28 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

I think it's pretty safe to say at this point, Machine Guns are not going to get better if all they keep doing is upping their DPS. A small laser will always be better than MGs, because you can burst fire it and then immediately veer away from the target, which is huge in 'mech battles. The only way to make MGs viable is to give them more up front punch, really.

Thus, this suggestion is to basically take the UAC mechanic and apply it to MGs (after considerably more shots), while trippling their base damage to .3. That way they can burst fire roughly as much damage as a SL could in around the same amount of time, jams depending, and give the player a way of evading between damaging attacks.

I think style wise having MGs jamming and unjamming would add to the feel of them, too. This is essentially a way to make MGs closer to "Burster" style, without actually changing their code past this one mechanic copy + paste.

[General Taskeen]

Rolling Dice isn't fun on the UAC, so it won't be fun on MG. Just sayin'.

The sooner they stop trying to copy the MW:LL MG and institute the MW3 MG, the better it'll become.

Edited by General Taskeen, 27 June 2013 - 06:40 AM.

[Kaldor]

How about they leave them as is for right now and remove the CoF mechanic they are currently using?

Test it, see if it works, go from there?

[Victor Morson]

General Taskeen, on 27 June 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Rolling Dice isn't fun on the UAC, so it won't be fun on MG.

I would be equally cool with them having a simple meter that fills up, rather than random chance, or even a hard limit so they always briefly jam after 50 bullets or the like.

I really just think MGs need front loaded damage + cool down periods to ever stand a chance.

Kaldor, on 27 June 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

How about they leave them as is for right now and remove the CoF mechanic they are currently using?

Test it, see if it works, go from there?

I'd be all for removing CoF, but the big problem is they don't front load enough damage and leave you no evasion time. Same reason AC/2s are much worse in practice than on paper, but they hit much harder.

[General Taskeen]

Victor Morson, on 27 June 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

I really just think MGs need front loaded damage + cool down periods to ever stand a chance.

This indeed.

[jakucha]

I'm for MGs being viable as grouped weapons. Even if they're strong you'll have to stay close to use them.

[Kaldor]

Victor Morson, on 27 June 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

I'd be all for removing CoF, but the big problem is they don't front load enough damage and leave you no evasion time. Same reason AC/2s are much worse in practice than on paper, but they hit much harder.

Then give them heat per bullet, doubled firing rate, but increase ammo to offset the faster firing rate. This would make them burst better. And still remove the CoF mechanic.

This would help the lights and mediums a bunch that have ballistic hardpoints that are worthless due to an AC2 being FAR to heavy for its size and ammo not being truly doubled...

AC2s are another discussion better had elsewhere IMO.

[stjobe]

Kaldor, on 27 June 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

AC2s are another discussion better had elsewhere IMO.

AC/2s are quite relevant in MG discussions; the TT MG was in effect a no-heat, extremely range-limited AC/2.

The MWO devs gave the AC/2 the largest buff any weapon got in translation from TT: 20 times its TT damage output (the rest of the weapons got about a 2-3 time buff to damage output), and then turned around and made the MG worthless against armoured targets.

AC/2s are also relevant because of their short reload time; they are a good example of why low projectile damage coupled with short reload times can make even impressive-looking weapons (4 DPS) impotent. The MG takes both those properties to extremes with its 0.1 projectile damage and 0.1 reload time - making the 1 DPS it does have totally useless unless one can boat six of them.

In short, Victor is right: High projectile damage and a long cooldown is much, much more effective than low projectile damage and short cooldown, even if the resulting DPS is the same.

[General Taskeen]

All AC's really have a problem, including UAC, since they opted for straight up BT enthusiast front loaded damage shells, rather than make rapid-fire guns that are the equivalent damage of each class. Even the MG isn't currently the equivalent damage class it should be.

[Howdy Doody]

I'd like it if they increased the DPS but introduced some sort of "spin up time" before shooting mechanic! Something different that separates it.

I really would love to have a reason to use MG!

[Kaldor]

stjobe, on 27 June 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

AC/2s are quite relevant in MG discussions; the TT MG was in effect a no-heat, extremely range-limited AC/2.

The MWO devs gave the AC/2 the largest buff any weapon got in translation from TT: 20 times its TT damage output (the rest of the weapons got about a 2-3 time buff to damage output), and then turned around and made the MG worthless against armoured targets.

