171 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

And here are the new post-patch values:

no crit: 48% chance, 0.1 damage to IS (0.48/s), 0 damage to IC
single crit: 31% chance, 0.235 damage to IS (0.7285/s), 0.9 damage to IC
double crit: 17% chance, 0.47 damage to IS (0.799/s), 1.8 damage to IC
triple crit: 4% chance, 0.705 damage to IS (0.282/s), 2.7 damage to IC

Summing up:
1 DPS vs armour
2.2898 DPS vs internal structure
6.93 DPS vs internal components

[Koniving]

Not as "overpowered," but now I might need 2 MGs instead of 1 to deal with spiders. Sadly the RS can't carry 2. Damn it -- Quick! Bring me another insane RS pilot who wants to do awesome with tiny weapons and never overheat! We'll double our firepower to make up for the itsy bitsy MG nerf (and damn it, I called that nerf! I said it'd happen.)

[Bishop Steiner]

MaxKarnage, on 20 August 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

About time MGs got nerfed, I was sick of seeing all those OP 6xMG Jagermechs mowing everything down.

If you were losing to a mech that had to be within 250 meters of you AND hitting exposed internals to do ANYTHING, you need to go back to playing MechAssault, because they will never be able to nerf this game enough to make you a good player.

Here's a thought...... DON'T let them facehug you?

stjobe, on 20 August 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

And here are the new post-patch values:

no crit: 48% chance, 0.1 damage to IS (0.48/s), 0 damage to IC
single crit: 31% chance, 0.235 damage to IS (0.7285/s), 0.9 damage to IC
double crit: 17% chance, 0.47 damage to IS (0.799/s), 1.8 damage to IC
triple crit: 4% chance, 0.705 damage to IS (0.282/s), 2.7 damage to IC

Summing up:
1 DPS vs armour
2.2898 DPS vs internal structure
6.93 DPS vs internal components

OK< math not my strong point. Back to useless?
(since funnily enough, it wasn't the MG that was OP< but the impervious to damage Spiders carrying them, which I will bet are STILL impervious to damage. )

[Koniving]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 August 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

a mech that had to be within 250 meters

Thought it was 120? There is no damage beyond at 121 meters in any tests I've done. 120 meter limit.

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 August 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

OK< math not my strong point. Back to useless?

Too early to say, give me a few drops after the patch and I'll tell you.

On the face of it though, it doesn't look too bad; they still do about 9 DPS vs IS in a quad build.

[Jaynestown]

Sephlock, on 17 August 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

While we're talking about Battletech being ridiculous, in general, can we discuss how these rustic looking farmers are using a robot crab to load crops into a blimp?

Edited by Jaynestown, 20 August 2013 - 09:52 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Koniving, on 20 August 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

Thought it was 120? There is no damage beyond at 121 meters in any tests I've done. 120 meter limit.

IDK after this patch. They upped the range awhile back, and I was scoring hits and damage to 250 in game.

Well, smurfy says 240, actually.

[Koniving]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 August 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

IDK after this patch. They upped the range awhile back, and I was scoring hits and damage to 250 in game.

Well, smurfy says 240, actually.

Curious. Might explain the nerfs then. I haven't genuinely tested or tried shooting beyond 120 since the patch first went in setting it there. Once I learned "121 and it's wasted" I stopped shooting beyond 120.

Edited by Koniving, 20 August 2013 - 09:56 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

naw. Just reinforces that PGI continues to be reactionary and listening to the wrong people. Working as INtended

[Mudhutwarrior]

A 50BMG round can do serious damage with proper shot placement against armor though as it was pointed out the MG here is more likea 20mm round. Either will penatrate armor easisly. I am fine with it except for the fact at the rate of fire and number of rounds carried barrells will be bad in short order. They should suffer a rapid degrade after a 1000 rounds of continuous fire like in real life. In use as they are is unrealistic as the MG is as effective at the start as in the end. AC2 likewise and it should be factored in less it become more of the jaeger weapon of choice. They should start to fail quickly if not fired in bursts. Of course this is common sense so don't expect PGI to apply it.

[stjobe]

Koniving, on 20 August 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

Curious. Might explain the nerfs then. I haven't genuinely tested or tried shooting beyond 120 since the patch first went in setting it there. Once I learned "121 and it's wasted" I stopped shooting beyond 120.

IIRC, it used to be 90 with a drop-off to zero at 120. Then they buffed it to 120 with a drop-off to zero at 240.

[Koniving]

Jaynestown, on 20 August 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

While we're talking about Battletech being ridiculous, in general, can we discuss how these rustic looking farmers are using a robot crab to load crops into a blimp?

What amazes me is how the universe is best described as that of Firefly the series. Some high tech. Mostly rustic.

Mechs are generations old and rehashed, restored, etc., which actually explains why the computer systems and such are so awful. Everything's old, used, restored occasionally, and most people fall into debt trying to maintain them.

That Harvester Ant is probably covered in rust, more than 70 years old, and is a culmination of patchwork. It's also running a combustion engine that's admittedly larger than your average lawn mower.

Of course.. Without repair and rearm we're running around in the most advanced Star League tech possible before the collapse and 500+ years of wars.

[-Natural Selection-]

Seen this coming lol. Figured after 3 friends and I plowed a Dev with the DDs it would not be long before they were toned down. However I wonder how many noticed that we have been running in a group of 4 to make it really leathal. Running by yourself you do ok, actually just about how you would think it should do. But we will see how it works now.. We have been working on the next stupid build just in case this happened.

