32 replies to this topic

[Mawai]

There are lots of interesting ideas about machine guns ... but the bottom line is really ...
- how effective should machine guns be
- how should PGI go about making them that effective

Consider ... MGs are a 2 damage, no heat weapon in Battletech. The primary role was anti-infantry though they could cause some damage to mechs ... they generally weren't worth taking many since they had a limited range.

Translate this to a real time first person shooter game ...
- machine guns are now aimed (even if they do have a cone of fire ... if you are close (and you have to be to use them) then most of the rounds hit the component they are aimed at)
- they can be boated in MWO ... some mechs can have 6 or more MGs already ... allowing multiple MGs/ballistic hard point is just making the problem worse rather than deciding how effective the MG should be and fixing that.

So ... what happens if we scale up MGs to MWO the same as other weapons?
- MGs go to 4 to 6 damage/10s ... 0.4 to 0.6 dps ... with no heat ... according to Smurfy it is already 0.8dps so this is actually in line with the scaling of other weapons (the dps/ton for MGs is already the highest of any weapon system).
- range for MGs listed in Smurfy is 120m with a max range of 240m ... so this is also more or less in line with TT.

Since MGs already appear to be scaled appropriately ... why do folks think that they should be any more powerful than they already are? MGs aren't supposed to be a primary mech weapon system ... they are a support weapon.

Let's say a mech could mount 12 MGs as the OP suggest ... that is a total of 6 tons of weapons ... with a total DPS of 9.6 ... which can run continuously, generates no heat and has a short range.

Why do MGs need to be any more effective than they are now?

[wanderer]

Prosperity Park, on 16 April 2016 - 11:43 AM, said:

Machineguns are 0.5 ton heatless weapons. They should not be buffed to be as useful as a small laser, however allowing g them to be mounted in banks would justify their consumption of a hardpoint.

Actually, an MG is a minimum of a one-ton weapon, given the ammo requirement to fire it. .75 if you're a Clanner.

I'm still all for just altering their firing- hold down the trigger, MGs spin up for a higher fire rate and begin to generate (small amounts) of heat and consume ammo faster.

Even if you double ROF (getting it up to 1.6 DPS, which is slightly higher than a SPL) have it generate heat similar to firing a small laser....well, you have a cone-of-fire gun with less range than an SPL, a delay in getting to full DPS, and eats ammo twice as fast as normal. Or you fire it in bursts and don't heat up, but less DPS for a no-heat alternative.

[Mcgral18]

Mawai, on 16 April 2016 - 07:01 PM, said:

There are lots of interesting ideas about machine guns ... but the bottom line is really ...
- how effective should machine guns be
- how should PGI go about making them that effective

Consider ... MGs are a 2 damage, no heat weapon in Battletech. The primary role was anti-infantry though they could cause some damage to mechs ... they generally weren't worth taking many since they had a limited range.

Translate this to a real time first person shooter game ...
- machine guns are now aimed (even if they do have a cone of fire ... if you are close (and you have to be to use them) then most of the rounds hit the component they are aimed at)
- they can be boated in MWO ... some mechs can have 6 or more MGs already ... allowing multiple MGs/ballistic hard point is just making the problem worse rather than deciding how effective the MG should be and fixing that.

So ... what happens if we scale up MGs to MWO the same as other weapons?
- MGs go to 4 to 6 damage/10s ... 0.4 to 0.6 dps ... with no heat ... according to Smurfy it is already 0.8dps so this is actually in line with the scaling of other weapons (the dps/ton for MGs is already the highest of any weapon system).
- range for MGs listed in Smurfy is 120m with a max range of 240m ... so this is also more or less in line with TT.

Since MGs already appear to be scaled appropriately ... why do folks think that they should be any more powerful than they already are? MGs aren't supposed to be a primary mech weapon system ... they are a support weapon.

Let's say a mech could mount 12 MGs as the OP suggest ... that is a total of 6 tons of weapons ... with a total DPS of 9.6 ... which can run continuously, generates no heat and has a short range.

