65 replies to this topic

[Bruce13F4O]

After the last Patch I'm trying to figure out why machine guns needed to do more damage per second. I'm seeing alot of mechs that are swapping out larger balistic weapons for machine guns for brawling. I'm sure that wasnt the intent when the damage was increased.

Edited by Bruce13F4O, 15 September 2013 - 04:55 PM.

[Wolfways]

They do very little damage to armour, but rip the {Scrap} out of any unarmoured section. They are basically made for brawling (well with the short range they always were).

[Ralgas]

Well they could be doing the same dps to both armor and internals as the ac2 if they moved closer to their tt translations, would you prefer that?

[Devils Advocate]

Didn't the last patch drop their DPS to internals by 70%? Are we talking about two patches ago?

[TexAce]

Admit it, some lucky cicada critted the {Scrap} out of your Atlas' CT today.

Edited by TexAss, 15 September 2013 - 05:20 PM.

[101011]

Yeah, MG's were nerfed, not buffed. Back in CB (I think) I compared MG's to SL's in a thread (but I don't care enough to find it in the archives), and they underperformed in nearly every aspect, and didn't even crit all that often, so they did need the buff.

[hashinshin]

MGs are practically unusable right now. They're only useful if boated, and not that useful when boated.

Honestly I think PGI should just scrap the entire concept and just bring in Light Rifles and restat them to be a 1 ton ballistic weapon.

[Lil Cthulhu]

NB4 anti-infantry weapon.

In all seriousness though, each one of the bullets the machine gun fires weighs 20 pounds. If you let someone with machine guns get that close into you, you should pay for it.

Edited by Lil Cthulhu, 15 September 2013 - 05:39 PM.

[Bruce13F4O]

Honestly, after giving it some thought, I'd just be happy if they jammed. The A/C5 Ultra Jams if you fire it constantly, and it's rate of fire is pretty extreme for a cannon that large. This would still allow people to use it, but might add some realism to it. It does use a mechanism to fire like every other balistic weapon. So I dont see why it couldnt jam, then people wouldnt rely soley on it. Like having a Jager with 6 Machine Guns. No matter how much damage it does.

Basically my point is theres no penalty for constant fire, no heat, and one ton of ammo is 2000 rds. Sure it doesnt do alot of damage by itself but every other weapon has some kind of penalty. Whats the point of having all of these other weapons if other players want the Machine gun to be better. Also as far as the game goes, if people are starting to trade in they're Expensive weapons for inexpensive weapons, thats a bad trend. Unless your a Machine gun fan.

Edited by Bruce13F4O, 15 September 2013 - 05:57 PM.

[Felio]

If you load up on machine guns, you are pretty much just a target dummy until other players have crippled the enemy's mechs, at which point victory is assured anyway.

The whole idea of a low-damage, crit-seeking weapon needs to be tossed. I appreciate that they wanted to add an element of strategy, but it doesn't work in practice.

[DocBach]

Being primarily a medium 'mech driver, the massive MG boat Jagers scare the {Scrap} out of me. They chew through you quick, even when you've got armor because mediums can't really carry too much to begin with. Once they get through your armor they kill you almost instantly.

I think they do a bit too much for a weapon that weighs half a ton - three tons of MG's does more DPS than a 14 ton AC/20 for no heat and a chance for more damage with criticals.

Edited by DocBach, 15 September 2013 - 06:19 PM.

[Lynx7725]

Felio, on 15 September 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

If you load up on machine guns, you are pretty much just a target dummy until other players have crippled the enemy's mechs, at which point victory is assured anyway.

The whole idea of a low-damage, crit-seeking weapon needs to be tossed. I appreciate that they wanted to add an element of strategy, but it doesn't work in practice.

I never understood the fascination with MGs that this forum seem to have. It's an anti-infantry weapon. I'm not fighting infantry. In lore and on TT, the MG was never a big deal weapon unless you boat to extremes. There's no good reason for it to have any meaningful damage in a mech-on-mech game -- if there's mech-vs-infantry or mech-vs-vehicles there might be.

[Gregory Owen]

his account is less than a month old. the only change to machine guns he's seen is a small nerf.

[Shifty Eyes]

To the OP, I've been trying out a 4x MG cicada 3C for a while with only marginal success. MG's are still underpowered and pretty useless, especially after the last nerf.

