27 replies to this topic

[hashinshin]

The 2 weeks that MGs were actually good!

Queue sad montage of MGs getting shred by PPCs, and spiders getting shot while AFK yet somehow avoiding the damage.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

I still didn't try the MG but saw many players get shredded by them. We all know there's something funny w/ hit detection (sad a fix wasn't included in the notes) even on the NGNG podcast they mentioned, "Jenners & Spiders" in particular.

[Mcgral18]

Honestly, MGs are fine a 1 DPS with standard crit %. They still have an added bonus, and will still be better than before that patch.

Give them a try before saying they are OP or UP.

[JohnnyWayne]

Thats simply because MG's were too strong. PPC's are not.

Tbh, I don't think MGs should do damage like this at all. They are anti infrantry weapons... Do you see any infantry ingame? See what I mean?

PPCs and Gauss is too strong. There is no such easy fix to this. Why don't you try to think before you post?... At least try...

Edited by JohnnyWayne, 20 August 2013 - 11:15 AM.

[Murphy7]

JohnnyWayne, on 20 August 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Tbh, I don't think MGs should do damage like this at all. They are anti infrantry weapons... Do you see any infantry ingame? See what I mean?

Well, on that argument shall we also shelve the Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, and the Flamer? Those are also traditional anti-infantry weapons, and without combined arms what's the point?

By the way, I think it would be great fun to have infantry call up as a consumable, have it work kind of like a trap for mechs. Also would welcome mines as consumables as well.

[General Taskeen]

Small Lasers, PPCs and Gauss are anti-infantry weapons. Just cuz.

Off topic, but the bug fixes listed in this patch are definitely good.

[JohnnyWayne]

Murphy7, on 20 August 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

Well, on that argument shall we also shelve the Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, and the Flamer? Those are also traditional anti-infantry weapons, and without combined arms what's the point?

I thought we already did?

Infantry might be in some day as NPC's.... Mines? Moar Battlefield anyone? What are you? A Liao? Srsly... Wishing for mech Claymores...

[Murphy7]

JohnnyWayne, on 20 August 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

I thought we already did?

Infantry might be in some day as NPC's.... Mines? Moar Battlefield anyone? What are you? A Liao? Srsly... Wishing for mech Claymores...

There were rules for Mines in CityTech, I believe. Pretty fun, since they had a weight rating, such that mines that would go off to get light targets could be set off at a distance by heavier targets moving close, and mines meant for heavy targets would not go off with lighter targets directly on top of them. Fun stuff, and could be interesting in our current game, if limited and costly like our other module-consumables.

Thunder munitions did something similar but allowed mechs to use LRMs to "mine" areas on the map. Not as keen on these, as it would make it too easy to profligately mine areas, I could easily see that become too broken, too quickly.

[JohnnyWayne]

I don't know... I already dislike lrms you know...^^ I prefer it when damage is depending more on personal skill, than on weapon ki (think of it - how meany mines wouldn't set of?) and indirect damage...

[Joseph Mallan]

Mcgral18, on 20 August 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Honestly, MGs are fine a 1 DPS with standard crit %. They still have an added bonus, and will still be better than before that patch.

Give them a try before saying they are OP or UP.

1 DPS... So on a Jager We can carry 6 for 6 DpS Or 60 DpS in 10 seconds... BUT A Jager 40 is OP???

2.5 tons of weapon throwing as much DpS as a 14 ton weapon!!!

Congratulations you just made the Pirahna the next OP Build

12 MG 12DpS for 3 tons of weapons.
120 Damage in 10 seconds and no heat! Bravo

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 20 August 2013 - 11:49 AM.

[TOGSolid]

JohnnyWayne, on 20 August 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Tbh, I don't think MGs should do damage like this at all. They are anti infrantry weapons... Do you see any infantry ingame? See what I mean?

Except they aren't and anyone who is still spouting this inane, factually incorrect garbage needs to go swallow a bag of tacks.

Quote

1 DPS... So on a Jager We can carry 6 for 6 DpS Or 60 DpS in 10 seconds... BUT A Jager 40 is OP???

That's 60 damage in ten seconds of successfully aiming at the exact same spot without deviation at point blank range since the spread on them dictates you being in their face.

Versus 80 damage (with two seconds of reload time left over) from twin AC/20s in an easy to aim package that doesn't require you to hump the target's leg or keep facing them the whole time.

The math and logic here isn't terribly hard yanno.

Edited by TOGSolid, 20 August 2013 - 11:44 AM.

[JohnnyWayne]

Prove me wrong. Sarna says they are and are still to some degree efficient against mechs. Whats your source?

[TOGSolid]

JohnnyWayne, on 20 August 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

Prove me wrong. Sarna says they are and are still to some degree efficient against mechs. Whats your source?

The fact that they do the same damage as an AC/2 to a mech? I figured that would be enough to keep people from continually spouting the "hurr durr they're only meant for anti-infantry they shouldn't be any good" crap.

[JohnnyWayne]

Yeah over 10 seconds. TT balance that is. Your words crap are. So TT balance sometimes is (see clans).

