145 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Some of us bother with MGs because they are aesthetically pleasing and satisfying to use precisely because they are inefficient.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 07 October 2015 - 06:35 PM, said:

Some of us bother with MGs because they are aesthetically pleasing and satisfying to use precisely because they are inefficient.

It's more likely because we have literally zero other options for low-tonnage ballistics. The only other alternative is to not use those hardpoints at all.

The comparison I'll make is that many Inner Sphere players would start to use the Small Laser if Medium Lasers were removed tomorrow...but the SL would still be terrible on its own merits.

[Dimento Graven]

Yeonne Greene, on 07 October 2015 - 06:35 PM, said:

Some of us bother with MGs because they are aesthetically pleasing and satisfying to use precisely because they are inefficient.

Um, yeah, that reminds me of the old joke where there's this guy that sits there and bashes his hand over and over with a hammer. When asked why, he responds, "Because it'll feel so good when I stop."

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 07 October 2015 - 06:42 PM, said:

It's more likely because we have literally zero other options for low-tonnage ballistics. The only other alternative is to not use those hardpoints at all.

The comparison I'll make is that many Inner Sphere players would start to use the Small Laser if Medium Lasers were removed tomorrow...but the SL would still be terrible on its own merits.

I mean, technically an Arrow is better with all LPL, but I use MG because I want MG. I would love it if MGs were better than they are, but there's no real reason to actually take them.

Dimento Graven, on 07 October 2015 - 06:43 PM, said:

Um, yeah, that reminds me of the old joke where there's this guy that sits there and bashes his hand over and over with a hammer. When asked why, he responds, "Because it'll feel so good when I stop."

Well, I would say that's a silly thing to be reminded of, because to assume that is a valid argument would be to assume that everybody playing this game has the same values that you do...which would be silly.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 07 October 2015 - 06:46 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Dimento Graven, on 07 October 2015 - 06:33 PM, said:

OMG, how f'ing easy do you want this game? If you weren't able to kill something EXTREMELY quickly with lasers and a crap load of MG's you were doing something wrong. Crimany, EVEN Jaegers were sporting 2 PPC's and 6MG's and racking in 6-8 kills a game. Frickin' Jaegers...

The fact that the damage is reasonable when stacked with more than 2 and is such low heat and STILL has a fairly decent crit chance is why we STILL see them being used. If they were as bad as you're crying about no one would bother, just load up more heat sinks.

Who uses MGs? Serious question.
Whales certainly don't, but they can mount 6. Crabs can do 3LPL 6MG. Done? Nope.
Arrow can take 2LPLs and 6MGs. What's taken instead? 6ML 1X

Sorry you don't want weapons to be viable or effective, nor want to see reason. Damage is not reasonable when stacked.


6MGs, 3 tons, 4.8 DPS, but nothing up front. 1 ton of ammo makes 4 tons.
4MLs, 4 tons, heat easily handled by 10TrueDubs. 5.12 DPS

Sounds even enough, right? Heat and range VS heatless and ammo

In practice? The MGs require over a full second to deal 5 damage. In the same second, the MLs deal 20 damage.

Over 4 times the damage, on a single pixel, without a CoF, from greater range.



Tell us how that's balanced. How they're viable, and not a waste of space. Any reasonable person will tell you MGs are in a sad state, just like SRMs, LBx and Flamers. AC2s have an honourable mention.

[Deathlike]

To be clear... there's a distinction between "they are being used" and "they are actually useful".

Just because LRMs are used, it doesn't mean they are universally useful like direct fire.

Just because MGs are the only option that Light mechs have for small ballistics, it doesn't mean they are effective at the job that they are "assigned" to do... according to PGI.

[Dimento Graven]

Mcgral18, on 07 October 2015 - 06:46 PM, said:

Who uses MGs? Serious question.

