127 replies to this topic

[Greyboots]

Troutmonkey, on 01 December 2013 - 01:53 AM, said:

Recently I went back to my Cicada 3C, which has no choice except to mount multiple machine guns,

This right here lost me.

The 3C comes standard with a PPC and 2 Machine Guns (8 tons). Which is an AC2 and 2 tons of ammo.

It also comes standard with an STD 280 engine that, when swapped for an XL 280, returns 8 tons. Which is a second AC2, another ton of ammo and a Medium Laser (or a large laser, and some combination of AC2 ammo and heat sinks).

Then you can put in Double Heat Sinks and nearly double your heat dissipation to run it all. Which leaves space for Endosteel for more ammo or more heat sinks, perhaps a larger motor, etc.

Of course this is a rather expensive proposition. Still the Cicada 3C has a LOT more choices than 3 machineguns, it's only you that doesn't.

Quote

and found them to be completely dissapointing. I was getting decent damage, but only because of the LL I also equipped. In a recent game I spent over 2000 rounds and 2 minutes trying to kill one ©hampion ATLAS, and just couldn't do it, even though the pilot was almost oblivious to my presense and no one else interrupted for the whole two minutes (when I was eventually killed by 5 of his team mates).

The comments are NOT intended to imply that you don't know any of what I'm saying:

Comment number one:

Machine Guns do 1 DPS which is actually quite high for their weight. However, they hit a random location on the targeted mech. Have you ever seen 4 MG spiders riding a mech's butt? This is why. You need to be up VERY close to reliably hit any location.

Comment 2:

Machine Guns are absolutely TERRIBLE at getting through armour. Once armour is breached however, they do a LARGE number fo hits and a LARGE number of crits. They aren't killing weapons, they are disabling weapons (unless you are shooting a mech with an ammo-holding location which has no armour left.

Comment 3:

This is exactly how Machine Guns are supposed to work.

Summary:

Machine guns are GREAT weapons when used for what they are good at and poor at any other time. There is nothing "wrong" with machine guns except that people keep expecting them to function beyond the reaches of the .5 tons you pay for them.

IF they were to have anything added? I'd like to be able to shoot down LRMs with them but I don't really think they need anything added.

[Scratx]

stjobe, on 01 December 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

The difference is 1 DPS.

MGs do
1 DPS to armour
2 DPS to internal structure, and
somewhere around 7 DPS to internal components (but that won't kill anyone).

So going from don't-expect-them-to-tear-anything-up at 1 DPS to tearing-them-a-new-one at 2 DPS, is it? With continuous-fire mechanic and spread both making the actual DPS way less than that theoretical max?

MGs are only "fine" when mounted six by six on Jagers, they are very much "in need of a small buff" when mounted in quads on e.g. a Spider or a Locust, and "a waste of tonnage" when mounted in singles, pairs or triples on anything.

So if I have 4 MGs and a ton of ammo, I can get 4 DPS vs armor, 8 DPS vs structure. For.... 3 tons. An AC/2 has the same DPS and you can't have it for less than 7 tons (6t for gun, 1t ammo).

Seems fair to me when you take into consideration how heavy an AC2 is compared to even 4 machineguns.....

[stjobe]

Scratx, on 01 December 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

So if I have 4 MGs and a ton of ammo, I can get 4 DPS vs armor, 8 DPS vs structure. For.... 3 tons. An AC/2 has the same DPS and you can't have it for less than 7 tons (6t for gun, 1t ammo).

Seems fair to me when you take into consideration how heavy an AC2 is compared to even 4 machineguns.....

An AC/2 also has almost 10 times the range (6 times the effective range, 9 times the max range). At the effective range of the MG, 120m, its spread covers a Commando from head to toe. An AC/2 is pin-point accurate at that range - and at 740m+, whereas the MG does zero damage already at 240m.

If the MG was a severely range-restricted AC/2, you'd have a point with your tonnage-comparison, but it isn't. It's a 1 DPS weapon with a continuous-fire mechanic and inherent spread that makes those 1 DPS hit all over the target (if it doesn't miss the target outright).

[Khobai]

Machine guns are actually very good for their tonnage. The problem is you need to boat at least 3 of them for them to be effective and that takes up 3 ballistic slots.

