82 replies to this topic

[Trauglodyte]

They should just make MGs bursts and be done with it. Even if it had a 0.5s cool down and did equal damage, I'd be happy. The worst part about the damned weapon, aside from the fact that I can't actually aim where I'm putting the damage thanks to the CoF, is that I have to hold down the button and face tank whatever I'm shooting just to get the most out of my weapon. That isn't even taking into account that I pay the same weight for my MG as I do a Small Laser and yet I don't have to carry ammo for the Small Laser AND I get 10 free heatsinks to boot.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Deathlike, on 12 February 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

Small Lasers does more damage when you need it, with less facetime.

You have to be more practical on how useful a weapon is based on how it is actually used, not based on numbers alone.

Oh, yeah, I know. We didn't even discuss slots, of crit chances, or blah blah.

I was just trying to make a point that in a game where firing rates were tripled but heat dissipation was not increased, you have to assign extra value to a weapon that's "heatless" since heatlessness is now many more times valuable than it was previously.

[Tickdoff Tank]

mogs01gt, on 12 February 2016 - 01:53 PM, said:

Machine guns were used on mechs for infantry. We have no infantry so machine guns shouldnt exist.

What do you mean by "mech grade weapon"?

That is completely incorrect. In TT an MG does 2 damage, the same as an AC/2. The MG is range limited. It gets a BONUS against infantry, not a penalty against mechs. The reduced effective range is the major limiting factor of the MG, not the damage, or the thought that "It is not meant to hurt mechs".

As far back as you go, TT considered the MG a weapon that could hurt a mech, it should be no different in MWO. I have been fighting this battle for a LONG LONG time.

Edit: I am perfectly aware that making the MWO MG do the same damage as the MWO AC/2 is NOT a good idea. 6 AC2s do a frightening amount of damage, and the MG would be heatless, the damage a light mech would do with 4 MGs up close would be way out of proportion to what they should be doing. That said, the MGs still need a buff to make them a more useful weapon, and the current "Crit Seeking" is just not cutting it.

Edited by Tickdoff Tank, 12 February 2016 - 04:42 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Tickdoff Tank, on 12 February 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

That is completely incorrect. In TT an MG does 2 damage, the same as an AC/2. The MG is range limited. It gets a BONUS against infantry, not a penalty against mechs. The reduced effective range is the major limiting factor of the MG, not the damage, or the thought that "It is not meant to hurt mechs".

As far back as you go, TT considered the MG a weapon that could hurt a mech, it should be no different in MWO. I have been fighting this battle for a LONG LONG time.

It's why I get grouchy about the topic.

People keep coming out with that "Oh, it's an anti-infantry weapon, it's not meant to hurt mechs" line of utter, complete, total bulls**t. It really pisses me off now, because it's such a load of unsubstantiated crap.

Just because a weapon gained a bonus against a unit type we don't have in absolutely no way removes the fact that it was a serious anti-mech weapon as well.

If they went "with lore", the machine gun should do something around 2.78 dps given MWO's damage scaling as per the AC2, as it should do the same damage an AC2 does - but at critically short range.

I'm fine with 1dps vs. armor/2dps vs structure though.

[Trauglodyte]

The crit seeking argument is only viable IF we had a system where criticals actually meant something. Currently, they don't. I don't do any more damage internally than I would otherwise except now I can take out a weapon or piece of equipment faster. That does the extreme end Light mechs absolutely nothing when their survivability is less than a fart in the wind.

[Khobai]

Quote

The crit seeking argument is only viable IF we had a system where criticals actually meant something. Currently, they don't.

This. PP should just try out tripling internal structure to improve TTK and make crits matter more.

They also need to make armor punching weapons less good at critting than crit seeking weapons. An AC/10 should not be more effective at critting than an LB10X.

AC/10 and PPC needs their crit multipliers lowered to x0.9 so they can no longer take out most weapons with a single crit.

LB10X also needs its crit multipler increased to x2.5 so it destroys weapons in 4 hits instead of 5 hits. It currently takes way too long for an LB10X to crit anything.

Machine Gun needs its damage increased to 0.1 as well (25% damage increase).

Edited by Khobai, 12 February 2016 - 05:38 PM.

[jonfett]

FupDup, on 12 February 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

Every time somebody says that TT MGs couldn't hurt mechs, Kerensky kills an Urbanmech IIC.

Props to ya dude...I'm taking this for my sig

[wanderer]

Prosperity Park, on 12 February 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

Heat is a premium topic in this game.