Whales certainly don't, but they can mount 6. Crabs can do 3LPL 6MG. Done? Nope.
Arrow can take 2LPLs and 6MGs. What's taken instead? 6ML 1X

Every day I see 'mechs that can equip MG's, equipping them. From Locusts to Direwolves, I see them added as a light weight, low heat alternative.

Quote

Sorry you don't want weapons to be viable or effective, nor want to see reason.

Oh screw you. From my perspective you people wanting to go back to having the acronym "MG" stand for "MEGAGUNS" again are the unreasonable ones.

Quote

Damage is not reasonable when stacked.

EXCEPT FOR THE VERY OBVIOUS AND LONG TIME FACT THAT PRETTY MUCH NO ONE DOES BUILDS ANY 'MECH IN THIS GAME THAT THEY AREN'T STACKING WEAPONS.

So... You could make equipping ONE MG 'viable', which is a relative term and actually quite meaningless, and in so doing make it to where stacking 3, 4, 5, 6 or more is devastating. Lots of damage, lots of crit, little to no heat, very light weaponry, lots of ammo per ton...

Yes, yes, the little lights who love to pinball into enemies blasting away would love it, BUT, it wouldn't be balanced.

Quote

6MGs, 3 tons, 4.8 DPS, but nothing up front. 1 ton of ammo makes 4 tons.
4MLs, 4 tons, heat easily handled by 10TrueDubs. 5.12 DPS

Sounds even enough, right? Heat and range VS heatless and ammo

I don't exactly know why you want to compare MG's to ML's, that seems to be an extremely slanted comparison. Had you made the comparison with SL's, it'd have been better, closer to performance in range. Yet, STILL the MG's can pretty much easily be fired continuously with little to no heat build up where as lasers can't.

Quote

In practice? The MGs require over a full second to deal 5 damage. In the same second, the MLs deal 20 damage.

Except you're stupidly ignoring the fact that MG's aren't typically loaded as a primary weapon by themselves. You stack MG's with other weapons, using the other weapons to open up target locations and using the MG's as a means to quickly get lots of critical hits.

But go ahead, keep on ignoring how a weapon systems is ACTUALLY used in game and cry about it not being on par with gauss, or AC20's...

Quote

Over 4 times the damage, on a single pixel, without a CoF, from greater range.

Well for one thing, MG's weren't really intended as a 'mech v 'mech weapon for one thing. It was in BattleTech as an 'anti-infantry' and light vehicle weapon. Sure, you COULD use it on 'mechs but it was never intended to be used as a 'primary' weapon. Sure, sure, there were the specialty builds people would pull out for 'fun and games' during a Battletech tourney, the Atlas with 20MG's , lots of fun, but not actually practical for typical 'mech v 'mech.

Quote

Tell us how that's balanced. How they're viable, and not a waste of space. Any reasonable person will tell you MGs are in a sad state, just like SRMs, LBx and Flamers. AC2s have an honourable mention.

They're viable because PGI's implementation allows A LOT of them to be fired simultaneously near continuously without significant heat penalty, and has allowed the weapon to have a significantly high crit chance.

When used as intended they're quite viable.

If you're trying to argue that the MG should be 'as effective' as ML's, or what have you, you're being an idiot and should cut it out.

Yeonne Greene, on 07 October 2015 - 06:44 PM, said:

...

Well, I would say that's a silly thing to be reminded of, because to assume that is a valid argument would be to assume that everybody playing this game has the same values that you do...which would be silly.

Only as silly as saying you use something because of 'aesthetics', even in spite of some supposed 'inefficiency', your words, not mine...

[Dimento Graven]

Deathlike, on 07 October 2015 - 07:34 PM, said:

To be clear... there's a distinction between "they are being used" and "they are actually useful".

Just because LRMs are used, it doesn't mean they are universally useful like direct fire.

Just because MGs are the only option that Light mechs have for small ballistics, it doesn't mean they are effective at the job that they are "assigned" to do... according to PGI.

So exactly define your use of the word 'useful'.

We seem to be operating with different definitions.

