236 replies to this topic

[Kmieciu]

xXBagheeraXx, on 21 September 2015 - 05:12 AM, said:

not sure what you mean, Ive seen lots of new arrows running around murdering people with opened externals in a matter of seconds...Watched one guy that was nearly ct cored drop 5 mechs in a few minutes with only 2 large pulse lasers and 6 machine guns.....

IS LPLs tend to do that to people. 3xLPL BJ-1X is even better.

[Mcgral18]

xXBagheeraXx, on 21 September 2015 - 05:12 AM, said:

not sure what you mean, Ive seen lots of new arrows running around murdering people with opened externals in a matter of seconds...Watched one guy that was nearly ct cored drop 5 mechs in a few minutes with only 2 large pulse lasers and 6 machine guns.....

When I shoot a red CT mech from 100m for 5s and he isn't dead yet, I'm a tad upset.

Using any other weapon system, he would have died, but because of that CoF, he didn't. They are very poor weapons.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Karl Streiger, on 21 September 2015 - 02:31 AM, said:

Serious?
Advantage of the AC 10 vs AC 5:
better range/speed ration -don't need >1sec to reach max range
AC 10 build run much cooler
you have a adequate alpha in combination with short face time

Not sure what you're talking about here. AC5s put out less heat per point of damage than AC10s. And your range/speed argument is nonsensical. AC5 rounds take longer to reach max range because their range is 38% farther but their speed is only 21% faster than the AC10, but AC5 rounds are still faster. An AC5 round will still reach a target faster than an AC10 round at equivalent range, and can hit targets an AC10 round can't.

[MischiefSC]

Kaeb Odellas, on 21 September 2015 - 06:31 PM, said:

Not sure what you're talking about here. AC5s put out less heat per point of damage than AC10s. And your range/speed argument is nonsensical. AC5 rounds take longer to reach max range because their range is 38% farther but their speed is only 21% faster than the AC10, but AC5 rounds are still faster. An AC5 round will still reach a target faster than an AC10 round at equivalent range, and can hit targets an AC10 round can't.

Plus 2xAC5s is 18 tons for ~6.75 DPS (with modules/quirks) out to ~700m. 10 pts every 1.5 seconds. AC10 is 12 tons for 4.4 DPS out to ~500m - with ballistic drop.

AC5s are 10 pts every 1.5 seconds, AC10 is 10pts every 2.5 seconds.

It's a long list of reasons. Better to save up 6 tons and go with a 2nd AC5....

or just go lasers.

[Dino Banino]

Machine Gun's and Flamer's should BOTH be at the canon 2 damage per second and 90m optimal range.

Maybe then we'll begin to see people actually use them.

[Karl Streiger]

Kaeb Odellas, on 21 September 2015 - 06:31 PM, said:

Not sure what you're talking about here. AC5s put out less heat per point of damage than AC10s. And your range/speed argument is nonsensical. AC5 rounds take longer to reach max range because their range is 38% farther but their speed is only 21% faster than the AC10, but AC5 rounds are still faster. An AC5 round will still reach a target faster than an AC10 round at equivalent range, and can hit targets an AC10 round can't.

Yeah 3 feet is longer than 1m - or 2 pound coffee weights more than 1kg potatos.
The Gauss is faster than the AC 20 - AC 20 sucks. (sounds familiar)

Of course you have to compare the speed of a bullet with its range. A flight time of 0.5sec always means that you have to aim similar - only on different ranges. Sometimes its highly impossible to hit a target - for example a Spider with a flight time of 0.5sec is hard - not impossible. (sometimes simpler to hit them at 1000m and above) - but in this case you simple should not fire - if you only run a MONO Build its your fault. My BattleMaster runs unimpaired from those Quirks a ERPPC and an AC 10 backed up by 4 MPLAS (only 4 TICs) - and it runs great. Because the AC 10 is the perfect addition - no double AC 2 or double AC 5 - by reducing the MPLAS to MLAS would fit.

anyhow:
Can the AC 10 fire as fast as the AC 5 - no it can't

The heat is based on rate of fire and weight - you can have 2 AC 10 or 3 AC 5 - and 3 AC 5 will run hotter. Not that it does matter - (you may overheat with 4 AC 5s and 10SHS)
But the different is a tripple AC 5 build should not engage a target at AC 10s optimum distance.

