151 replies to this topic

[NocturnalBeast]

627, on 29 January 2016 - 05:13 PM, said:

It is a weapon in the game so it should be useful. There is nothing more to say about. You can start lore fights or realworld nonsense or whatnot but the fact stays we have flamers and MG in the game. So why keep useless things in a game that isnt beta anymore?

btw shouldn't the stream have started by now or am I in the wrong year?

They are not "useless", they are situational weapons, machine guns do crazy crit damage when the armor is gone and flamers can increase the target mech's heat to 99% (which is damned annoying when used correctly).

You guys only think that these weapons are " useless" because they don't work the way YOU want them to.

Edited by Ed Steele, 29 January 2016 - 05:20 PM.

[627]

Ed Steele, on 29 January 2016 - 05:18 PM, said:

They are not "useless", they are situational weapons, machine guns do crazy crit damage when the armor is gone and flamers can increase the target mech's heat to 99% (which is damned annoying when used correctly).

First, MG should have the same DPS as an AC2 by lore. we are FAR away from that. And Crit damage... extra crit multiplier of tiny damage is still tiny damage. Crit damage is overrated anyhow.

And for the flamer, afaik it is 90% and it takes forever to do so and you'll likely overheat yourself (because that is not capped at 90%). Noone uses flamers beside trolling, there isn't even a "situational" thing. And blinding opponents doesn't count.

Edited by 627, 29 January 2016 - 05:32 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Ed Steele, on 29 January 2016 - 05:18 PM, said:

They are not "useless", they are situational weapons, machine guns do crazy crit damage when the armor is gone and flamers can increase the target mech's heat to 99% (which is damned annoying when used correctly).

You guys only think that these weapons are " useless" because they don't work the way YOU want them to.

No, that's not true Ed.

No one uses them seriously. That's because they're bad weapons. They manage to be worse than Small Lasers, which is an impressive feat in and of itself.


"You're not using them right" is often a false statement.
Again, you failed to address MY points.

Also false info, as the Flamer only gets up to 90% heat cap (after many seconds), but while they never overheat, the Flamer, in a single mount, is the hottest weapon in the game because of the heat curve.

Machine gun does get better Crit damage. A 9x Crit dam multiplier, in fact. It only needs 14 Crits to destroy your typical item at 120M with a 3M CoF.
That's as opposed to the single Gauss round at ~800-1000M.

They also only have a 52% chance to Crit to the typical 42% chance. Add a TC1, that Gauss goes to ~49% chance to Crit. TC7 for 54% (better than the MG, only requiring a single roll to destroy something).


Again, I ask you to give a realistic and logical reason why the MG and Flamer shouldn't be buffed to the Terribad point the Spheroid Small Laser is located at?

It is a bad weapon, and those two are Terribad.
An actual reason, none of this: "You aren't using it right"

[Big Tin Man]

Ok, you want reason, logic and backup for a MG buff?

I present the GAU-8 Avenger


Specifically the 14 oz. rounds it fires

[img]http://www.gunsandtactics.com/wp-content/themes/PrestigeLight/thumb.php?src=http://www.gunsandtactics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Round_600X8001.jpg&w=600&h=800&zc=1[/img]

This weapon is on the A-10 Warthog and it's primary function is to SHRED TANKS



Now what does a 14 oz. round that exists and MWO have in common?

2000 rounds per ton.

MG ammo is the equivalent of a GAU-8 round.

This is why MG's need a buff.

Edited by Big Tin Man, 29 January 2016 - 05:39 PM.

[627]

Big Tin Man, on 29 January 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

Ok, you want reason, logic and backup for a MG buff?

I present the GAU-8 Avenger


Specifically the 14 oz. rounds it fires

[img]http://www.gunsandtactics.com/wp-content/themes/PrestigeLight/thumb.php?src=http://www.gunsandtactics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Round_600X8001.jpg&w=600&h=800&zc=1[/img]

This weapon is on the A-10 Warthog and it's primary function is to SHRED TANKS



Now what does a 14 oz. round that exists and MWO have in common?

