44 replies to this topic

[SamsungNinja]

So, I didn't come to the forums to ***** about MGs because I want them to be awesome. Let me just get that out of the way.

But, while building a Stalker build, and checking to make sure ranges between my gauss and ELLs were acceptable enough, I noticed that all energy weapons, except for flamers (so I guess the same argument could be shared with flamers), are 2x optimal range for max range. I.e. MLs are Range: 270 / MaxRange: 540.

Well, similarly, all ballistics get 3x range for max. range; except MGs.

MGs have limited usefullness due to their limited range, and flamers are useless for anything other than blinding someone (flamers are more detrimental to the user than the target, tbmfh).

I'd like to see these ranges bumped to make these two weapons consistent with the rest of the weapons in their respective classes.

If anything, this is an argument for allowing more diversification in weapons loadouts, so we can maybe start seeing more variation in builds.

P.S. I would include SPLs, but there seems to be a range floor for all weapons, where 90 is minimum, so I understand why the SPL would be the exception to the rule.

[Sandpit]

Flamers could use some love but MGs are really in a good spot right now in my opinion.

[SirLANsalot]

MGs are anti Infantry weapons, not anti mech. People want them to be the OMG I CAN SHRED YOU that they were in MW4. That game had the MG array, which was mutli MG's for .5 tons, not just 1 (which is what we have).

If you want a high RoF Damage dealing gun, look no further then the AC2, as that IS the Anti Mech MG.
(getting all of that out of the way since thats where this thread will head)



MG's should have the 3x range bonus that all ballistics have, I haven't used them extensively to notice if they hit out past 240, since I don't fire them unless I am within 200 anyways (spider "OP").


As for the Small laser, PGI has said they will be getting there range buffed to fall in line with the rest of the lasers (ML being 1/2 of LL and SL being 1/2 of ML).

[SamsungNinja]

Sandpit, on 12 January 2014 - 01:13 AM, said:

Flamers could use some love but MGs are really in a good spot right now in my opinion.

I wouldn't disagree, which is why this wouldn't really change much in terms of balance, but would make the weapon consistent with the rest of the class. Keep in mind, I'm not suggestion the MG range be increased, only its Max. Range. the current optimal range of 120 makes sense.

Just, as a ballistic type, it should have 3x optimal range as its extended range, not 2x like it currently does. E.g. the AC/2 has an optimal range of 720, and a Max. Range of 2,160.

720 * 3 = 2160

Conversely, MGs are Range: 120, MaxRange: 240. They should be 120 * 3, which would make their Max Range 360, not the 240 that it currently is.

I've got no idea how to fix flamers. Oh, flamers. The weapon that hurts you more than it hurts them. "So, you thought you'd just equip a flamer and except to dissipate? Muahahaha," laughed the abstract consciousness of the 'mech.

SirLANsalot, on 12 January 2014 - 01:14 AM, said:

MGs are anti Infantry weapons, not anti mech. People want them to be the OMG I CAN SHRED YOU that they were in MW4. That game had the MG array, which was mutli MG's for .5 tons, not just 1 (which is what we have).

If you want a high RoF Damage dealing gun, look no further then the AC2, as that IS the Anti Mech MG.
(getting all of that out of the way since thats where this thread will head)



MG's should have the 3x range bonus that all ballistics have, I haven't used them extensively to notice if they hit out past 240, since I don't fire them unless I am within 200 anyways (spider "OP").


As for the Small laser, PGI has said they will be getting there range buffed to fall in line with the rest of the lasers (ML being 1/2 of LL and SL being 1/2 of ML).

Yeah, they don't hit past 240. I just tested it to make sure. @241m, target takes no damage. @240, they take damage.

[Knightshadowsong]

I Cannot stress how much I currently dislike Machine guns in this game. As has been stated earlier they are anti Infentry weapons. Not Anti Mech. Yet I still see Heavy's and even assaults using them!? seriously? I can understand if you have a Victor, and you stick one LBX10 and 2 MG's on. the MG's would crit the target that was opened up by the LBX. In that sence they could be called somewhat Anti mech.

Now. before people start trolling me. I want to state, that I started on Scout mech's. and yes. I used MG's because they were all I could afford. and I had no problems with there limited range. But sence there 'buff' to give the MG spider and the Locust (which is useless BTW) a reason to live. more and more heavyer mech's are using them and to me that's just a waste.

I cant say I have any real good idea's on how to balance this. but I know I'm not the only one who thinks that larger mech's should mount larger guns.

but that's just me.

[Mahws]

Great, yet another "I think a half tonne machine gun that fires half kilo rounds is an anti-infantry weapon" thread.

Books and TT rules say they work against mech level armor just fine, exact same damage as an AC/2, just sacrificing range for tonnage. Bonus against infantry =/= only good against infantry.