I would argue that intimating that "direct fire" is "universally useful" is silly. Indirect fire has its place and a 'mech that, while it can be targeted, but can't be hit with any of the weapons you currently have loaded on your 'mech would make those particular weapons in that situation VERY useless.

Is an MG useful at 1000 meters? No, of course not, but of course neither are SL's, flamers, etc.
Is an MG useful as a primary weapon for building a large alpha? No, of course not, it's great for exploiting open crit locations, opened by your other weapons, during brawling.

I see a lot of people who I've noticed pinballing around in lights really wanting the MG turned back into the MegaGun. We've all lived through that fiasco, let's not do it again...

The MG is effective when used properly, not unlike regular PPC's, just because they can't do damage below 90 meters DOES NOT mean they're ineffective and not balanced. Just use them properly and you'll enjoy them that much more...

AND AGAIN, you ignore my statement that, if MG's were all that "ineffective" and "useless" why do we see them equipped? Would it not be better to just go ahead, save the weight for a larger engine and more heat sinks? No one HAS to equip MG's on their 'mechs if they don't want to, and if they were as bad as you all think, no one would, but that's not the case at all.

Admit you're wrong, admit your desire for a low heat alternative for your pinballing lights and move on...

[Khobai]

Quote

Admit you're wrong, admit your desire for a low heat alternative for your pinballing lights and move on...

no point in denying it
i expect machine guns to do 100 dps and kill mechs in less than 1 second


all so my locust can reign supreme.

ALL HAIL YOUR NEW LOCUST OVERLORD

[Mcgral18]

Dimento Graven, on 07 October 2015 - 08:01 PM, said:

I see a lot of people who I've noticed pinballing around in lights really wanting the MG turned back into the MegaGun. We've all lived through that fiasco, let's not do it again...

Honestly, this is the divide. The MG was acceptable once, not overpowered.

As in, people chose to willingly take them.

Quote

Admit you're wrong, admit your desire for a low heat alternative for your pinballing lights and move on...

My Nova wants to take a ballistic, but it doesn't because heatsinks are important. Staring down opponent mechs is suicidal VS torso twisting and cooling down.
MGs at 1 DPS were kinda worth risking it. Not at 0.8, not unless I can mount 8 of them.


Also, Small Laser comparison:
8SLs, for the same weight.


24 damage (more than the MLs), more effective range, because CoF and longer base range. Even shorter burn time (0.75s).


In 0.75s, 6MGs will deal 3.6 damage in that time. 3.6 VS 24.


SLs have the proposed 1 DPS, but deal it in much less time, again at further range, without the CoF.




MGs need the CoF reduced or removed, and the damage buff to 1 DPS.


You're insane if you EVER thought MGs were overpowered.
Here's the history, if you've forgotten. Created by StJobe



Oh god, it's hideous...there, I fixed it.

Edited by Mcgral18, 07 October 2015 - 08:20 PM.

[FupDup]

Mcgral18, on 07 October 2015 - 08:14 PM, said:

Oh god, it's hideous...

Right click --> Paste as plain text

It's your new best friend!

[Mcgral18]

FupDup, on 07 October 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

Right click --> Paste as plain text

It's your new best friend!

It didn't work...but I took 2 minutes to fix it, because that was BAD.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

Hype train for the rebreaking of MW:O! A lot of great ideas here for years but to rework the entire system? Sensors 'n all.. List so endless.... must.. not list

[MischiefSC]

I admit. I often feel like PGIs approach to balancing is like a magic trick and it goes like this -

http://i.imgur.com/ywabaFb.webm

[Y E O N N E]

Dimento Graven, on 07 October 2015 - 07:49 PM, said:

Only as silly as saying you use something because of 'aesthetics', even in spite of some supposed 'inefficiency', your words, not mine...

No, yours is sillier. I was speaking for myself, you are attempting to speak for other players. The latter is a foolish endeavor.

[Duke Nedo]

Nice illustration of why the community can never make balance decisions. Can't even agree on machine guns... Clan lasers next?

