Posted 01 October 2013 - 06:59 AM
I think his stance was pretty clear - do not abide by TT rules just because the real-time game has its roots in a TT game. I see nothing wrong with bending the tradition/canon of a franchise as long as you bend it so that it is appropriate to the new format.
Here's what I mean. Take Aliens: Colonial Marines. Campaign is absolute *****, but the multiplayer is actually pretty decent. What did they do in the campaign? They tried to remain canonical to the xenomorphs' strength and durability, but they did that while creating a game that had gameplay that made you a badass like in Serious Sam. The game isn't scary, or exciting. If they wanted to make a horror game you should have been made much weaker (which a good example is actually the sewer level with the A:CM campaign, where you are disarmed), or they should have tweaked it so that the xenomorphs were much more durable and actually a threat instead of toning down the player, and basically turning it into an action game. Thats one of the reasons the multiplayer is actually pretty decent - its straight-up action.
Now apply that idea to here. Some people are completely opposed to having the MGs by anything but TT rules just because the origin of the MG is in TT (which I'm not afraid to say is completely stupid, imagine if there was a weapon in the videogames that made it to TT, was extremely overpowered, and people refused to change it), and other people are open-minded and willing to change it to suit the needs of the game.
After making some mathematical comparisons, I've got an idea that could improve the MGs viability. No increase to damage, but an increase to effective range to 200m-250m and a max range somewhere from 300m-400m. There's been a lot of comparisons between the MG and the ML, but I started to factor the SL into it as well. After all, the SL and the MG share both the same weight and DPS. However, the MG requires at least one ton extra ton, so whereas you might have, say, 4x SL and 1x ML on a CDA-2B come out to three tons, on a CDA-3C 4x Mg and 1x ML will equal three tons but also require at least one ton of ammo. That makes the SLs and MLs more almost universally more viable than MGs, especially since there's never any guarantee that you'll survive long enough to even use half a ton of ammo. If we had omni-hardpoints on lighter mechs with lots of ballistic hardpoints, you'd see pretty much everybody take MLs or SLs over MGs. I mean, twenty seconds against an enemy mech, what are the odds that one of his buddies show up ten seconds after you start,, forcing anything without heavy armour to back off? In my experience, pretty high. The SL is more practical for weight and the ML is more practical for range if you're using a hit-and-run type mech , which, lets face it, unless you're using a LL/PPC as your primary weapon, hit-and-run will be the most practical playstyle for smaller mechs. Heat is a non-issue if you disengage quickly, so that advantage the MG has is fairly irrelevant unless you happen upon an Atlas with its back turned piloted by somebody unwilling to turn around. Therefore, I figure we need to give the MGs something neither the SL or the ML have, at the premium cost of the added weight. It already has crit seeking, but thats not nearly enough IMO.
I'll admit, I don't know if what I have will work, but I think that my thoughts on approaching the problem is on the right track.
4 MGs + 2 tons ammo = 4 tons total, DPS = 4
4 MLs + 0 tons ammo = 4 tons total, DPS = 5
MGs have the benefit of no heat, which allows for other weapons to be fire (ie the ERLL on my 3xMG CDA-3C), but its range is significantly increased. Just using my experience with that Cicada, I can tell you it is very rarely worth it to go on the offensive with my MGs, a major reason being the range. Just to go on the offensive, you have to make yourself vulnerable. Now which option sounds more appealing:
Option #1: Running towards an enemy 350m away and chugging my MGs and my ERLL at them to score about 11-14 damage in exchange for getting, say, two AC5 shells and two MLs, so roughly 15-25 damage. Thats about enough to tear off any part of a light mech or the Cicada.
Option #2: Sitting back with my ER LL, popping out to trade 9 damage for the ~4-6 damage they'll land on me with their two glancing MLs blows and missed AC5.
The best trade-off over time is clearly sitting back, and charging with MGs as an actual means of damage instead of just having one in the hopes of critting them is ineffective over time, even suicidal often times, yet this and energy sniping are often the only two viable choices for light mechs with ballistic hardpoints. The MG is a very high risk weapon with very little payoff. Imagine if you could only start charging the gauss rifle only if you already had your target in your crosshair, raised the charge time to two and a half seconds, and required constant visual lock. It would leave you very vulnerable.
Boosting the damage to 2 DPS could indeed raise damage, but it would still require you to get very close to the enemy, close enough that you'd be very likely to get a faceful of alpha. However, increase the range to, say, 180m effective range and 360m max range, which is a 50% increasein range to both. Doing this, you introduce a lot more scenarios where you can fight in areas with cover. Even in River City, in the urban sections, how many times are you fighting someone within 120m? It doesn't seem common in any matches I play on that map. Nobody's shy about walking straight up to a Catapult with LRM60 and 1x ML because its relatively defenseless, but people tend to distance themselves between the anything with 4x ML or more. Well with an MG, you are borderline defenseless, since they do pitiful damage with pitiful range. Increasing the damage would help a little, but you still wouldn't be able to hit at effective range or even max range at the range that most engagements seem to take place. Another example, SRMs and SSRMs have an effective and max range of 270m. MGs have a max range of 240m. That means before you can even get in range somebody can take their SSRMs, which home in on targets, and inflict 5 damage before you even get in range to use your MGs. You'd have a difficult time even destroying a Streaktaro with an exposed CT, regardless of whether you're using a Spider-5K or the Phoenix variant Battlemaster.