2000 rounds per ton.

MG ammo is the equivalent of a GAU-8 round.

This is why MG's need a buff.

And a new ingame legogun model. Like on that pic so people would see that it is a gun and no peashooter.

[FupDup]

Ed Steele, on 29 January 2016 - 05:18 PM, said:

They are not "useless", they are situational weapons, machine guns do crazy crit damage when the armor is gone and flamers can increase the target mech's heat to 99% (which is damned annoying when used correctly).

You guys only think that these weapons are " useless" because they don't work the way YOU want them to.

It's 90%, not 99%. It also takes a long time for it to even get the enemy that high, while it only takes a short time to overheat the person firing them.



The "situation" in which they are useful can be best summarized as "never."


For MGs, their crit damage has been dramatically weaker since their damage got nerfed with the Clan invasion update.

[Odanan]

Big Tin Man, on 29 January 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

Ok, you want reason, logic and backup for a MG buff?

I present the GAU-8 Avenger


Specifically the 14 oz. rounds it fires

[img]http://www.gunsandtactics.com/wp-content/themes/PrestigeLight/thumb.php?src=http://www.gunsandtactics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Round_600X8001.jpg&w=600&h=800&zc=1[/img]

This weapon is on the A-10 Warthog and it's primary function is to SHRED TANKS



Now what does a 14 oz. round that exists and MWO have in common?

2000 rounds per ton.

MG ammo is the equivalent of a GAU-8 round.

This is why MG's need a buff.

Well, the GAU-8 also has 1,220 m effective range and weights less than a BT's MG.

Computers that weight tons, heavy machineguns that shoot at a range of a slingshot... Unfortunately, there is no logic in Battletech.

But I agree. All weapons should have a place in the Battlefield. If nobody ever brings (seriously) the flamer, it's because the weapon is bad.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 29 January 2016 - 05:40 PM, said:

It's 90%, not 99%. It also takes a long time for it to even get the enemy that high, while it only takes a short time to overheat the person firing them.



The "situation" in which they are useful can be best summarized as "never."


For MGs, their crit damage has been dramatically weaker since their damage got nerfed with the Clan invasion update.

Arguments similar to this is why stuff like the Command Console stay useless.

Gotta deal with what we have, instead of what we obviously don't.

[Odanan]

Deathlike, on 29 January 2016 - 05:51 PM, said:

Arguments similar to this is why stuff like the Command Console stay useless.

Gotta deal with what we have, instead of what we obviously don't.

WT???

[Deathlike]

Odanan, on 29 January 2016 - 05:58 PM, said:

WT???

????

Sorry, my meme/acronym recognition is a tad behind.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 29 January 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

????

Sorry, my meme/acronym recognition is a tad behind.

I think he accidentally omitted a letter F, as in he was trying to type "WTF."

In his defense, sometimes your messages can in fact be a bit cryptic in terms of sentence structure and/or meaning.

Edited by FupDup, 29 January 2016 - 06:10 PM.

[Odanan]

Deathlike, on 29 January 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

????

Sorry, my meme/acronym recognition is a tad behind.

I'm sorry, your post is all wrong.

If we were happy with what we got, we would still be playing MW4.

Don't blame those who give PGI feedback to improve their game for the lack of development in some areas. Simply don't.

Edited by Odanan, 29 January 2016 - 06:19 PM.

[Deathlike]

Odanan, on 29 January 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

I'm sorry, your post is all wrong.

If you were happy with what we got, we would still be playing MW4.

Don't blame those who give PGI feedback to improve their game for the lack of development in some areas. Simply don't.

I think you're misreading what I'm writing.

Every single time a constructive discussion happens about relatively weaker/ineffective stuff and giving them buffs, we end up with the most insane reasons to keep them that way.

Command Console
LBX
Flamers
MGs
"and many, many more..."