[Shadow Magnet]

In what alternative dimension is Dimento Graven living? MGs are widely used? I tried to remember, it must have been *months* since I have last seen someone using MGs in a match.

Maybe he confuses Gauss with MGs?

[MechWarrior3671771]

Sorry, but my understand is that the balance test was not meant to be in any final form, that quirks were all removed to isolate variables for better testing. Is that not true?

[Deathlike]

Dimento Graven, on 07 October 2015 - 08:01 PM, said:

So exactly define your use of the word 'useful'.

It's quite simple.

If it succeeds at what it is supposed to do "more often than not", then it's "useful".

When it fails at what it's "intended functionality" happens to be (in this case, PGI's "definition" of how an MG is supposed to function), then it's "not useful".

Quote

We seem to be operating with different definitions.

That would be an understatement.

Quote

I would argue that intimating that "direct fire" is "universally useful" is silly. Indirect fire has its place and a 'mech that, while it can be targeted, but can't be hit with any of the weapons you currently have loaded on your 'mech would make those particular weapons in that situation VERY useless.

That assumes people are playing the situation correctly... in many cases a lower tier player finds LRMs far more frustrating when used against them vs someone at a higher tier (that doesn't preclude them from hating LRMs - but rather the effectiveness of LRMs is mitigated by experience and understanding of the mechanics).

Quote

Is an MG useful at 1000 meters? No, of course not, but of course neither are SL's, flamers, etc.
Is an MG useful as a primary weapon for building a large alpha? No, of course not, it's great for exploiting open crit locations, opened by your other weapons, during brawling.

Do you need a strawman argument?

It does a subpar to mediocre job at doing that. If you think it hasn't changed, why don't you run them for a week.. just to get reacquainted with them? They haven't changed for a year plus, and frankly very often I don't see MG-capable/optimal/ideal mechs on the field. It's not a coincidence.

Quote

I see a lot of people who I've noticed pinballing around in lights really wanting the MG turned back into the MegaGun. We've all lived through that fiasco, let's not do it again...

Um, that assumes that Lights are the dominant in the queues... which has virtually never been the case, unless a new mech release occurs... and then it goes back to being a sub-15% queue option.

Quote

The MG is effective when used properly, not unlike regular PPC's, just because they can't do damage below 90 meters DOES NOT mean they're ineffective and not balanced. Just use them properly and you'll enjoy them that much more...

No... the facetime required to make the most of it in its current state doesn't allow it to succeed or be "effective in its role".

Even the comp community doesn't even bother putting the Ember anywhere near the top option in Light usage (let alone the Spider-5K).

Quote

AND AGAIN, you ignore my statement that, if MG's were all that "ineffective" and "useless" why do we see them equipped? Would it not be better to just go ahead, save the weight for a larger engine and more heat sinks? No one HAS to equip MG's on their 'mechs if they don't want to, and if they were as bad as you all think, no one would, but that's not the case at all.

Seeing them equipped is NOT the same as seeing them be effective. I would ask you to name the most dominant MG capable mech AND how often you see them in the queues (not on your team/premades, but rather on the opfor). I believe your current memory of MG usage honestly betrays you.

Quote

Admit you're wrong, admit your desire for a low heat alternative for your pinballing lights and move on...

lol... again... as if Lights were the dominant mechs used in the queues. I like how people make believe that Lights get the most play (and not just claiming them being OP for some odd reason)... let alone MGs. Let's just double down...

Edited by Deathlike, 07 October 2015 - 10:51 PM.

[Shadow Magnet]

Fenrisulvyn, on 07 October 2015 - 10:36 PM, said:

Sorry, but my understand is that the balance test was not meant to be in any final form, that quirks were all removed to isolate variables for better testing. Is that not true?

Yes, the removed all weapon quirks, the test was supposed only for the infowar quirks. However, PGI forgot to mention that to the players before putting it online. You can imagine what kind of feedback then came