A bank of 6 small Lasers currently generates ~38 heat in 10 seconds.
To make them heat neutral would require ~20 DHS (for discussion sake)

That's 23 tons of material.

How many tons of ammo and MGs can you mount for that?! How does 24 machine guns and 11 tons of ammo sound?

You can have 24 heat neutral Machineguns and 11 tons of ammo for the same weight as 6 heat-neutral small Lasers.

This, of course ignores that you can only have a maximum of 16 weapons, and even then will be limited by hardpoint counts.
Or as noted earlier, there's actually a "hot mode" for machineguns.

[Alistair Winter]

Prosperity Park, on 12 February 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

Heat is a premium topic in this game.
A bank of 6 small Lasers currently generates ~38 heat in 10 seconds.
To make them heat neutral would require ~20 DHS (for discussion sake)
That's 23 tons of material.
How many tons of ammo and MGs can you mount for that?! How does 24 machine guns and 11 tons of ammo sound?
You can have 24 heat neutral Machineguns and 11 tons of ammo for the same weight as 6 heat-neutral small Lasers.

The spreadsheet is strong with this one. A true disciple of St. Paul the Normalized.

[LordKnightFandragon]

wanderer, on 12 February 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:

They're actually frequently used as backup weapons- the three most common (by an immense margin) designs in the Inner Sphere are the Locust, Stinger, and Wasp.

Two-thirds of those are using machine guns. Trust me, they get plenty of use against smaller and softer targets, other 'Mechs included.

BUt you dont go loading your 85t mech up with machineguns.....

They might hurt the mech, but its not an efficient way to go.....

[Trauglodyte]

Let's keep this simple. Mechs that can afford the tonnage for real weapons don't use MGs. Sure, you see the random troll mech running them or that guy that just bought a specific mech and either didn't take the time to change it up or didn't want to do so. But, when you look at the Locust or any mech from 20 tons to 30 tons, what do you do with the ballistic slots? More to the point, when we're talking about mechs with an extreme lack of armor, why are we forcing said mechs to continuously face down a target just to put forth a pathetic level of damage while white washing said pathetic level of damage with the promise of "crit bonuses"? Seriously, drop the whole LORE crutch and let's just look at the game for what it is - either something is viable to do damage or it isn't and if it isn't, it either needs to be removed, it needs to be improved to the point of not being pointless, or something else needs to be added to take its place.

[wanderer]

Come to think, Battlemasters have them stock. The reason you don't see immense numbers of MGs on stock designs is simple- they have very short range. Slower designs really can't bring them to bear and tend to use them more as a cheap way to keep a bit of damage on or to swat targets that really don't need to be bothered with expending part of a 'Mechs heat load.

The Clans, of course thought differently- thus the Piranha. And even in MWO, you've got 'Mechs from 85 tons on down mounting them stock- including the Warhammer, Catapult, and Thunderbolt in the heavies.

They're not used in MWO because they're statted so badly, not because the weapon they're modeled on is useless. (It's main drawback in TT was being stuck with far more ammo than a 'Mech generally could use, meaning you basically had a bomb strapped to the 'Mech that would do up to 400 damage if struck at the wrong time. CASE was good advice.).

The biggest stock 'Mech to really strap on MGs will be the Viking- packing 4 of them onto it's 90 ton chassis. And of course, MWO limits the number of MGs by hardpoints and the 16-weapon limit. You'll never, say, see a 42-MG heavy show up.

[nehebkau]

Prosperity Park, on 12 February 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

Heat is a premium topic in this game.

A bank of 6 small Lasers currently generates ~38 heat in 10 seconds.
To make them heat neutral would require ~20 DHS (for discussion sake)

That's 23 tons of material.


How many tons of ammo and MGs can you mount for that?! How does 24 machine guns and 11 tons of ammo sound?


You can have 24 heat neutral Machineguns and 11 tons of ammo for the same weight as 6 heat-neutral small Lasers.

Pinpoint damage?

[mogs01gt]

Wintersdark, on 12 February 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:

Don't be stupid.

"In Lore" - as in stock mech builds - Machine guns are present on LOT of different mechs. They weren't used in tabletop play often because the explosive ammo was detrimental, but TT has different ammo explosion rules and that right there is a TT balance issue, not a "lore" issue.

Keep in mind, "In Lore" machine guns do the same damage that freaking AC/2's do.