What we need are machine gun arrays, so you can have 3 machine guns in one ballistic hardpoint, at the cost of extra tonnage.

[Asmudius Heng]

MustrumRidcully, on 01 December 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

Crits now also increase structural damage, and MGs have a higher crit chance than other weapons, so they already do more damage against structure than against armor.

Did not realise been out of MWO for a while - its probably not too bad then will give them another go

[Koniving]

Thorqemada, on 01 December 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

"Two things will always keep the MG sub-par:
* Constant-fire mechanic
* Projectile spread"

MGs are "Hitscan" according to the Devs - that means they work like Lasers and the visual are fluff, you can perfectly mix them with Lasers.
Simply aim directly at your target and ignore the delay of the bulletstream!

PS: "Quotes" no longer work for me - what is up with that?

While true, the "spread" is from a cone of accuracy. MGs are the only weapon that receives them and there are multiple instances when PGI Devs mention "machine guns" and "too powerful." o.o; What is this dribble? It's only 500% more powerful than TT in a 10 second timeslice against twice as much armor (so 250%).

...But then you look at the other weapons. AC/2 can deal 38 damage within 10 seconds. That's 1,900% more than it can in TT, against twice as much armor so 950% more. As we go down the line, there are many instances like this. So I do not see why PGI would use the term "too powerful."

Now for an MG and a small laser to compete on fair grounds, an MG would need a 0.75 second long 'burst' to deal a full 3 damage followed by a 2.25 second 'reload'. Then it'd need heat...and bleh. I'd rather it lose the cone of accuracy. Otherwise it won't feel like a machine gun, and oddly have the mechanics of a burst-fire autocannon.

As Stjobe said earlier, what we could really use is more of the instant damage weapons (ACs, UACs) to do burst damage or constant damage over time, as the game has far too many 'click and forget instant damage' weapons.

[Amsro]

Machine Gun = AC/2 with NO heat and NO range (90 meters).

Its never even been remotely tried, instead its a shoehorned crit weapon that is situational at best.

I still use them for trolling! Remove the cone of fire AT LEAST!

[Leroifou]

I think it's fine for what it is. What is really needed is a Heavy MG weighing in at 1T or 1.5T, essentially something equivalent to a medium laser. That would give the multiple ballistic Light platforms better options.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Quote

Machine Gun Is A Bit Weak

No...they are fine for the most part.

Working as intended.

[Deathlike]

I've tried running MGs in the Shadowhawk-2H, and it doesn't feel as useful as it should. You need to commit to at least 2 MGs in terms of the labbing to at least attempt to make it good... but the crit damage is meh since the MG crit nerf that followed the crit translation to more internal damage buff.

MG boating is kinda necessary and required by design. If using one MG was actually good, boating them would make them OP... which is certainly not the case at this point.

Right now, it's just slightly underpowered... and I'd rather have the MG do more upfront damage in bursts than the "Tickle Me Elmo" style of damage.

[Koniving]

Amsro, on 01 December 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Machine Gun = AC/2 with NO heat and NO range (90 meters).

Its never even been remotely tried, instead its a shoehorned crit weapon that is situational at best.

More accurate to say MG = AC/0.5 with no heat and no range if comparing it to an AC/2 in MWO. An AC/2 used to deal 4 damage every time an MG did 1 damage. AC/2 got dimmed down a tad but not enough to really make a distinction.

As for tried.. I run them all the time on many rigs. This is my favorite video, however, as it has me from someone else's view. Using many "awful" weapns, in an XL, on a Hunchback. 7 kills, 711 damage. Yes, some were taken but kills is never a good indication of a unit's performance anyway.

Edit: Vid kept doing a broken link for some reason.

Score from my screen.

Spoiler

Edited by Koniving, 01 December 2013 - 04:19 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I'd really like MG's to work like the other ballistic weapons and be more useful overall.

They don't really need to be full auto or hit scan, and matching AC/2 rate of fire should be fast enough, combined with low damage and a short cooldown to keep DPS at 1.00.

