102 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

reddevil, on 09 March 2015 - 09:51 AM, said:

Yeah I'm a new player, so I don't have a feel for any changes made more than a couple months ago, and of course I look at the OP of the guides. Mcgral18 cleared it up cleared it up in a single post.

Ironically, that change was like 9 months ago (or so, I don't know the exact date - it's most likely the actual Clan Wave 1 release date), so explaning the history of the MG change is not what I'd like to recite.

It was back in Open Beta that the MG didn't have the crit damage, and only did like a quarter (or was it even an eighth) of the current base damage that we do now.

[Mcgral18]

reddevil, on 09 March 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

Well, a saying it does a lot less damage, is not the same as explaining it with the full math. There is a lot of hyperbole on these forums where things go from OP to useless over minor changes. I like to see the math and decide for myself. I'm sure others would appreciate it too.

I'll do the old math too, with 1 DPS. Both before and after that 15% crit nerf.

It still has the same 9x damage multiplier per bullet.


So, 67% crit chance and 1 DPS means 0.135 damage per crit, instead of 0.1.

• 6% chance to deal 2.7 critical damage
  
• 22% chance to deal 1.8 critical damage
  
• 39% chance to deal 0.9 critical damage

In other words:

• 6% chance to deal 0.405 Internal Structure damage
  
• 22% chance to deal 0.27 Internal Structure damage
  
• 39% chance to deal 0.135 Internal Structure damage

That means an average DPS per MG of 1.6

52% crit chance, 1 DPS:

• 4% chance to deal 2.7 critical damage
  
• 17% chance to deal 1.8 critical damage
  
• 31% chance to deal 0.9 critical damage

In other words:

• 4% chance to deal 0.405 Internal Structure damage
  
• 17% chance to deal 0.27 Internal Structure damage
  
• 31% chance to deal 0.135 Internal Structure damage

That drops the DPS to 1.52.


So, 1.6>1.52>1.21

A full 25% nerf between the 20% damage and 15% crit chance.

[Greenjulius]

A little history for those of you who weren't around to see ******* MGs™.

Edited by Greenjulius, 09 March 2015 - 09:58 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Greenjulius, on 09 March 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

A little history for those of you who weren't around to see ******* MGs™.

I can't remember...what were MGs before the 0.04 damage buff? Were they a full 0.01? 10% of the damage we're asking for....good god.

Edited by Mcgral18, 09 March 2015 - 10:01 AM.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 09 March 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

I can't remember...what were MGs before the 0.04 damage buff? Were they a full 0.01? 10% of the damage we're asking for....good god.

I've lost track since it was so bad.

I think it honestly started @ .01 damage per bullet (.1 DPS since ticks are @ .1 second intervals).

Yea... the Spider-5K was the most ignored mech on the field. It was a sad time.

Edit:

I had actually argued at one time that the Spider-5K was worse than the Spider-5V.

Those were the dark ages.

Edited by Deathlike, 09 March 2015 - 10:07 AM.

[Ngamok]

Deathlike, on 09 March 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

I've lost track since it was so bad.

I think it honestly started @ .01 damage per bullet (.1 DPS since ticks are @ .1 second intervals).

Yea... the Spider-5K was the most ignored mech on the field. It was a sad time.

Edit:

I had actually argued at one time that the Spider-5K was worse than the Spider-5V.

Those were the dark ages.

Remember when they super buffed MGs? I have a screen shot somewhere in my Steam Profile of me doing 700+ damage with a CDA-3C. I ran around with those 4 MGs critting everything off people. The ER PPC helped out some as well but it was still hot.

[Davegt27]

They (MMO) needs an AC that is between the AC2 and a machine gun

Similar to the Vulcan cannon.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/M61_Vulcan

When I played TT games (book case) we would often update or modify the rules to update the game
We would get the specs out of a book, that way it can from a source we could all agree on

Question for you battle tech folks did you ever do anything like that?

I mean modify the rules (or update if you like that term) to make the game more fun.

[Deathlike]

Ngamok, on 09 March 2015 - 10:11 AM, said:

Remember when they super buffed MGs? I have a screen shot somewhere in my Steam Profile of me doing 700+ damage with a CDA-3C. I ran around with those 4 MGs critting everything off people. The ER PPC helped out some as well but it was still hot.

Well, I'll admit they were overbuffed at that one point. They were subsequently a tad overnerfed a bit in the same breath.. but "acceptable" (a little underpowered IMO).

Now, it's not even worth really bothering unless you are forced to (Cicada-3C and Spider-5K being the top two candidates).

[Stingray Productions]

better machine guns is the definite answer.

[Greenjulius]

I think fixing MGs should be a high priority item. If they get buffed to a reasonable level, it will significantly help at least half a dozen mechs.

[HammerForge]

I am all for fixing MG's, but I do like my Shadow Hawk 2K, and I am using the 3 balistics. AC10 and 2 MG's, then some lasers as well. The AC10 is for removing the armor, then if I can get up close, those MG's take torso's and legs off real quick, and a a money making scheme with the component destructions, plus I can save the AC10 ammo. But I would not mind if they weren't so hamstrung when shooting at someone with armor.

[RedDevil]

Can't wait for the Shadow Cat P. What the hell are you going to do with 7 ballistic hardpoints? Gotta use MG's if you want to fill them all.... Still, 1 Gauss and 6x MG might be fun.

