). Don't put the cart before the horse.

Even if there were soldiers to shoot at, our click-and-drag DoT Lasers would be vastly superior at manslaughter due to pinpoint accuracy (MG has spread), infinite ammo, dramatically longer range (except for SL), no ammo explosions, and most importantly of all: the ability to do respectable damage to anything larger than troopers. So, an MG Spider might be half-decent against infantry only but a 4-6 ML Jenner would be better against infantry as well as every other possible target under the sun. How is that fair, exactly?

It adds absolutely nothing to gameplay for MGs to function like this.

Edited by FupDup, 05 June 2013 - 06:08 PM.

[CutterWolf]

FupDup, on 05 June 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

You didn't refute any of jobe's points. The biggest error was that you ignored his point about Machine Guns existing in Battletech before infantry were implemented. Furthermore, even when there was infantry to worry about, the weapon still did 2 damage to Battlemechs.


Something that jobe didn't bring up (but I will) is that you really shouldn't argue for a weapon to have a role that doesn't even exist. Show me infantry in MWO (outside of your cockpit). Don't put the cart before the horse.

Even if there were soldiers to shoot at, our click-and-drag DoT Lasers would be vastly superior at manslaughter due to pinpoint accuracy (MG has spread), infinite ammo, dramatically longer range (except for SL), no ammo explosions, and most importantly of all: the ability to do respectable damage to anything larger than troopers. So, an MG Spider might be half-decent against infantry only but a 4-6 ML Jenner would be better against infantry as well as every other possible target under the sun. How is that fair, exactly?

It adds absolutely nothing to gameplay for MGs to function like this.

"Machine Guns existing in Battletech before infantry were implemented" Please tell me your not this dumb please? LOL! This is why people like me who know Battletech don't answer questions by people who think they do because they played a PC game or two............ Very sad indeed. There is no infantry in MWO but, this game is based on Battletech and they are using the configs from Battletech that had MG's to take out infantry please do some reading about Battletech for god sakes...............

Edited by CutterWolf, 05 June 2013 - 06:20 PM.

[Deathlike]

Oh boy... pending BT MG rage discussion!

[FupDup]

CutterWolf, on 05 June 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

"Machine Guns existing in Battletech before infantry were implemented" Please tell me your not this dumb please? LOL! This is why people like me who know Battletech don't answer questions by people who think they do because they played a PC game or two............ Very sad indeed.

Why are you using ad-hominem arguments? Attack my arguments, not my character.


You also didn't address four of my other points:
1. They did the same anti-armor damage as an AC/2 in TableTop
2. MWO's current Medium Laser would be vastly superior against infantry
3. There aren't even infantry at all in MWO and we don't know when/if they're coming
4. It doesn't improve gameplay in any way

Edited by FupDup, 05 June 2013 - 06:27 PM.

[CutterWolf]

FupDup, on 05 June 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

Why are you using ad-hominem arguments? Attack my arguments, not my character.


You also didn't address four of my other points:
1. They did the same anti-armor damage as an AC/2
2. MWO's current Medium Laser would be vastly superior against infantry
3. There aren't even infantry at all in MWO and we don't know when/if they're coming
4. It doesn't improve gameplay in any way

Answering your questions will do no good because you do not have the Battletech knowledge to be able to understand them. That is why I told you to PLEASE do some reading which will answer all your questions and the reasons will be very clear as to why and how MG's were using in Battletech.

Edited by CutterWolf, 05 June 2013 - 06:30 PM.