MG's probably need to lose or reduce their current Crit seeking values, but I'd really like to be able to test out some changes for them such as this, for example:

• Keep the current range (120-240M) or reduce back to 90-180M (whatever works best really)
  
• DMG: 0.50
  
• Cooldown: 0.50
  
• DPS: 1.00
  
• Projectile Speed: 900 to 1000
  
• Ammo: 300 (150 damage a ton) - can be raised as needed, but potential damage matches other ballistics at least
  
• Ammo Explosion Dmg: 0.50 a round (total 150 damage on a full ton)

These sort of changes would make MGs more like weapon in the video:



And it would also be nice to remove the high muzzle flare they have in-game too.

[Troutmonkey]

Koniving, on 01 December 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

More accurate to say MG = AC/0.5 with no heat and no range if comparing it to an AC/2 in MWO. An AC/2 used to deal 4 damage every time an MG did 1 damage. AC/2 got dimmed down a tad but not enough to really make a distinction.

As for tried.. I run them all the time on many rigs. This is my favorite video, however, as it has me from someone else's view. Using many "awful" weapns, in an XL, on a Hunchback. 7 kills, 711 damage. Yes, some were taken but kills is never a good indication of a unit's performance anyway.

1. Premade
2. MG barely contributed to that damage. Looked like some bigger cannons + lasers at play there
3. Cherry Picking

Edited by Troutmonkey, 01 December 2013 - 09:02 PM.

[Koniving]

Troutmonkey, on 01 December 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

1. Premade
2. MG barely contributed to that damage. Looked like some bigger cannons + lasers at play there
3. Cherry Picking

1. Premade of 1 other person (the camera man). The one voice is just talking with us and the other voice is in World of Tanks. (You didn't notice the complaints about enemy tanks? And artillery that is killing people from back then? Definitely isn't talking about MWO there). The camera man is in a Commando.
2. MGs, LB-10x, 3 SPLs. The "3rd, 4th, and 6th worst guns in the game."
3. First and third enemies, yes. Hunchbacks were fresh. Catapult (second enemy) was fresh. Cicada was only as damaged as the camera man made it before I got there. The Dragon was fresh. The enemy Raven was fresh. Many of them were simply XL engines.

The rig again without Lordred's Commando from my perspective. This time in an actual 'premade'.


Other MG rigs in my perspective.

Spoiler

Mg Spider. Take note of the Blackjack victim.


Firebrand, 2 MGs 6 SL. Both vids.

Another similar one to what I originally posted. But I'm not using MGs in it.
Again, just me and the camera man. The other voices (MrWhite, Wolfmech, SpyderHelix) are in a separate match. (When Lordred's recording me for video most of the time it's just me.) My Atlas is a joke build of 1 ton of ammo per weapon. AC/5, AC/2, SRM-6, LRM-10, 4 ML. Here until he's shot at, Lordred doesn't shoot anyone.


Now, when actually in a premade of more people, how I play is very different as I'm sure you can see from these vids also recorded from Lordred's perspective. I'm much less 'rush in' with others. There's another MG weapon here too. Much more coordination with the team as well. "Attack this. Go for the leg." Etc.

Spoiler

(4 man premade, 4 flamers, 2 MG, 2 LB-10).

"IKBoSy" 2 flamer, UAC/5, twin LB-10.

Golden Boy, 5 LRM-5 and 2 SL + tag.

[Sable Dove]

Praetor Shepard, on 01 December 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

I'd really like MG's to work like the other ballistic weapons and be more useful overall.

They don't really need to be full auto or hit scan, and matching AC/2 rate of fire should be fast enough, combined with low damage and a short cooldown to keep DPS at 1.00.

MG's probably need to lose or reduce their current Crit seeking values, but I'd really like to be able to test out some changes for them such as this, for example:

• Keep the current range (120-240M) or reduce back to 90-180M (whatever works best really)
  
• DMG: 0.50
  
• Cooldown: 0.50
  
• DPS: 1.00
  
• Projectile Speed: 900 to 1000
  
• Ammo: 300 (150 damage a ton) - can be raised as needed, but potential damage matches other ballistics at least
  
• Ammo Explosion Dmg: 0.50 a round (total 150 damage on a full ton)

These sort of changes would make MGs more like weapon in the video:




And it would also be nice to remove the high muzzle flare they have in-game too.