[Cerulean Knight]

I actually really like my 5P. In fact, right now, it is my best performing Enforcer, with a W/L of 5.00 and K/D of 2.00. Of course, this might be because I love UAC/5s and use them frequently in my 'mechs (have been since CB). To that end, I realized that if I wanted to fulfill my desire to use this mech with UAC/5s, I would have to think outside of the box. So, rather than make it fast design, I went for a slower one. Not exactly a config for all to use or enjoy, but I'm having a blast in it. The key is firing the UAC/5s smartly, such as alternating fire between the cannons via two firing groups (That is group 1, LA, group 2, RA) and positioning yourself smartly (stand next to something bigger than you).

My current config is as such:
Enforcer-5P

However, I would rather see the ballistic points reduced to 2-3, and an additional energy and/or JJ point added. Right now, the loadout options are limited for this 'mech, even if MG's where buffed.

Edited by Cerulean Knight, 09 March 2015 - 11:15 AM.

[terrycloth]

I've been running my 5P with 4*AC2. I shaved off some armor to get 5 tons of ammo, but it still tends to run out of ammo faster than it dies from getting shot at.

It's fun to stare down LRM mechs, though, at least the silly ones that try to get their own locks. They die first. TAG = free kill. q:3

[Bigbacon]

you can do the 1X with dual AC5s and dual ML. All they need to do is throw some AC5 quirks at it.

[FupDup]

Screech, on 09 March 2015 - 09:20 AM, said:

How did I imply that at all? If I say "A flyswatter is effective at killing flies not dogs" do I imply that a baseball bat would not kill a fly? Just seems silly.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the argument "but just use them to kill infantry bro!" is shortsighted because THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO KILL INFANTRY. They're not magically immune to other types of damage. With their fragile flesh-and-blood bodies, they will basically die if they get hit by anything.

It's a cop-out to say that they should only be good for that one job when you can just use a multi-purpose gun like DoT lasers for that job and other jobs at the same time.

The "b-b-b-b-but infantry" crowd just needs to stahp once and for all. MGs (and Flamers) need to somehow be viable and effective during mech engagements, end of story. Being only usable against worthless AI cannon fodder will just make the weapons a pointless joke.

Edited by FupDup, 09 March 2015 - 11:53 AM.

[Screech]

FupDup, on 09 March 2015 - 11:41 AM, said:

Basically, what I'm saying is that the argument "but just use them to kill infantry bro!" is shortsighted because THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO KILL INFANTRY. They're not magically immune to other types of damage. With their fragile flesh-and-blood bodies, they will basically die if they get hit by anything.

It's a cop-out to say that they should only be good for that one job when you can just use a multi-purpose gun like DoT lasers for that job and other jobs at the same time.

The "b-b-b-b-but infantry" crowd just needs to stahp once and for all. MGs (and Flamers) need to somehow be viable and effective during mech engagements, end of story. Being only usable against worthless AI cannon fodder will just make the weapons a pointless joke.

Oh I get it, different opinion so it needs to shut up. I would just have MGs and Flamers removed as the are pointless weapons against an armored target. Trying to force them to magically become something else because you want them to be viable seems laughable. Maybe we can add more quirks to it, that seems to be in vogue.

[FupDup]

Screech, on 09 March 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:

Oh I get it, different opinion so it needs to shut up. I would just have MGs and Flamers removed as the are pointless weapons against an armored target. Trying to force them to magically become something else because you want them to be viable seems laughable. Maybe we can add more quirks to it, that seems to be in vogue.

What makes you think that they're "pointless against an armored target"?


We're fighting imaginary giant space robots across the galaxy in the year 3050. If your argument is realism, Battletech is held together by space magic and pixie dust. This is the universe where "long range" is considered 540 meters, even though most of our modern weapons go way beyond that. This is the universe where big sized ballistics somehow have less range than lower sized ones. This is the universe where all mechs are split into exactly 8 hit locations regardless of the unit's size and shape....

Etc...Realism simply doesn't apply here. And even if it did, Battlemech "Machine Guns" weigh 500 kilograms (GAU-8 is about 281 kg) and "Flamers" are actually plasma spewers that sap energy from fusion reactors.


If it's about their Tabletop uses, both of them have the same anti-armor damage as an AC/2 or a short range missile. The Flamer also could inflict some heat on the target in place of the damage if that's how the dice rolled.

[Apnu]

Reitrix, on 09 March 2015 - 06:37 AM, said:

Standard Engine with a pair of UAC5s and a single Medium Laser is so far my single best performing Enforcer ........


Maybe stop spamming shots and fire them singularly? I can get an insane RoF out of my UAC5s on both my Enforcer and the PPC UAC5 build i use on my K2.

I cannot get the hang of the UAC5, It always jams on me. I've had it jam on the first shot. No double tapping, on touch, one jam. Its rage inducing. I hate those things. Gauss with the charge up I got the hang of, not very good, but at least I don't stand there impotently waiting for the guns to unjam, only to jam on the very next shot.

How do you put up with it? If its about button control, why not simply go with the AC5, extra ammo, and a cooldown module?

[CocoaJin]

2x U/AC5 should be a descent load out. You can use the 2x MGs to supplement the small laser for no additional heat...or you can drop the MGs and use a MPL for back up.

Or do 2x AC2s in the right arm for peek-a-boo stuff at range, then a LPL in the right torso, plus 2x MGs in the left arm for pops and giggles if you like.