If balance means for you and your kin everything have to be equal, you are wrong.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Karl Streiger, on 21 September 2015 - 10:20 PM, said:

Yeah 3 feet is longer than 1m - or 2 pound coffee weights more than 1kg potatos.
The Gauss is faster than the AC 20 - AC 20 sucks. (sounds familiar)

Of course you have to compare the speed of a bullet with its range. A flight time of 0.5sec always means that you have to aim similar - only on different ranges. Sometimes its highly impossible to hit a target - for example a Spider with a flight time of 0.5sec is hard - not impossible. (sometimes simpler to hit them at 1000m and above) - but in this case you simple should not fire - if you only run a MONO Build its your fault. My BattleMaster runs unimpaired from those Quirks a ERPPC and an AC 10 backed up by 4 MPLAS (only 4 TICs) - and it runs great. Because the AC 10 is the perfect addition - no double AC 2 or double AC 5 - by reducing the MPLAS to MLAS would fit.

anyhow:
Can the AC 10 fire as fast as the AC 5 - no it can't

The heat is based on rate of fire and weight - you can have 2 AC 10 or 3 AC 5 - and 3 AC 5 will run hotter. Not that it does matter - (you may overheat with 4 AC 5s and 10SHS)
But the different is a tripple AC 5 build should not engage a target at AC 10s optimum distance.

If balance means for you and your kin everything have to be equal, you are wrong.

2 AC5s generate the same heat per second as 1 AC10, but put out 50% more DPS at a longer range, and can hit targets easier at the AC10's optimum thanks to its higher velocity. It costs you 33% more weight and 1 more crit slot and hardpoint, though ammo requirements will probably bump that up quite a bit.

With a triple AC5, you get a 50% higher alpha and more than double the DPS with longer range and faster projectiles. It also costs more than twice the weight and space in guns and ammo, so it's not really a good comparison.

And 3 AC5s should absolutely engage a target at an AC10's optimum range. What are you even talking about?

As for your Battlemaster example, I'm going to assume you're using the 3M as it's the one with the ERPPC quirk. In that case, you can't even fit dual AC5s since it only has one ballistic hardpoint, so that's a moot argument. However, if you were to transfer your build to the 1G and replace your AC10 with 2xAC5 and MPLs with MLs, your performance should actually improve, thanks to the 1G's additional ML and ballistic quirks. You lose out on 4 points of raw alpha, but you run cooler thanks to the -10% energy heat gen quirk, get a higher sustained DPS thanks to the AC5s, and get increased range on your weapons.

[Mcgral18]

PGI plz

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 02 October 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

PGI plz

Grumpy Cat said:

No

[Felicitatem Parco]

You guys are asking for a 0.5 ton heatless weapon that Commands the same hardpoint resources as an AC/20 to be balanced...

It's kind of mutually-exclusive. As long as we can only mount 1 MG per hardpoint, then you can never have more than 3 tons of MG on any Mech. 3 tons of weapon system doesn't sound frightening, and it shouldn't be more frightening than 3ML. Add a liberal ammo (let's say 2 tons) and you now have a weapon group that's comparable to a single ISLL.

I am telling you... We need MG banks for them to be useful.

[Mcgral18]

Prosperity Park, on 02 October 2015 - 08:56 AM, said:

You guys are asking for a 0.5 ton heatless weapon that Commands the same hardpoint resources as an AC/20 to be balanced...

It's kind of mutually-exclusive. As long as we can only mount 1 MG per hardpoint, then you can never have more than 3 tons of MG on any Mech. 3 tons of weapon system doesn't sound frightening, and it shouldn't be more frightening than 3ML. Add a liberal ammo (let's say 2 tons) and you now have a weapon group that's comparable to a single ISLL.

I am telling you... We need MG banks for them to be useful.

No, 1 DPS and reduced/no CoF would be enough.

3 Med Lasers has ~4 DPS, but 15 damage concentrated in under a second on a single pixel.

6 MGs currently deal under 5 damage over 1 second (longer), spread over multiple hitboxes (bad) and require constant face time to actually deal that damage (Terribad).


3MLs also have considerably longer range (between the CoF and straight up more range) and will always be regarded as better.

[stjobe]

Prosperity Park, on 02 October 2015 - 08:56 AM, said:

3 tons of weapon system doesn't sound frightening, and it shouldn't be more frightening than 3ML.

You need ammo, so 6xMG is at least 4 tons, i.e. 4ML.

Also, 6xMG is comparable not to 4xML, but to a single ML. Yes, really.

1xML does 5 damage in 0.9 seconds.
6xMG does 4.32 damage in 0.9 seconds.

"But, but, but..." someone says, "they MGs can continue to do 4.32 damage the next 0.9 seconds, and the next, and the next, while the ML does zero damage! Clearly they are better!"

No.

Facetanking only gets you killed, vomit-and-twist is what keeps you alive. The ML lets you do that, the MGs do not. Also, the ML hits where you aim, the MGs spread their hits all over the target, further reducing the damage they do to any point you might be aiming at.

And yes, 6xMG works fine - when they're supported by dual heavy energy weapons, like LPLs or PPCs to do the *real* damage.

