236 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

MoonfireSpam, on 28 November 2015 - 08:34 AM, said:

But the spread is what would make them good anti infantry weapons. Don't say you want balance and gameplay over flavour, fluff and lore. I thought we want Battletech here, not a game.

Spread might make them good against infantry, if we had infantry - or even any plans on ever introducing infantry. Since we have neither, we certainly don't need the spread either.

As for balance and game-play versus flavour, fluff, and lore, I believe the onus is on you to show that they cannot co-exist.

Tordin, on 28 November 2015 - 10:07 AM, said:

Good grief! Some nerfing there.. I've been around for about a year. Really wish I could have experienced the period that the Mk 5 had. And that Mk 5 versions stats do need to return, its at least something better than waht we have now, which is a MG disaster.

Please observe the rightmost column; the Mk. V had an in-game life of 14 days - exactly one patch cycle. It was killed off by 6-MG toting JM6-DDs with dual PPCs/LLs that did the real job of opening up armour for the MGs to work off, and a fair amount of those killed by such builds saw it fit to blame the MGs, whereas those more sane realized the next dual-LL or dual-PPC shot would have killed you just as fast.

Nevermind that the Mk. V meant you could actually make good use of a pair of MGs - something that traditionally is mounted as backup weapons on a lot of 'mechs. Those two weeks are the only period in MWO's history where a pair of MGs have been something other than a waste of tonnage and crit slots.

But, it was too powerful apparently, and it was nerfed into the Mk. VI which relegated the MG to those 'mechs that could mount three or more. Then it was nerfed again almost a year later, because it was discovered that the 10 rounds per second the MG shoots only had about 6-8 rounds actually register, and when that was fixed Paul in his infinite "wisdom" (probably afraid that the MG would outclass all other weapons) gave it a 20% DPS nerf, pro-actively.

I'd say more, but I fear it would devolve into personal insults against certain PGI staff, so I'll just leave it at that.

Edited by stjobe, 28 November 2015 - 12:12 PM.

[FupDup]

MoonfireSpam, on 28 November 2015 - 08:34 AM, said:

But the spread is what would make them good anti infantry weapons. Don't say you want balance and gameplay over flavour, fluff and lore. I thought we want Battletech here, not a game.

The spread would make them miss entirely against their non-existent infantry targets. You don't kill targets by missing them, you have to hit them.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Let's use a Mech with 6 ballistic hardpoints and 2 energy hardpoints as an example. We're going for maximum Machine Gun potential that MW:O has to offer.

This Mech can mount 3 tons of ballistic weapon, and 3 tons of ammo for a total investment of 9 slots, 6 tons.

_____________________________

In this hypothetical situation, the most threatening build you can possibly accomplish with Machineguns is a 65 ton battlemech with 6 tons of weapons and 9 slots occupied with weapons. No heat generated,

What kind of battlefield performance do you expect from 6 tons of weapon and 9 slots that does not generate heat?

_____________________________

First thought could be "Compare it to 6 MLs; that would be a fair comparison." No, it would not be. ML's generate much heat, and so their effective weight is 6 tons / 6 slots of weapon PLUS all the heatsinks you need to keep 6ML heat neutral.

That's many slots and tons, there.

6 ISMLs generate 60 heat in 10 seconds under continuous usage, which requires a BOATLOAD of heatsinks to compensate and render heat-neutral, like machineguns.

6 ISML actually command 6 tons / 6 slots of weapons, and 40 tons, 90 slots of DHS (the first 10 are slot-free in the engine). That's a total of 46 tons and 96 slots.
_____________________________


So, maybe we can compare to SRMs? 6 tons, 9 slots, that's like 2xSRM6 + 3 tons ammo.
Oh, wait... heat.

20 heat in 10 seconds of continuous usage. That's 10 DHS minimum, there.

2xSRM6 with 3 tons ammo command 16 tons, 9 slots (all DHS are in engine).

_______________________________

In the end, if you factor in HEAT, then we can reasonably expect 6 Machine guns

to be as effective as maybe 2ML, or a single SRM6.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 28 November 2015 - 12:37 PM.

