34 replies to this topic

[Purlana]

Just change them to be exactly like small lasers and be done with it.

[Steel Claws]

PEEFsmash, on 04 August 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

MGs are just fine. They do amazingly in many situations, and for such a light, filler weapon, that is good.

Yeah they tend to chew things up just fine. I just don't understand some people fasination with some weapons. "Please buff my favorite weapon" - Once the PPC change goes in (and I'm not entirely convinced it's needed) the weapon balance will be about where it should be with the current state of HSR.

[Leafia Barrett]

Royalewithcheese, on 04 August 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

I still think that the idea that was floating around a couple of months ago where Machine Guns are ballistic Small Lasers that use ammo instead of heat and Machine Gun Arrays are ballistic Medium Lasers that use ammo and less heat is the way forward.

Currently, it's like a small laser if a small laser scattered its damage all over the target instead of actually hitting more accurately than just in the vague direction you're aiming in. If they got rid of the COF and let you actually hit where you're aiming with it, then yeah, I'd say leave the damage alone. Currently, that doesn't appear likely to happen.

Edited by Leafia Barrett, 04 August 2013 - 12:59 PM.

[Warge]

Coralld, on 04 August 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

At the very least their damage needs to go up to 0.2

...with no spread and lesser crit chances.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Nothing wrong with MGs and yes I have played a 4 MG Spider so yes I know what I am talking about.

Just last night I had my Victor totally taken apart by two MG Cicadas. Within about 15 seconds they had stripped every bit of my armor on my arms and took out all my arm mounted weapons. Then they stripped one of my legs and critted the ammo there legging me. Total engagement took maybe 30 seconds and by the time my team actually managed to inflict enough damage to run them off. I was weaponless and hobbled.

I have also had matchs where I have did 600-800 damage with multiple kills in my 4 MG Spider. Don't get me wrong, they are kind of a pain to use at times but there is absolutely nothing wrong with their damage output.

[Warge]

Viktor Drake, on 04 August 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

Just last night I had my Victor totally taken apart by two MG Cicadas.

Only MGs? No LL, no PPC there? Are you sure?

Problem with MG - their crit chances. It's same bad idea as MWO's ECM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Warge, on 04 August 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

Problem with MG - their crit chances. It's same bad idea as MWO's ECM.

False.

First, the critical hit system is not fully implemented. Once Gyros, Engines, Cockpits, etc., can be hit and can have an effect on game play, the critical hit system will fast become very meaningful. Also, should PGI do what they seem to be laying the groundwork for, namely increasing internal structure health, then critical hits become even more of a big deal (the new critical hits leading to actual internal damage suggests that they're prepping for increased internal health).

Second, ECM is a hard counter, and the balances they've put in place for ECM are themselves hard counters. MGs are not hard counters for anything, nor is the critical hit system one involving hard counters of any type. In fact, I wish ECM and electronics more broadly were like MGs and the critical hit system, since that would make them a system of soft counters that offer certain degress of specialization without making any one system entirely cancel any other system. MGs, Flamers, and the LB-10X are not the only things capable of critical hits, they just have increased critical hit damage.

That makes them a specialization (they crit more often and for more relative damage), and not a hard counter. CASE limits the propagation of damage from critical hits blowing your ammo, without removing that damage (the side torso still blows up), making it a soft counter to critical hits rather than a hard one (which the "make CASE work with XLs crowd seems to want to make it).

If ECM increased lock-on times, reduced effective sensor range, and otherwise made enemy electronics work less effectively, and counters to ECM decreased lock-on times, boosted effective sensor range, and otherwise made enemy ECM work less effectively (or friendly missiles or whatever work better), then suddenly you'd have a system of soft counters that all interacted together without any one system making any other system so much dead weight.

[Mcgral18]

If they reduced or removed the cone of fire, I think the MGs could even be considered good, or just acceptable, at 1 DPS per half ton weapon. They would still have the small range and ammo dependency, but no longer would you avoid putting them on a mech unless you had nothing else to add.

When the increased internal HP comes, the crit seeking capabilities might come in handy.

[TheMightyWashburn]

No!

My 5k is the best ******* spider, way better than the ecm one. The thing is crazy

[Tezcatli]

Is the MG supposed to be a dedicated standalone weapon? I've always heard it mentioned as simply an anti-infantry weapon. Not as something for taking out other mechs directly. I think the way we have it is good enough for a weapon that really shouldn't be competing with other anti-mech weapons.

Though we could use something for ballistics closer to AC2 weight without all the ridiculous heat.

[SubRyan]

Tezcatli, on 04 August 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Is the MG supposed to be a dedicated standalone weapon? I've always heard it mentioned as simply an anti-infantry weapon. Not as something for taking out other mechs directly. I think the way we have it is good enough for a weapon that really shouldn't be competing with other anti-mech weapons.

Though we could use something for ballistics closer to AC2 weight without all the ridiculous heat.

Mech-mounted MGs are a stand-alone weapon. MGs that go onto vehicles and in infantry squads are considered support

[Burpitup]

i would like to see an increase in fire rate. that would look cool anyway.

[Shadey99]

Tezcatli, on 04 August 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Is the MG supposed to be a dedicated standalone weapon? I've always heard it mentioned as simply an anti-infantry weapon. Not as something for taking out other mechs directly. I think the way we have it is good enough for a weapon that really shouldn't be competing with other anti-mech weapons.

MGs in TT/P&P have traditionally been minor weapons, roughly equal to small lasers with a focus on anti-infantry use (which btw is a common use for small lasers as well). However, there are several cases of mechs with MGs in multiples that are said to pose a serious threat to other mechs. Most stock machines don't use more than pairs, however I recall a few quads, and the infamous piranha with it's 12 MGs.

However mechs in MWO have double the armor of TT/P&P, which makes MGs far less of a threat even to other lights... At least while you still have armor. Spider 5ks and Cicada C3s are in particularly bad spots, as well as the Phoenix package Locust where at least half their firepower is all in MGs.

Edited by Shadey99, 04 August 2013 - 07:15 PM.

[JimboFBX]

the damage needs to match the tracers. the mg is a beam weapon but the tracers shoot slow enough you think you have to lead

Actual damage is fine, they pair well with energy weapons since they have no heat

[Rengakun]

As long as the MG's ammo per ton is reduced, there's no reason why it can't go beyond 1DPS.