These discussions are necessary, instead of keeping the status quo. Having people continuously wonder why "there's only the meta" and "why aren't the other stuff being used", it should be obvious to those that even bother to mess around with the systems. If you don't seriously see anything at Tier 1 (let alone comp play), there's no magical reason other than "it sucks" to explain it away.

As long as people keep making dumb arguments against the contrary, we'll be in this eternal cycle for as long as this continues. Expanding the meta is better for everyone involved... and to keep some weapons useless or ineffective only serves to drive people crazy... whether we like it or not.

So, it is what it is.

[NocturnalBeast]

Odanan, on 29 January 2016 - 05:51 PM, said:

Well, the GAU-8 also has 1,220 m effective range and weights less than a BT's MG.

Computers that weight tons, heavy machineguns that shoot at a range of a slingshot... Unfortunately, there is no logic in Battletech.

But I agree. All weapons should have a place in the Battlefield. If nobody ever brings (seriously) the flamer, it's because the weapon is bad.

BattleTech is from the 80s, microelectronics were not widely in use and the people who wrote the games were obviously not engineers. And the A10s gun was designed to take out armor, machine guns in BATTLETECH are designed to take out infantry and light vehicles. Battlemech armor is made of magical sci-fi materials that are mostly impervious to anything other that anti-mech weapons, or heavy ordinance.

[Mcgral18]

Ed Steele, on 29 January 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

BattleTech is from the 80s, microelectronics were not widely in use and the people who wrote the games were obviously not engineers. And the A10s gun was designed to take out armor, machine guns in BATTLETECH are designed to take out infantry and light vehicles. Battlemech armor is made of magical sci-fi materials that are mostly impervious to anything other that anti-mech weapons, or heavy ordinance.

And you're wrong again.

They're designed to take out Mech armour. That's a partial fluff reason for the short range, that's the range where it's effective against Mech armour (but that fluff falls apart with infantry having the same range).


Now, you're still avoiding my question. Mind answering it? A logical reason why MGs and Flamers shouldn't be valid weapons?

[Amsro]

Ed Steele, on 29 January 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

BattleTech is from the 80s, microelectronics were not widely in use and the people who wrote the games were obviously not engineers. And the A10s gun was designed to take out armor, machine guns in BATTLETECH are designed to take out infantry and light vehicles. Battlemech armor is made of magical sci-fi materials that are mostly impervious to anything other that anti-mech weapons, or heavy ordinance.

Machine Guns were AMAZING at killing infantry and light vehicles, but also did 2 damage in the same amount of time an AC/2 does. Just using far more projectiles in that time span.

This idea that they were for anti infantry/small vehicle only is false.

Edited by Amsro, 29 January 2016 - 06:42 PM.

[FupDup]

For the Flamer discussion, it's confirmed that some kind of new effect is coming for them in February. No specifics given.

EdSteele: 0
Everyone Else: 1

Edited by FupDup, 29 January 2016 - 06:51 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

FupDup, on 29 January 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

For the Flamer discussion, it's confirmed that some kind of new effect is coming for them in February. No specifics given.

EdSteele: 0
Everyone Else: 1

I will refrain from giving a similarly childish response and will instead propose how I think MGs and Flamers should be tweaked:

MGs should do a total of two points of damage over the duration of a burst (due to double armor in MWO) and should have their crit bonus reduced.

Flamers should do the same damage and have the same effects that they do now, but they should generate 0 heat for the Mech firing them (since you are essentially venting heat per lore).

[Amsro]

FupDup, on 29 January 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

For the Flamer discussion, it's confirmed that some kind of new effect is coming for them in February. No specifics given.

EdSteele: 0
Everyone Else: 1

I would bet we all lose. I'll hold my judgement till the change isn't patched in February.

Edited by Amsro, 29 January 2016 - 07:01 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

MGs should do a total of two points of damage over the duration of a burst (due to double armor in MWO) and should have their crit bonus reduced.

Um no. MGs should not be re tarded burst weapons. They would be perfectly fine at 1.0 dps. A 25% increase over the 0.8 dps they do now.

Edited by Khobai, 29 January 2016 - 07:55 PM.