This would be nice, thanks.

MGs are certainly better than they were, but I'd rather they just be straight weapons, rather than cherry-tapping gimmick weapons.

[qki]

that 1 dps makes a big difference. First, the armour is doubled, and IS is not. Second - tahat's double dps, any way you slice it. One MG isn't very effective, but once you have four, that's 8dps to internals.

And that's pretty nice, considering even the cutthroat loadouts have a sustained dps of 6 sometimes. You can debate the math all day, but bottomline is: MG is a viable weapon, and doesn't need any further buffs to compensate for some people's lack of skill in using them.

[stjobe]

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

that 1 dps makes a big difference. First, the armour is doubled, and IS is not.

IS is doubled as well.

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

Second - tahat's double dps, any way you slice it. One MG isn't very effective, but once you have four, that's 8dps to internals.

Provided you have some way of getting to the internals; many lights don't have much more than a ML to supplement their 3-4 MGs.

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

And that's pretty nice, considering even the cutthroat loadouts have a sustained dps of 6 sometimes.

Those "cutthroat loadouts" generally don't have an effective range of 120m, a continuous-fire mechanic, and built in RNG spread. They generally don't need to fire continuously either.

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

You can debate the math all day, but bottomline is: MG is a viable weapon

Like I said above, there's exactly one 'mech variant where the MG is viable, and that's the JM6-DD with 6xMG and a pair of LLs or PPCs to do the heavy lifting.

A 4xMG LCT, SDR, or CDA is a good showcase of how the MG is not viable, and having less than four is just a waste of tonnage.

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

and doesn't need any further buffs to compensate for some people's lack of skill in using them.

Skill has rather little to do with it. Skill won't make the random spread less random, nor will it lessen the DPS-loss if you have to twist away from your target. Skill won't make you kill 'mechs with MGs, that's just luck and other weapons/players doing most of the job.

Edited by stjobe, 02 December 2013 - 12:29 AM.

[qki]

Well i'm getting kills consistently with my 5K. And yes - you do have to prey on the weak here, but if you try to play every mech the same way, you're gonna have a bad time.

If it was 5 damage to armour and 6 damage to internals, that would be a 1 dps difference. As it is, MGs do double damage to internals, and you can very well take advantage of exposed internals wit MGs

And stop it with the RNG gibberish - this is purely a L2P issue. If you can't use an MG properly, then either don't or learn to do it.

[stjobe]

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

And stop it with the RNG gibberish

Are you trying to claim MG's don't have RNG spread? Because that would be hilariously wrong. Almost as funny and wrong as you claiming IS wasn't doubled.

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

this is purely a L2P issue. If you can't use an MG properly, then either don't or learn to do it.

How do I learn to make my MGs not have a continuous-fire mechanic? How do I learn to make them not have RNG spread? Please, enlighten us.

If you are bored and have a lot of free times on your hands you can go through my posting history and see that I've been fighting for a viable MG since way back in closed beta. I'm quite well acquainted with how they work and how they don't work - and I use them regularly, on my LCT-1V and on my SDR-5K. That does not mean I'm blind to the fact that they still are sub-par unless mounted by six on a JM6-DD.

[qki]

That's just it. You don't learn to make the MG something it isn't. You learn to use what the MG is. For argument's sake, let's say you need 4+ MGs. So that's 4 tons (counting ammo) of a weapon system. Do you honestly think that should be able to compete with a proper autocannon in terms of damage?

Even if you take into account the lack of practical range, you just can't judge everything by the same set of standards.

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, we will all be idiots in no time. As it is, the MG's are a legitimate choice for a weapon, and when used properly, they can do serious damage and take even big mechs out of action.

Unless you judge everything by its ability to tackle an undamaged atlas with full armour, and kill it without help from anyone.
Not everything revolves around dps, and a harasser with a poking weapon (ERLL for example) and the ability to jump on an enemy already engaged (and damaged) to take advantage in the armour opening is a solid choice.


And or the record - RNG doesn't mean {Scrap} if you're too close for it to matter - the spread wo't be a factor, and you can still take enemies down no problem.