82 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

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.

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.

Prosperity Park, on 12 February 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

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.

Alistair Winter, on 13 February 2016 - 12:08 PM, said:

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

Hey, I'm not the one asking for a 1/2 ton, 1 slot heatless weapon to be as good as a 1/2 ton, 1 slot weapon that produces heat.

[Mcgral18]

Prosperity Park, on 13 February 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

Hey, I'm not the one asking for a 1/2 ton, 1 slot heatless weapon to be as good as a 1/2 ton, 1 slot weapon that produces heat.

And why not? If there are drawbacks associated with it...like, you know, needing to face the target for a FULL THREE SECONDS to deal the same damage the SL does in three QUARTERS of a second.

Seems like a fair trade off for minimal heat, applying damage 4 times as fast.


It could even stand to lose the CoF at that rate.

[El Bandito]

Mcgral18, on 13 February 2016 - 05:38 PM, said:

And why not? If there are drawbacks associated with it...like, you know, needing to face the target for a FULL THREE SECONDS to deal the same damage the SL does in three QUARTERS of a second.

Seems like a fair trade off for minimal heat, applying damage 4 times as fast.

It could even stand to lose the CoF at that rate.

Not to mention the SL has slightly better range and actually hits the section it shoots at. SL also benefits from range quirks + range modules, while MG range quirks simply makes it spray in an even wider radius, making the quirk useless.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 February 2016 - 05:44 PM.

[Mcgral18]

El Bandito, on 13 February 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

Not to mention the SL has slightly better range and actually hits the section it shoots at. SL also benefits from range quirks + range modules, while MG range quirks simply makes it spray in an even wider radius, making the quirk useless.

I would hope he's making the assumption with CoF removed and 1 DPS.
Might as well factor that into the argument (which still makes the SL deadly in comparison...laughably)

[Felicitatem Parco]

Look, guys, this is a simple truth that you have to accept:

When you sum all the positives (frontloadedness, damage, accuracy, range, etc.) with all of the negatives (heat, beam durations, COF, facetime, weight, slots, ammo dependency, etc.), you have to conclude that a single MG is inferior to a single SL because they consume the same weight and slots, and the MG can operate on fewer tons of ammo then a SL requires in Heatsinks to be heat-neutral.

It's a fact. A MG is less valuable than a SL.

We should be asking for only a small Buff to MG... And we should be asking for the ability to mount banks of MGs in order to justify the hardpoint useage.

The hardpoint consumption by a MG is too high for the weapon's value. We need banks.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 13 February 2016 - 06:27 PM.

[Deathlike]

Prosperity Park, on 13 February 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

Look, guys, this is a simple truth that you have to accept:

When you sum all the positives (frontloadedness, damage, accuracy, range, etc.) with all of the negatives (heat, beam durations, COF, facetime, weight, slots, ammo dependency, etc.), you have to conclude that a single MG is inferior to a single SL because they consume the same weight and slots, and the MG can operate on fewer tons of ammo then a SL requires in Heatsinks to be heat-neutral.

It's a fact. A MG is less valuable than a SL.

We should be asking for only a small Buff to MG... And we should be asking for the ability to mount banks of MGs in order to justify the hardpoint useage.

The hardpoint consumption by a MG is too high for the weapon's value. We need banks.

I hope you're not balancing by Tier Paul. That's the logic I hear from Tier Paul. Please stop. Please?

Every single time I hear said stories, a Mist Lynx loses its arms. Please think of the Mist Lynx.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 February 2016 - 06:33 PM.

[ice trey]

Last I checked, MGs were still handy for crit seeking and being a weapon system that doesn't generate heat.

If those two points are still in place, then I don't see a problem. Bring them if you want to... or don't. They've saved my bacon a time or two. Same can be said about flamers. Actually, flamers still have that psychological edge. Nay-say about the stats all you will, players still seem to really do their best to back away from that stream of fire, compared to machine guns.

[LordNothing]

machine gun as a crit seeking weapon is great. people just think you should be able to punch through armor too. i wouldnt be against putting heavy machine guns on the fast track, it would do more damage to armor in exchange for its crit seeking abilities. this would give light mechs a little more punch.

[Mcgral18]

1 DPS and removal of the CoF is a small change. That's roughly where they were previously, before Paul got to them.


Heat Neutrality is not something you need, what you need is heat capacity to pump out enough damage to be useful. Small Lasers take a long time to reach the native 60 Heat Capacity (that's 30 small lasers without dissipation added in).

[El Bandito]

ice trey, on 13 February 2016 - 06:33 PM, said:

Last I checked, MGs were still handy for crit seeking and being a weapon system that doesn't generate heat.

If those two points are still in place, then I don't see a problem. Bring them if you want to... or don't. They've saved my bacon a time or two. Same can be said about flamers. Actually, flamers still have that psychological edge. Nay-say about the stats all you will, players still seem to really do their best to back away from that stream of fire, compared to machine guns.

What? I laugh at Flamers. After the patch maybe less so, but current Flamer is naught but a joke, a true testament of PGI's incompetence at making weapons work. Only complete newbies back away from Flamers.

Mcgral18, on 13 February 2016 - 06:43 PM, said:

1 DPS and removal of the CoF is a small change. That's roughly where they were previously, before Paul got to them.

IMO, only the CoF should be removed for now. That should add around 30-50% DPS to the section it targets beyond 80 meters. Damage can be added later, but right now we should focus on getting rid of its RNG factor, and let it be useful depending on skill.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 February 2016 - 06:48 PM.

[Deathlike]

If you really want to see SL vs MGs.. do a simple test.