BS!! Im reading the novels right now.

Here is just ONE quote from Shrapnel, Fragments From the Inner Sphere.

Quote

Trev-R circled right and shot back with everything he had The three remaining machine guns chattered away, most of the slugs going wide as he sprayed in an arc 60 degrees in front of his 'Mech.The few that hit bounced like peas off the side of an elephant.

Warhammer vs an Atlas.
Now I didnt look for other quotes to suggest the could penetrate armor, I can look if you want because I have all of the novels in PDF. Lore could be author based for sure.

Edited by mogs01gt, 13 February 2016 - 03:43 PM.

[InspectorG]

Wintersdark, on 12 February 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:

Keep in mind, "In Lore" machine guns do the same damage that freaking AC/2's do.

Short range, heatless, crit fishers that despite however many you carry would only ever need .5 tons ammo.

Least thats how i used them.

Also had some use vs those Mech in lore that had, you know, like 4 leg armor. People forget the MWO runs max and inflated armor values.

[Mcgral18]

mogs01gt, on 13 February 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

Now I didnt look for other quotes to suggest the could penetrate armor, I can look if you want because I have all of the novels in PDF. Lore could be author based for sure.

They don't penetrate armour; they peel it off with many rounds.
That's how Ablative armour works (which is what Battle Mechs have)

Just as your AC20 doesn't penetrate, it removes the corresponding amount of armour due to kinetic and explosive impact.
Just like 10 Machine Guns could remove the same amount.

[Wintersdark]

mogs01gt, on 13 February 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

BS!! Im reading the novels right now.

Here is just ONE quote from Shrapnel, Fragments From the Inner Sphere.
[/font][/size]
Warhammer vs an Atlas.
Now I didnt look for other quotes to suggest the could penetrate armor, I can look if you want because I have all of the novels in PDF. Lore could be author based for sure.

1) Novels are, insofar as Battletech goes, not canon in terms of what weapons and such do. Battletech is. Various authors all have (sometimes wildly) different ideas of things, most of which are based 100% on what that author thought sounded cool in his scene.

Battletech rules clearly show a machine gun does the same damage to a mech as an ac2.

2) "most of the slugs going wide as he sprayed in an arc 60 degrees in front of his 'Mech.The few that hit bounced like peas off the side of an elephant."

60 degree arc. Only a few shells hit. This is, in Tabletop parlance, a miss. In MWO even with high damage machine guns would be the same. Get hit by just a couple bullets out of a 60 degree spray and you're not taking any damage of note.

Try it. Take a triple ac2 mech. Spray rapidly across 60 degrees. Even if a shell from each hits, you're probably doing two damage to each of three facings. One would scoff at that as shells bouncing off your armor (which is essentially what happens when even ac20 shells hit mech armor without penetrating)

You're basically drawing a really sketchy conclusion from a mostly missed spray and pray shot in a novel written by some random dude.

On the other side of the debate?

Rules with actual numbers that show the machine gun (just one) does exactly the same damage as an AC2 assuming a hit.

Really, you have zero legs to stand on here.

[MauttyKoray]

AlphaToaster, on 12 February 2016 - 02:22 PM, said:

I always thought it was an intentional nerf to control the Ember. I remember when that thing was stupid scary for like, 2 months.

We can't have nice things.

Firestarters were never scary because of the MGs, it was because of the number of lasers, speed, and durability. The SAME reason the Arctic Cheetah is now considered as such, though its hitboxes/size play more into that mech even.

[Mcgral18]

MauttyKoray, on 13 February 2016 - 05:18 PM, said:

Firestarters were never scary because of the MGs, it was because of the number of lasers, speed, and durability. The SAME reason the Arctic Cheetah is now considered as such, though its hitboxes/size play more into that mech even.

One upon a time (before Clams) the Ember was as close you could get to a P2W light, because of the MGs.
That's when they did 1 DPS, and for a time before that, better CritDam+CritChance


Hitreg also wasn't as great, and Laser LOLphas weren't really a thing yet (without Clam tech, quirks, and mechs to boat). IS Pulses were also absolute garbage.


A different era, essentially.

[El Bandito]

Mcgral18, on 13 February 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

One upon a time (before Clams) the Ember was as close you could get to a P2W light, because of the MGs.
That's when they did 1 DPS, and for a time before that, better CritDam+CritChance

Yep, I miss my damn Ember. Used to be so good with those machine guns. Newbies wouldn't understand.