On the actual thread topic, machine guns could probably use a slight range boost, small lasers definitely need a range boost, upping their range to 120 or 150 would make them an actual viable choice.

Edited by Mahws, 12 January 2014 - 02:38 AM.

[Knightshadowsong]

I'm not saying anything like that man. Serously. I got a Locust. and right now it's the most useless thing in my Mech bay's because all it can mount is MG's and they just do not DO enough! I'm not saying they need a super buff. but it's just not in my mind working right now.

and yes. I'm takeing into account my play style. I don't like rushing. I'm more poke out. shoot. duck back. and MG's just don't support that.

[Jorm]

MG's are a;ready largely OP im noting more and more 4x MG spiders wobbling about schering back amour et. al.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Increased weapon diversity, yes please.

As for those numbers to balance; that's up to the devs.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Jorm, on 12 January 2014 - 03:32 AM, said:

MG's are a;ready largely OP im noting more and more 4x MG spiders wobbling about schering back amour et. al.

4x MGs do a max of 4 dps, and that is spread all over the target area (they may be hitscan but they have a small cone of damage that spreads their hits around). If you see a Spider with 4x MGs killing people from behind in seconds it's most likely that they are using their ERLL (or whatever energy main gun they brought along) to punch through the armor. Once MGs start hitting internals their damage ramps up considerably (though it was nerfed a couple months ago because of Spider hit registration issues making them feel stronger than they actually are).

Against a typical max-armor assault build you are seeing between 16 and 30 rear armor. That means that 4 MGs by themselves would take between 4 and 7.5 seconds of sustained fire just to strip the armor, and that's assuming that all their damage is in one location. If any of the hits stray to one or another of the side torsos that timer goes up considerably.

If you let a light sit behind you for that long and spam MGs without forcing him to move and without twisting your torso at all then you kind of deserve what happens.

[SamsungNinja]

Jorm, on 12 January 2014 - 03:32 AM, said:

MG's are a;ready largely OP im noting more and more 4x MG spiders wobbling about schering back amour et. al.

Are you sure that you're not seeing more because of the fact that the Spider 5K is currently a trial mech?

Edited by SamsungNinja, 12 January 2014 - 05:34 AM.

[Sephlock]

I've decided that, at least for the time being, instead of engaging the trolls who keep saying that machineguns should be utterly ineffective vs mechs because THEY ARE ANTI INFANTRY WEAPONS, I am going to start arguing that AC/2s and AC/5s should be utterly ineffective vs mechs because they are anti aerospace fighter weapons.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rifleman

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/JagerMech

[LoneMaverick]

I've already seen quite a few 6xMG Jagers do a stunning amount of brawldamage to know that MGs do not need anything,

The huge discrepancy you're pointing out is that the rest of the ACs need to be brought in line with the Energy weapons, being only 2x for max range instead of 3x.

[SamsungNinja]

Sephlock, on 12 January 2014 - 05:43 AM, said:

I've decided that, at least for the time being, instead of engaging the trolls who keep saying that machineguns should be utterly ineffective vs mechs because THEY ARE ANTI INFANTRY WEAPONS, I am going to start arguing that AC/2s and AC/5s should be utterly ineffective vs mechs because they are anti aerospace fighter weapons.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rifleman

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/JagerMech

More appropriately, from Sarna:

Quote

The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers, while still being effective at damaging BattleMechs.

The operative word in that quote is effective.

LoneMaverick, on 12 January 2014 - 05:45 AM, said:

I've already seen quite a few 6xMG Jagers do a stunning amount of brawldamage to know that MGs do not need anything,

The huge discrepancy you're pointing out is that the rest of the ACs need to be brought in line with the Energy weapons, being only 2x for max range instead of 3x.

A directed energy weapon would have a shorter range than a projectile. A beam or pulse weapon diffuses over distance, or due to latent elements in the beam path, which is why pulse lasers do more damage. They allow vaporised armor to dissipate between pulses, so that the beam hits its target rather than being diffused in the vapor.

Ballistics having a greater range makes sense, and considering the mass a BattleMech fires off in an Autocannon, it makes physical sense. If anything, their ranges are laughably short of reality.

An AC/20 is a 20-203mm cannon, depending on manufacturer. The Howitzer M1931 also utilized a 203mm cannon, and has an max. effective range of 18 km (11 mi).

Plus it looked awesome, to boot.

Edited by SamsungNinja, 12 January 2014 - 06:16 AM.

[LoneMaverick]

SamsungNinja, on 12 January 2014 - 05:52 AM, said:

A directed energy weapon would have a shorter range than a projectile. A beam or pulse weapon diffuses over distance, or due to latent elements in the beam path, which is why pulse lasers do more damage. They allow vaporised armor to dissipate between pulses, so that the beam hits its target rather than being diffused in the vapor.