I might add, that the current MG was WAY more stronger than the ac2 you compared them with, especially on lights. Someone actually calulated about 2-3 dmg per second for a 0.5 ton weapon without CD.

And to be honest, I'm way more concerned about the absence of the hardcore mode choice right now.

Edited by JohnnyWayne, 20 August 2013 - 11:53 AM.

[TOGSolid]

JohnnyWayne, on 20 August 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Yeah over 10 seconds. TT balance that is. Your words crap are. So TT balance  sometimes is (see clans).

I might add, that the current MG was WAY more stronger than the ac2 you compared them with, especially on lights. Someone actually calulated about 2-3 dmg per second for a 0.5 ton weapon without CD.

Your internal logic and railjumping thought pattern is frightening to behold.

I'm not arguing that the MGs were OP or not OP, mearly pointing out that the argument that they should only really be great for anti-infantry work is ******* ********.

Edited by TOGSolid, 20 August 2013 - 11:55 AM.

[Murphy7]

TOGSolid, on 20 August 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

The fact that they do the same damage as an AC/2 to a mech? I figured that would be enough to keep people from continually spouting the "hurr durr they're only meant for anti-infantry they shouldn't be any good" crap.

It's not "hurr/durr", its part of the fluff of the game that was poorly implemented even in the TT ruleset. Machineguns as anti-mech weapons were terrible, and most games where people were modifying their mechs, the first thing that would likely go would be the machineguns and the ammo in favor of more armor or heat sinks.

Consider for example the plethora of hardpoints people will be receiving on the Project Pheonix mechs "Thunderbolt" and "Battlemaster". Two ballistic slots in the left arm for each mech because it carried weapons that in the descriptive text had to do with anti-infantry applications, but in our metagame will likely become Autocannon and Gauss Rifles relatively quickly.

I didn't feel like the machine guns were particularly powerful given their very short range and poor armor penetration. They did seem to excel at making sure a player's shot with the machine guns might be that last shot for the important-to-some kill counter.

[Joseph Mallan]

TOGSolid, on 20 August 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

Except they aren't and anyone who is still spouting this inane, factually incorrect garbage needs to go swallow a bag of tacks.


That's 60 damage in ten seconds of successfully aiming at the exact same spot without deviation at point blank range since the spread on them dictates you being in their face.

Versus 80 damage (with two seconds of reload time left over) from twin AC/20s in an easy to aim package that doesn't require you to hump the target's leg or keep facing them the whole time.

The math and logic here isn't terribly hard yanno.

You ever see what a sand blaster can do? An AC20 is SUPPOSED TO BE THE HEAVY HITTER! several MG even being close to it is as stupid as it gets! Wanna compare it to somethig more accurate... LRM20 10 tons of Scatter damage 4.63 DpS OR 5 MGs 2.5 tons of weapons 5 DpS. Still calling BS Sir.

[JohnnyWayne]

It's not. I say, TT values are ********. If mg would do the same damage as ac2, what ******* logic would be behind using it anyways? Exploding rounds do the same damage as an mg? ...
If you see the situation in a bigger picture logic says that TT values are wrong and the discription confirms it.

[TOGSolid]

Quote

It's not "hurr/durr", its part of the fluff of the game that was poorly implemented even in the TT ruleset. Machineguns as anti-mech weapons were terrible, and most games where people were modifying their mechs, the first thing that would likely go would be the machineguns and the ammo in favor of more armor or heat sinks.

That's because it's better to spend that tonnage on making your build a more coherent platform than to have splashed in "just in case" weapons. Why bring MGs when you could just make yourself better at whatever is you do?

It's the same thing here really and has far more to do with basic min/maxing theory than it does with these weapons being good or not. You're confusing the issues.

Quote

It's not. I say, TT values are ********. If mg would do the same damage as ac2, what ******* logic would be behind using it anyways? Exploding rounds do the same damage as an mg? ...
If you see the situation in a bigger picture logic says that TT values are wrong and the discription confirms it.

Calm down bro, your already tenuous grasp on the English language is getting even worse. Did I say I wanted MGs to equal AC/2s? Nope. Just that that's what they were in TT so arguing that they should be garbage weapons is silly. It's as very simple statement that doesn't mean all this crap you're injecting into it.

Regarding my first post: I was pointing out how ******* stupid your logic and math was. That's it. I have not stated whether I believe MGs were OP or not. At all. That's all on your end skippy.

Edited by TOGSolid, 20 August 2013 - 12:06 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

JohnnyWayne, on 20 August 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

It's not. I say, TT values are ********. If mg would do the same damage as ac2, what ******* logic would be behind using it anyways? Exploding rounds do the same damage as an mg? ...
If you see the situation in a bigger picture logic says that TT values are wrong and the discription confirms it.

TT Value was stupid... But until the game got Hardened Armor the devs hadn't thought of splitting a bubble of armor in half! A MG should have been doing 1/2 a point of armor damage or 1 at most. Making it equal to a 6 ton weapon was idiotic!

If they are giving the MG the same DpS as a Small Laser, Give it a Laser's Burst duration and a 2.25cool down. So that it is equal to its 0.5 ton counter part.