Death Knell (Commando) vs Spider-5K.

Unless you feel like trolling with a LL or ERLL on the Spider-5K, an LPL+4MG based Spider is going to lose more often than not to a 4 SL TDK (and SL is not an optimal weapon on the TDK to begin with, but that's besides the point).

Remember that external armor is naturally 2 times the value of internals (PRIOR to quirks), so when you're using MGs, it's usually when a section is about to go... and not generally when you're trying to penetrate through the external armor. The work is done 90+% of the time by others or your own weapon of choice... not the MGs.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 February 2016 - 06:50 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

LordNothing, on 13 February 2016 - 06:41 PM, said:

machine gun as a crit seeking weapon is great. people just think you should be able to punch through armor too. i wouldnt be against putting heavy machine guns on the fast track, it would do more damage to armor in exchange for its crit seeking abilities. this would give light mechs a little more punch.

Banks.

You guys are viewing this from the wrong perspective. The MG is not too poorly balanced from a Weight/slot/heat/damage/etc. standpoint. It is poorly balanced from a hardpoint-consumption standpoint.

Given all it's attributes, a single MG does not justify the consumption of an entire ballistic hardpoint.

(Oh, and just to add rant value, there is no such thing as a machinegun with a 90m range unless it's a BB gun...)

Edited by Prosperity Park, 13 February 2016 - 06:57 PM.

[El Bandito]

Prosperity Park, on 13 February 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

Banks.

You guys are viewing this from the wrong perspective. The MG is not too poorly balanced from a Weight/slot/heat/damage/etc. standpoint. It is poorly balanced from a hardpoint-consumption standpoint.

Given all it's attributes, a single MG does not justify the consumption of an entire ballistic hardpoint.

But it can be made into a weapon that is good enough to occupy that slot. IF the CoF is removed (and maybe small damage boost afterwards), MG will actually matter in fights, like back in 2013. You'll see. It is a very big if though, as PGI is pretty much immune to good suggestions.

Doing so is much much simpler alternative than coding in MG array. PGI literally only has to delete a single line of code. That's it. Even an intern can't **** it up.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 February 2016 - 07:05 PM.

[Deathlike]

Prosperity Park, on 13 February 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

Banks.

You guys are viewing this from the wrong perspective. The MG is not too poorly balanced from a Weight/slot/heat/damage/etc. standpoint. It is poorly balanced from a hardpoint-consumption standpoint.

Given all it's attributes, a single MG does not justify the consumption of an entire ballistic hardpoint.

(Oh, and just to add rant value, there is no such thing as a machinegun with a 90m range unless it's a BB gun...)

For the record, we balance by what we have in the game, not with stuff PGI refuses to add to the game (like Binary Cannons, and other such wondrous Lostech).

Edited by Deathlike, 13 February 2016 - 07:00 PM.

[Cyborne Elemental]

Even on tonnage vs heat, MG is just too underpowered @ anything under 1.0 dps, crit% or not.

Facetime is facetime.

Edited by Mister D, 13 February 2016 - 07:02 PM.

[LordNothing]

Prosperity Park, on 13 February 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

Banks.

You guys are viewing this from the wrong perspective. The MG is not too poorly balanced from a Weight/slot/heat/damage/etc. standpoint. It is poorly balanced from a hardpoint-consumption standpoint.

Given all it's attributes, a single MG does not justify the consumption of an entire ballistic hardpoint.

(Oh, and just to add rant value, there is no such thing as a machinegun with a 90m range unless it's a BB gun...)

wouldnt mind mg arrays. its pretty much the same direction i was going. grab a bit of future tech to fix the current balance issue (imho there is no balance issue, mg as a crit seeker is about perfect, but it only falls through when you try to chew up armor with it). but we need a light anti-armor ballistic option.

Edited by LordNothing, 13 February 2016 - 07:06 PM.

[LordNothing]

El Bandito, on 13 February 2016 - 06:58 PM, said:

But it can be made into a weapon that is good enough to occupy that slot. IF the CoF is removed (and maybe small damage boost afterwards), MG will actually matter in fights, like back in 2013. You'll see. It is a very big if though, as PGI is pretty much immune to good suggestions.

Doing so is much much simpler alternative than coding in MG array. PGI literally only has to delete a single line of code. That's it. Even an intern can't **** it up.

its not so much coding as data entry. xml isnt real code. its really just a cut and paste job to add weapons. cut and paste the old machine gun, change some settings and come up with new icons and the like.

Edited by LordNothing, 13 February 2016 - 07:13 PM.

[Mcgral18]

LordNothing, on 13 February 2016 - 07:09 PM, said:

its not so much coding as data entry. xml isnt real code. its really just a cut and paste job to add weapons. cut and paste the old machine gun, change some settings and come up with new icons and the like.

Coding on the backend, with these being the input variables/attributes.


Attributes which they refuse to change directly, and prefer to just 'balance' with quirks.


Rather than invest multiple tons into a MG Array, then the tonnage again for the weapons themselves, why not just take the easier route and make MGs useful in and of themselves?

'damage="0.1"'
'spread="0.0"' or remove it entirely (assuming nothing breaks)

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 13 February 2016 - 07:18 PM, said:

'damage="0.1"'
'spread="0.0"' or remove it entirely (assuming nothing breaks)

Bitchin' Betty said:

Ammo Explosion Detected
Machine Gun Destroyed
Black Hole Detected
Universe Destroyed

[LordNothing]

because std machine gun as a crit seeking weapon is useful. i want a different ballistic weapon (under a couple tons) to chew up armor. then i can mix and match and have a good time.