The MG is a terrible, terrible weapon, and it shouldn't have to be. It could just as well be a terrifying, extremely short-ranged "don't you dare get close to me" weapon. But the powers that be wanted a "crit weapon", as if not every single weapon crits at a rate of 42% (or, a bit less than half the shots taken at exposed internals), and almost all of them are better at critting out components and destroying internal structure than the "crit weapon" MG.

Edited by stjobe, 02 October 2015 - 10:29 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Severe CoF reduction or removal, with a return to 1 DPS may well be enough to make MGs less sad.

[wanderer]

You could also use the high-RoF rules from Tactical Operations as a "spin-up" mechanic for machine guns.

Hold down the trigger? MG generates heat and more damage (but widens COF a bit further) at the cost of accelerated ammo consumption (the higher ammo consumption becomes, the more heat the MG generates).

[Mcgral18]

That's one option, but adds a bit more complexity, which obviously PGI doesn't mind some times, because Ghost Damage...

Though, a 3M CoF is already pretty big.

[Sereglach]

Mcgral18, on 26 November 2015 - 08:40 AM, said:

Severe CoF reduction or removal, with a return to 1 DPS may well be enough to make MGs less sad.

I'm all for this, period.

wanderer, on 27 November 2015 - 03:48 PM, said:

You could also use the high-RoF rules from Tactical Operations as a "spin-up" mechanic for machine guns.

Hold down the trigger? MG generates heat and more damage (but widens COF a bit further) at the cost of accelerated ammo consumption (the higher ammo consumption becomes, the more heat the MG generates).

Mcgral18, on 27 November 2015 - 08:19 PM, said:

That's one option, but adds a bit more complexity, which obviously PGI doesn't mind some times, because Ghost Damage...

Though, a 3M CoF is already pretty big.

This might not be so bad if the CoF started at 0m and went to 3m at maximum spool . . . but I'd only be for it if the rate of fire got to something like 30 rounds per second. It'd need to be some substantial DPS output, especially since you'd be adding heat to the weapon.

[stjobe]

Mcgral18, on 26 November 2015 - 08:40 AM, said:

Severe CoF reduction or removal, with a return to 1 DPS may well be enough to make MGs less sad.

Less sad, yes. Good? No, sadly it won't be good even then. Paul needs to realize "crit weapons" is a meaningless concept in a game where every single weapon crits at a rate of 42%, and most of them do a better job of critting out components than the so-called "crit weapons".

Paul, if you're reading, please reconsider your "crit weapon" mechanic - it is pointless, and the only thing it does is keep those weapons designated as "crit weapons" underpowered forever. Get rid of that mechanic and make the MG a straight-up damage weapon; preferably with a DPS of 1.0 or more, and without the god-damn Cone of Fire (which is another mechanic you should either remove or implement for all other weapons too, having it on just a few weapons just nerfs those weapons needlessly).

Oh, and have I posted this yet to this thread? Can't remember, can't be arsed to check, so here you go: History of the MG in MWO:



The Mk. VII we're currently "enjoying" was pre-emptively nerfed the very same patch some hit-reg fixes were put in - no testing if it would overpower the MG leaving it at 1 DPS (as if), just a straight-up nerf. "Balance", right? :/

[MoonfireSpam]

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.

Edited by MoonfireSpam, 28 November 2015 - 08:34 AM.

[Mcgral18]

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 actually makes them terrible for AI, as you can't hit the tiny specks on the ground.

What makes them good AI would be a high RoF...just like Lasers (beam). Although Lasers would work better, because pinpoint+deathstar.

[Tordin]

stjobe, on 28 November 2015 - 04:43 AM, said:

Less sad, yes. Good? No, sadly it won't be good even then. Paul needs to realize "crit weapons" is a meaningless concept in a game where every single weapon crits at a rate of 42%, and most of them do a better job of critting out components than the so-called "crit weapons".

Paul, if you're reading, please reconsider your "crit weapon" mechanic - it is pointless, and the only thing it does is keep those weapons designated as "crit weapons" underpowered forever. Get rid of that mechanic and make the MG a straight-up damage weapon; preferably with a DPS of 1.0 or more, and without the god-damn Cone of Fire (which is another mechanic you should either remove or implement for all other weapons too, having it on just a few weapons just nerfs those weapons needlessly).

Oh, and have I posted this yet to this thread? Can't remember, can't be arsed to check, so here you go: History of the MG in MWO:



The Mk. VII we're currently "enjoying" was pre-emptively nerfed the very same patch some hit-reg fixes were put in - no testing if it would overpower the MG leaving it at 1 DPS (as if), just a straight-up nerf. "Balance", right? :/

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.

Edited by Tordin, 28 November 2015 - 10:08 AM.