[Koniving]

Mudhutwarrior, on 20 August 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

A 50BMG round can do serious damage with proper shot placement against armor though as it was pointed out the MG here is more likea 20mm round. Either will penatrate armor easisly. I am fine with it except for the fact at the rate of fire and number of rounds carried barrells will be bad in short order. They should suffer a rapid degrade after a 1000 rounds of continuous fire like in real life. In use as they are is unrealistic as the MG is as effective at the start as in the end. AC2 likewise and it should be factored in less it become more of the jaeger weapon of choice. They should start to fail quickly if not fired in bursts. Of course this is common sense so don't expect PGI to apply it.

If PGI was capable of common sense we'd have a capacity hardset between 30 and 45 and never need the ghost heat system.

My latest rig has a capacity of 90. Worse... it's using 60 standard heatsinks, and has a cooling rate of 6/second. My twin ER PPCs are cold before I fire again on Alpine or when standing in the water on Forest Colony in 80ish degrees Fahrenheit. Yay heat neutrality! In yo' face, Paul!

Anyway... I can kind of agree with your statement here. But the same should also be said for autocannons. Pinpoint at the start and as you build up heat lose accuracy. However this is never going to happen.

Edited by Koniving, 20 August 2013 - 10:06 AM.

[JayKay17]

Caelroigh Blunt, on 17 August 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

I will say it once again: Machineguns should NOT be able to damage BattleMechs. Look (once again) at the real world: Not even a fifty caliber machinegun can do more than scratch the paint of an Abrams tank. How is it possible in ANY universe to make a machinegun a viable weapon against reactive armor plate? Okay, machinegun ammo is better, faster, stronger, more potent in the 31st century. SO IS ARMOR. It's not right and it should be changed.

Oh my, this is a game and has only incidental resemblance to reality. In the real world a single shot, with a heavy anti tank weapon (like the main gun on tanks) will put out a armored vehicle for good. And with all this computer aided aiming it won't miss anything inside of two kilometers, if it hasn't any cover. But would this be fun, no it wouldn't. So don't talk about reality, take the game as it is and hope that it will be balanced - thats also not reality - and just have fun and don't forget, there are others that want to have fun, too.

[Trauglodyte]

Caelroigh Blunt, on 17 August 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

I will say it once again: Machineguns should NOT be able to damage BattleMechs. Look (once again) at the real world: Not even a fifty caliber machinegun can do more than scratch the paint of an Abrams tank. How is it possible in ANY universe to make a machinegun a viable weapon against reactive armor plate? Okay, machinegun ammo is better, faster, stronger, more potent in the 31st century. SO IS ARMOR. It's not right and it should be changed.

Its a good thing that you feel that way seeing as the crit chance and damage multiplier both got nerfed in today's patch. QQ about something else.

[-Natural Selection-]

Thinking about it.. You know the biggest issue with the game are the people complaining about weapon ballance. As I said, I built my DD with 6mgs and 2 eneergy weapons a couple days after Jags came out. Ran that build every since due to stupid/fun factor. Though it would do well if played right. But then 3 guys in my group though it was funny and decided to run in a group of 4 of um. We did this for about a week, annnnd then they came out of the woodwork. Annnd then the mg post started coming out.

We did the same thing with 4 Jenners with 6spl and actually will take a guy down just as fast. Pretty much if you build 4 of ANY mech with the same loadout, communicate and focus fore you will have same results. We have done it with most weapons with same results. But it will only be noticed what killed um and the nerfs a coming weee

Theres really an easy fix to all of this, but it has been said. If its done a certain way, it will be sad day. But not going to say, I want to see how it all pans out.

[Grandmaster Ramrod]

Caelroigh Blunt, on 17 August 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

I will say it once again: Machineguns should NOT be able to damage BattleMechs. Look (once again) at the real world: Not even a fifty caliber machinegun can do more than scratch the paint of an Abrams tank. How is it possible in ANY universe to make a machinegun a viable weapon against reactive armor plate? Okay, machinegun ammo is better, faster, stronger, more potent in the 31st century. SO IS ARMOR. It's not right and it should be changed.

Reading this, I think you believe the MGs in MWO to be of similiar size to this:



When in reality, they would be far closer to this:




MASSIVE

[Rippthrough]

Dozier, on 20 August 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

We did the same thing with 4 Jenners with 6spl and actually will take a guy down just as fast.

Me and wispsy one shot a load of devs + their team from behind with a pair of those on alpine after running all the way around the map to get behind them.
There were 3 mechs tumbling down the hill in ruins before they cottoned on.

I often wonder if that game is why siesmic is so OP these days...

It makes me laugh that people complain about a few guys running around them for 30 seconds with MG Spiders, yet are completely fine with a pair of Jenners one-shot killing them from the rear.

Edited by Rippthrough, 20 August 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

Rippthrough, on 20 August 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

It makes me laugh that people complain about a few guys running around them for 30 seconds with MG Spiders, yet are completely fine with a pair of Jenners one-shot killing them from the rear.

I hate Jenners but I'd rather get taken down by a Jenner as opposed to a Spider. Hell, I'll throw a party if it's a Jenner. Just something wrong with getting eaten by a couple HSR/hit box exploiting terds literally "ping ping"ing you to death. Like a bunch of cartoon mexican jumping beans paper cutting you - annoying!

Edited by Trauglodyte, 20 August 2013 - 10:46 AM.