Ton for ton, the MG doesn't pull enough weight over the likes of the SL or ML to justify its use, in my opinion. I'd imagine that if you polled player satisfaction of the CDA-2A and the CDA-3C, you'd find overall that people are happier with the 2A.
After making some mathematical comparisons, I've got an idea that could improve the MGs viability. No increase to damage, but an increase to effective range to 200m-250m and a max range somewhere from 300m-400m. There's been a lot of comparisons between the MG and the ML, but I started to factor the SL into it as well. After all, the SL and the MG share both the same weight and DPS. However, the MG requires at least one ton extra ton, so whereas you might have, say, 4x SL and 1x ML on a CDA-2B come out to three tons, on a CDA-3C 4x Mg and 1x ML will equal three tons but also require at least one ton of ammo. That makes the SLs and MLs more almost universally more viable than MGs, especially since there's never any guarantee that you'll survive long enough to even use half a ton of ammo. If we had omni-hardpoints on lighter mechs with lots of ballistic hardpoints, you'd see pretty much everybody take MLs or SLs over MGs. I mean, twenty seconds against an enemy mech, what are the odds that one of his buddies show up ten seconds after you start,, forcing anything without heavy armour to back off? In my experience, pretty high. The SL is more practical for weight and the ML is more practical for range if you're using a hit-and-run type mech , which, lets face it, unless you're using a LL/PPC as your primary weapon, hit-and-run will be the most practical playstyle for smaller mechs. Heat is a non-issue if you disengage quickly, so that advantage the MG has is fairly irrelevant unless you happen upon an Atlas with its back turned piloted by somebody unwilling to turn around. Therefore, I figure we need to give the MGs something neither the SL or the ML have, at the premium cost of the added weight. It already has crit seeking, but thats not nearly enough IMO.
I'll admit, I don't know if what I have will work, but I think that my thoughts on approaching the problem is on the right track.
4 MGs + 2 tons ammo = 4 tons total, DPS = 4
4 MLs + 0 tons ammo = 4 tons total, DPS = 5
MGs have the benefit of no heat, which allows for other weapons to be fire (ie the ERLL on my 3xMG CDA-3C), but its range is significantly increased. Just using my experience with that Cicada, I can tell you it is very rarely worth it to go on the offensive with my MGs, a major reason being the range. Just to go on the offensive, you have to make yourself vulnerable. Now which option sounds more appealing:
Option #1: Running towards an enemy 350m away and chugging my MGs and my ERLL at them to score about 11-14 damage in exchange for getting, say, two AC5 shells and two MLs, so roughly 15-25 damage. Thats about enough to tear off any part of a light mech or the Cicada.
Option #2: Sitting back with my ER LL, popping out to trade 9 damage for the ~4-6 damage they'll land on me with their two glancing MLs blows and missed AC5.
The best trade-off over time is clearly sitting back, and charging with MGs as an actual means of damage instead of just having one in the hopes of critting them is ineffective over time, even suicidal often times, yet this and energy sniping are often the only two viable choices for light mechs with ballistic hardpoints. The MG is a very high risk weapon with very little payoff. Imagine if you could only start charging the gauss rifle only if you already had your target in your crosshair, raised the charge time to two and a half seconds, and required constant visual lock. It would leave you very vulnerable.
Boosting the damage to 2 DPS could indeed raise damage, but it would still require you to get very close to the enemy, close enough that you'd be very likely to get a faceful of alpha. However, increase the range to, say, 180m effective range and 360m max range, which is a 50% increasein range to both. Doing this, you introduce a lot more scenarios where you can fight in areas with cover. Even in River City, in the urban sections, how many times are you fighting someone within 120m? It doesn't seem common in any matches I play on that map. Nobody's shy about walking straight up to a Catapult with LRM60 and 1x ML because its relatively defenseless, but people tend to distance themselves between the anything with 4x ML or more. Well with an MG, you are borderline defenseless, since they do pitiful damage with pitiful range. Increasing the damage would help a little, but you still wouldn't be able to hit at effective range or even max range at the range that most engagements seem to take place. Another example, SRMs and SSRMs have an effective and max range of 270m. MGs have a max range of 240m. That means before you can even get in range somebody can take their SSRMs, which home in on targets, and inflict 5 damage before you even get in range to use your MGs. You'd have a difficult time even destroying a Streaktaro with an exposed CT, regardless of whether you're using a Spider-5K or the Phoenix variant Battlemaster.
Ton for ton, the MG doesn't pull enough weight over the likes of the SL or ML to justify its use, in my opinion. I'd imagine that if you polled player satisfaction of the CDA-2A and the CDA-3C, you'd find overall that people are happier with the 2A.
1
Carrioncrows, on 30 September 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:
(Sarcastic comment, disregard if you like).