Ballistics having a greater range makes sense, and considering the mass a BattleMech fires off in an Autocannon, it makes physical sense. If anything, their ranges are laughably short of reality.

Gameplay > Reality.

At the moment Ballistics are outperforming Energy weapons by a broad scale,(besides PPCs, an Energy-slot Ballistic weapon) And increasing their damage drop-off at range would help to normalize their damage, let alone give the AC/10 a place at range where the AC/20 might not do more damage.

If you're going to go for realistic as far as the Battletech universe is concerned, Autocannons fired in a stream of bullets, not one big round.

Also, the only real advantage pulse lasers have over their standard variants in game is their beam duration, the increased damage is negligible at best, it allows the laser to act more ballistic-oriented in not spreading its damage around.

Edited by LoneMaverick, 12 January 2014 - 07:38 AM.

[Skyfaller]

I would like to see MG's bumped up to 500m range. This weapon requires it to be kept on target for almost 10 seconds for it to be remotely effective (and this is 6mgs in a jager im talking about).

The reason the 6MG jager does so nicely is not because the machine guns deliver massive damage... its because they crit the heck out of components in the LT/RT and arms which the energy weapons have melted the armor off from. I've tried playing in Jagers that only had 6 MGs (no energy weps) and it just didn't do squat unless the enemy sat there and let me pump 1200 rounds of ammo into them or unless they had red armor/no armor in a section.

[SamsungNinja]

LoneMaverick, on 12 January 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

Gameplay > Reality.

At the moment Ballistics are outperforming Energy weapons by a broad scale,(besides PPCs, an Energy-slot Ballistic weapon) And increasing their damage drop-off at range would help to normalize their damage, let alone give the AC/10 a place at range where the AC/20 might not do more damage.

If you're going to go for realistic as far as the Battletech universe is concerned, Autocannons fired in a stream of bullets, not one big round.

Also, the only real advantage pulse lasers have over their standard variants in game is their beam duration, the increased damage is negligible at best, it allows the laser to act more ballistic-oriented in not spreading its damage around.

I wasn't arguing for realism, quite the contrary. I was using the fact that ballistics are ultra powerful already to illustrate that the fact that their ranges being unrealistic in the interest of better gameplay is a good thing.

I fully agree that realism goes out the window when it's a choice between better gameplay and reality. "Authentic, not realistic" would be my motto, when it comes to games.

Edit: Different Autocannons fired differently, according to Sarna. As stated, I never played TT, so I'm not 100% certain. Sarna states that the AC/20 carried a myriad of different payloads, ranging from 25mm shells up to 203mm shells.

Edited by SamsungNinja, 12 January 2014 - 08:01 AM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Mguns don't need a boost, they need different ammo types such as 1T Armor Piercing ammo that does .5 damage, ignores armor, and is only 500 rounds.

[Varent]

SamsungNinja, on 12 January 2014 - 12:58 AM, said:

So, I didn't come to the forums to ***** about MGs because I want them to be awesome. Let me just get that out of the way.

But, while building a Stalker build, and checking to make sure ranges between my gauss and ELLs were acceptable enough, I noticed that all energy weapons, except for flamers (so I guess the same argument could be shared with flamers), are 2x optimal range for max range. I.e. MLs are Range: 270 / MaxRange: 540.

Well, similarly, all ballistics get 3x range for max. range; except MGs.

MGs have limited usefullness due to their limited range, and flamers are useless for anything other than blinding someone (flamers are more detrimental to the user than the target, tbmfh).

I'd like to see these ranges bumped to make these two weapons consistent with the rest of the weapons in their respective classes.

If anything, this is an argument for allowing more diversification in weapons loadouts, so we can maybe start seeing more variation in builds.

P.S. I would include SPLs, but there seems to be a range floor for all weapons, where 90 is minimum, so I understand why the SPL would be the exception to the rule.

I love my machine guns. They are an amazing brawling weapon with good range for what they do. They crit like crazy and can be mounted on a ton of chasis for a lot of underestimated damage. I honestly feel if you buff them people will realize just how strong they are and do bad things to them. Please don't. That is all.

[Sandpit]

SamsungNinja, on 12 January 2014 - 01:38 AM, said:

I wouldn't disagree, which is why this wouldn't really change much in terms of balance, but would make the weapon consistent with the rest of the class. Keep in mind, I'm not suggestion the MG range be increased, only its Max. Range. the current optimal range of 120 makes sense..

Ahhh ok, I think that would be worth looking at least then. See what it does. I don't know that it would make much change but it could be interesting to up the max range a bit

lockwoodx, on 12 January 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

Mguns don't need a boost, they need different ammo types such as 1T Armor Piercing ammo that does .5 damage, ignores armor, and is only 500 rounds.

Do you have any idea how fast a mech would die if its armor were ignored, not to mention the sheer number of rounds multiple MGs put out. That would just be a bad idea