AC/2s are also relevant because of their short reload time; they are a good example of why low projectile damage coupled with short reload times can make even impressive-looking weapons (4 DPS) impotent. The MG takes both those properties to extremes with its 0.1 projectile damage and 0.1 reload time - making the 1 DPS it does have totally useless unless one can boat six of them.

In short, Victor is right: High projectile damage and a long cooldown is much, much more effective than low projectile damage and short cooldown, even if the resulting DPS is the same.

Im not disagreeing with you or Victor. Right now MGs are borderline worthless unless you carry 4-6 of them, and even then they are really bad against armor. Id rather see a big burst of MG fire with a faster fire rate at the same damage as now, with a little bit of heat, instead of a larger upfront damage with weapon cooldown. This would keep the spirit and design of the weapon mechanics better IMO as you still have great crit seeking ability and still have the moar dakka effect as you can hold the trigger down until overheat. But hey, we all can have opinions.

The AC2 should be what Lights and Mediums run, but due to its stupidly high weight and needing at least 1.5 tons of ammo per weapon, no light can run more than 1 and mediums can generally barely run 2. They work best in at least groups of 2. Look at the incoming new mech, Locust and existing mechs like the Spider, Raven, and Cicada. It will be DOA due to limited choices for lightweight ballistics. The AC2 by itself is fine IMO from a damage standpoint, but I feel that you have to run at least 2 of them to even be remotely effective. 4 of them function just fine in Jagers and the 4X but only because you have the tonnage to run 4.

[Skyfaller]

MG damage is fine as it is now. The problem is that the MG does not converge...its a cone of fire weapon.

This spreads the rapidly-building-up damage of the MG and makes it mostly harmless.

[General Taskeen]

I'd rather they get rid of the idea of leaving certain weapons as 'niche' crit seekers.

[Howdy Doody]

If PGI does end up increasing the health of the internal structure, MG may prove to more valuable. But really depends on how much health. And maybe a good way to buff them and keep them different is only buff dmg internals.

I wouldn't mind a weapon that sucked against armor, but really tore into the mech flesh!

[MaddMaxx]

jakucha, on 27 June 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

I'm for MGs being viable as grouped weapons. Even if they're strong you'll have to stay close to use them.

Sadly 120m is not really "close". Being inside of the PPC boat's 90m supposed "dead zone", which it actually isn't, could be considered as "close". Outside of that. Well not so much.

[Yelland]

Just give them AP ammo... what?


Ammo type selection may be one way to address MG.
Incendiary - higher HPS, lower armor damage
Hollow point - higher impact multiplier lower rate of fire
Guided - tighter COF, expensive, less ammo per ton, higher heat gen.

Only ideas...

Edited by Yelland, 27 June 2013 - 08:32 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Not sure if that's the best idea. I think it would make more sense to just give them a reasonable short burst (0.5 to 1 seconds,) followed by a reasonable cooldown (0.5 to 1.5 seconds). THen the'd still bring the nnice DAKKA sound everyone equips them for now, but be more viable in combat engagements that aren't jsut two mechs standing in front of each other (or one mech standing in a forever unturning mech's back)

[Kmieciu]

Even decreasing the spread from 1.5 to 0.5 makes them quite potent in the testing grounds.
I don't think we should increase the damage any more. 200 damage per ton is already quite a lot.

[PanzerMagier]

General Taskeen, on 27 June 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Rolling Dice isn't fun on the UAC, so it won't be fun on MG. Just sayin'.

The sooner they stop trying to copy the MW:LL MG and institute the MW3 MG, the better it'll become.

Anyone who simply holds their thumb on the button would say that.

As a long time veteran Triply ultra Ilya pilot, UAC5's have become my bread and butter to facerolling a team on my own. Firing them has more become a form of art than anything else to me.

Back to the topic, this MG idea sounds fascinating, I'd like to have it tested or at least test it myself.

Edited by PanzerMagier, 27 June 2013 - 09:19 AM.

[stjobe]

Kaldor, on 27 June 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Look at the incoming new mech, Locust and existing mechs like the Spider, Raven, and Cicada.

Hey, no need to tell me, I've been fighting for a viable MG for light ballistic 'mechs since closed beta.

But I disagree on the AC/2 - it shouldn't be carried by lights. They should carry the MG - the "no-heat, extremely close-range AC/2" kind of MG we don't yet have.

Edited by stjobe, 27 June 2013 - 01:27 PM.