[FupDup]

Prosperity Park, on 28 November 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:

-snip-

In the end, if you factor in HEAT, then we can reasonably expect 6 Machine guns

to be as effective as maybe 2ML, or a single SRM6.

Now factor in the continuous facetime, short range, relatively wide cone of fire, and the fact that you need 6 hardpoints, requiring you to give up other hardpoints that could be used on other guns (e.g. 6B + 2E Jagermech can be exchanged for 4B + 4E or 2B + 6E variants).

Edited by FupDup, 28 November 2015 - 12:32 PM.

[Rhent]

TELEFORCE, on 24 December 2014 - 03:33 AM, said:

I'd like to see machine guns do the same DPS as an AC/2. They both did 2 points of damage a turn on tabletop.

I don't think it would be too much of a problem due to their short range.

Just think about how the short range and SL/SPL works for lights boating them. There is no way that a 2 damage and zero heat weapon boated on a light could ever be OP, never ever. Its not as if players would run embers with SPL's and MG's and abuse the hell out of it.

[Mcgral18]

Prosperity Park, on 28 November 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:

Let's use a Mech with 6 ballistic hardpoints and 2 energy hardpoints as an example. We're going for maximum Machine Gun potential that MW:O has to offer.

This Mech can mount 3 tons of ballistic weapon, and 3 tons of ammo for a total investment of 9 slots, 6 tons.

_____________________________

In this hypothetical situation, the most threatening build you can possibly accomplish with Machineguns is a 65 ton battlemech with 6 tons of weapons and 9 slots occupied with weapons. No heat generated,

What kind of battlefield performance do you expect from 6 tons of weapon and 9 slots that does not generate heat?

_____________________________

First thought could be "Compare it to 6 MLs; that would be a fair comparison." No, it would not be. ML's generate much heat, and so their effective weight is 6 tons / 6 slots of weapon PLUS all the heatsinks you need to keep 6ML heat neutral.

That's many slots and tons, there.

6 ISMLs generate 60 heat in 10 seconds under continuous usage, which requires a BOATLOAD of heatsinks to compensate and render heat-neutral, like machineguns.

6 ISML actually command 6 tons / 6 slots of weapons, and 40 tons, 90 slots of DHS (the first 10 are slot-free in the engine). That's a total of 46 tons and 96 slots.
_____________________________


So, maybe we can compare to SRMs? 6 tons, 9 slots, that's like 2xSRM6 + 3 tons ammo.
Oh, wait... heat.

20 heat in 10 seconds of continuous usage. That's 10 DHS minimum, there.

2xSRM6 with 3 tons ammo command 16 tons, 9 slots (all DHS are in engine).

_______________________________

In the end, if you factor in HEAT, then we can reasonably expect 6 Machine guns

to be as effective as maybe 2ML, or a single SRM6.

LOLOLOL


This guy here...6 tons equals 2 tons? At half the range, with a not insignificant CoF, while also NEEDING TO FACE THE TARGET THE ENTIRE TIME?


3-4MLs is a decent comparison, but let's take your 6 MLs and 10 seconds (3 cycles).

That's 5*6*3=90 damage, 4*6*3=72 heat (base heat cap of 60 on 10 TrueDub mechs, plus dissipation (20 heat in 10 seconds) and heatsinks means you won't overheat).

Total face time? Let's say 4 seconds.

Over 10 seconds, 6MGs will deal 0.8*6*10=48 damage.
No heat, sure, but half the damage at half the range with a CoF AND requiring you FACE THE TARGET THE ENTIRE TIME.


Honestly, why are you so against MGs?

Rhent, on 28 November 2015 - 12:34 PM, said:

Just think about how the short range and SL/SPL works for lights boating them. There is no way that a 2 damage and zero heat weapon boated on a light could ever be OP, never ever. Its not as if players would run embers with SPL's and MG's and abuse the hell out of it.

Methinks you have altered your memory. Also, MGs have been rubbish for well over a year now, if you hadn't read any of the posts in here, that was pre-MG nerf.

If someone's using MGs, that means they're dealing less damage than SPLs. Sounds like you'd prefer that.