Lynx7725, on 15 September 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

I never understood the fascination with MGs that this forum seem to have. It's an anti-infantry weapon. I'm not fighting infantry. In lore and on TT, the MG was never a big deal weapon unless you boat to extremes. There's no good reason for it to have any meaningful damage in a mech-on-mech game -- if there's mech-vs-infantry or mech-vs-vehicles there might be.

There isn't any infantry in MWO, and there aren't any tanks. I don't think PGI plans on adding either one (although it would be awesome if they did, even just AI). So the whole "anti-infantry" argument is pretty stupid to me. If the weapon is in the game, and the game only has mechs, it should be effective against mechs.

I know a lot of weapons, not just the MG, are pretty ineffective right now, but people need to stop writing the MG off as "anti-infantry". Besides, since when does PGI religiously take lore into account?

[Deathlike]

Shifty Eyes, on 15 September 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

I know a lot of weapons, not just the MG, are pretty ineffective right now, but people need to stop writing the MG off as "anti-infantry". Besides, since when does PGI religiously take lore into account?

It is solely used for the purposes of "balance", regardless of logic.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 15 September 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

It is solely used for the purposes of "balance", regardless of logic.

They also use it for scaling mechs (they confirmed this in the Bryan interviews on NGNG).

[Lynx7725]

Shifty Eyes, on 15 September 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

There isn't any infantry in MWO, and there aren't any tanks. I don't think PGI plans on adding either one (although it would be awesome if they did, even just AI). So the whole "anti-infantry" argument is pretty stupid to me. If the weapon is in the game, and the game only has mechs, it should be effective against mechs.

I know a lot of weapons, not just the MG, are pretty ineffective right now, but people need to stop writing the MG off as "anti-infantry". Besides, since when does PGI religiously take lore into account?

PGI does take lore into account. Just not religiously. They have to, otherwise this would become yet another shooter, just with stompy robot. They also have to change things to reinterpret for a real time shooter, but that's part of the process and it doesn't mean they throw lore out the window.

MG was included in TT because it was envisioned to be a whole ecosystem. PGI had stated it wanted to incorporate at least vehicles (NPC; players are strictly mechwarrior), but as with any software development, Want is Not Get. We might or might not see it, and frankly even on TT, if you get down to the nuts and bolts, tanks are actually more efficient than mechs. So I'm not waiting in eagerness to get armour swamped.

MG was never intended to be anti-mech. I don't have an issue with the current implementation since my understanding of the situation both lore and implementation is that it isn't supposed to be anti-mech. I also don't have an issue if PGI wants it to become anti-mech, but then they'd have to scrub the entire current setup and redo.

[Ralgas]

Lynx7725, on 15 September 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

I never understood the fascination with MGs that this forum seem to have. It's an anti-infantry weapon. I'm not fighting infantry. In lore and on TT, the MG was never a big deal weapon unless you boat to extremes. There's no good reason for it to have any meaningful damage in a mech-on-mech game -- if there's mech-vs-infantry or mech-vs-vehicles there might be.

Reread your rules, (specifically the stat line not the description)it's an anti-mech weapon with vs inf bonuses. also see any mechwarrior that wasn't hardpoint restricted, they used to pwn on extremely fast/durable mechs

Edited by Ralgas, 15 September 2013 - 07:00 PM.

[Lynx7725]

Ralgas, on 15 September 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

Reread your rules, (specifically the stat line not the description)it's an anti-mech weapon with vs inf bonuses. also see any mechwarrior that wasn't hardpoint restricted, they used to pwn on extremely fast/durable mechs

Like I said, it was only good when boated extremely. I know my rules, thanks very much; I probably gamed with it longer than most. I also know most TT designs don't bother with MG if it's meant for a mech-vs-mech situation.

[SmurfOff]

The reason MG's are broken is due to the way PGI believes the game should be played. In TT, no one mounted MG's because most of the combat was at range, and a 3 hex weapon wasn't very useful. In MWO, the game is being heavily tilted into the "brawl" mentality, which is killing the game and driving every mech build to the "Flavor of the Month".

They gave us alpine to give us a sense of ranged combat, and then immediately nerfed all the ranged weapons so people can "brawl".

If it wasn't for the constant nerf hammers, no one would know what the MG damage was.