Edited by Mcgral18, 29 November 2015 - 12:21 PM.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 28 November 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

LOLOLOL


This guy here...6 tons equals 2 tons? At half the range, with a not insignificant CoF, while also NEEDING TO FACE THE TARGET THE ENTIRE TIME?


3-4MLs is a decent comparison, but let's take your 6 MLs and 10 seconds (3 cycles).

That's 5*6*3=90 damage, 4*6*3=72 heat (base heat cap of 60 on 10 TrueDub mechs, plus dissipation (20 heat in 10 seconds) and heatsinks means you won't overheat).

Total face time? Let's say 4 seconds.

Over 10 seconds, 6MGs will deal 0.8*6*10=48 damage.
No heat, sure, but half the damage at half the range with a CoF AND requiring you FACE THE TARGET THE ENTIRE TIME.


Honestly, why are you so butthurt about MGs?

What I find amusing is I see a lot of theory-mechin' and less about the practical reality about the weapon itself.

If MGs were as great as people claim they are, why is comp play so devoid of the weapon? Is it just easy to blame laservomit (despite MGs happens to be the only laservomit-based weapon that has a COF)? Perhaps they may have been backraged by Embers and Spider-5Ks, or the hilarious Jagermech-DDs with 6MGs plus 2 energy weapons of choice.

If MGs were as a "common threat" (let alone being just common) like "Lights" supposedly are, then OK, you might have an argument.

I want to facepalm every single time where people thin MGs are OP... or even viable in the current state of the game. (Sale on Embers? That meta is so dead from a year+ ago.)

So... it's not surprising when people keep citing irrelevant things for hyperbole or strawman-type arguments.

Quote

Methinks you have altered your memory. Also, MGs have been rubbish for well over a year now, if you hadn't read any of the posts in here, that was pre-MG nerf.

If someone's using MGs, that means they're dealing less damage than SPLs. Sounds like you'd prefer that.

He could've been sarcastic. I can't quite tell.

Edited by Deathlike, 28 November 2015 - 06:19 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Deathlike, on 28 November 2015 - 06:19 PM, said:

He could've been sarcastic. I can't quite tell.

That is a possibility I hadn't considered...

[Mcgral18]

#PGIPLZ

Why do you hate them Russ, why?

The Nerfinator's Trifecta of Suck stains them to this day...well over a year ago.

[FupDup]

I don't always approve of Necrothreads, but when I do, it's for a good cause.

I want my little dakkas to put out more dakka dakka.

[Juodas Varnas]

I just want my Pirates' bane's machine guns to do more damage to the enemy than they do to my own eyeballs!
Is that too much to ask?

[FupDup]

Juodas Varnas, on 11 February 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

I just want my Pirates' bane's machine guns to do more damage to the enemy than they do to my own eyeballs!
Is that too much to ask?

Paul said:

Yes.

[Deathlike]

Juodas Varnas, on 11 February 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

I just want my Pirates' bane's machine guns to do more damage to the enemy than they do to my own eyeballs!
Is that too much to ask?

Paulvision™ - The way it's meant to be played.

[Mcgral18]

By Mecha Cthulu...

https://mwomercs.com...map-and-beyond/

Quote

including improvements to the Damage and Spread of both Clan and Inner Sphere Machine Guns.

I may be disappointed with the final numbers...but spread improvement is always welcome.

[RestosIII]

Mcgral18, on 03 December 2016 - 11:02 PM, said:

By Mecha Cthulu...

https://mwomercs.com...map-and-beyond/



I may be disappointed with the final numbers...but spread improvement is always welcome.

And then we learn that by "improved", they mean "increased spread, lowered damage, MGs were overperforming".

I have to temper the hype they generated with the Mercs trailer somehow besides being angry about the Roughneck.

[Wildstreak]

Remember the recent Mechcon, one team had a pair of Spider-5Ks and much was made of them wrecking opponents who had exposed internals.

[Y E O N N E]

Wildstreak, on 04 December 2016 - 12:32 AM, said:

Remember the recent Mechcon, one team had a pair of Spider-5Ks and much was made of them wrecking opponents who had exposed internals.

Super-quirked MGs.