Why do MGs need to be any more effective than they are now?

Because they're pitiful to use.


MGs need to be viable weapons, just as the LBx, LRMs, and SL need to be as well.


The Flamer change had exactly one significant adjustment: Changing the initial heat value from ZERO to 4.5H/s. They also gimped damage and decreased the Heat Retention timer, but those were the nerfs.
That brought it out of the Trash Tier category into the niche role of heat.
Still has the "Crit Weapon" characteristics, with a whopping 6% chance to deal 0.033 Crit damage.


MGs are better off in that regard, with a 4% chance to deal 2.16 Crit damage (yes, 27 times the listed damage in Crit damage, 9 CritDamMult, 3 crits)

They're still pathetically weak, and need 5 of those particular Crits to hit the same item. It'll happen eventually.


Some mechs have 6, but the typical amount is 4. How many use them? Nova is now gimped if you take them, because you lose 8% Heat Gen.
SadCat loses the Jesus Box
Arrow is better off boating 3 Large class lasers
Jager should be using UACs

Ember is useless
Cute Fox is also useless, but can use a cLPL
Huggin, see Light #1

I think you get the point.

You're better off using heatsinks than Machine Guns at this point, because machine guns make you FACE the target CONSTANTLY. They deal 0.8 DPS...over 1 second. A full second, of constantly aiming, constantly shooting, and constantly exposing yourself.
At 100M

That means you're getting shot, more often, in more important places.
The SL deals 1 DPS, but it deals 3 damage in 0.75s, whereupon it can look away. The SL is a terrible weapon, but it's comparable enough.


I'll just reiterate what I said above: You are going to perform better if you completely ignore your machine gun hardpoints on certain mechs.
Nova and Arrow are prime examples here, partially omni-quirks, partially getting more heatsinks (including arm stripping)

The Arrow CAN be done with machine guns, if you want a more fun than effective build, it also has a 25% RoF boost, returning the MGs to 1 DPS, Where they should be in the first place.
That doesn't reduce the CoF, or increase their range. It just increases their damage to a nearly acceptable place. I still prefer removing them entirely and taking LLs with heatsinks.


MGs need to be viable mech weapons, because they are mech weapons. If you take 6 tons worth, I expect them to perform BETTER than 6 tons of a longer range weapon system, especially if that weapon system has longer range, higher upfront damage and no CoF.

Give us a reason why Machine Guns should not be a viable weapon system in MWO.

[Mahpsy]

Mcgral18, on 16 April 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

Because they're pitiful to use.


MGs need to be viable weapons, just as the LBx, LRMs, and SL need to be as well.


The Flamer change had exactly one significant adjustment: Changing the initial heat value from ZERO to 4.5H/s. They also gimped damage and decreased the Heat Retention timer, but those were the nerfs.
That brought it out of the Trash Tier category into the niche role of heat.
Still has the "Crit Weapon" characteristics, with a whopping 6% chance to deal 0.033 Crit damage.


MGs are better off in that regard, with a 4% chance to deal 2.16 Crit damage (yes, 27 times the listed damage in Crit damage, 9 CritDamMult, 3 crits)

They're still pathetically weak, and need 5 of those particular Crits to hit the same item. It'll happen eventually.


Some mechs have 6, but the typical amount is 4. How many use them? Nova is now gimped if you take them, because you lose 8% Heat Gen.
SadCat loses the Jesus Box
Arrow is better off boating 3 Large class lasers
Jager should be using UACs

Ember is useless
Cute Fox is also useless, but can use a cLPL
Huggin, see Light #1

I think you get the point.

You're better off using heatsinks than Machine Guns at this point, because machine guns make you FACE the target CONSTANTLY. They deal 0.8 DPS...over 1 second. A full second, of constantly aiming, constantly shooting, and constantly exposing yourself.
At 100M

That means you're getting shot, more often, in more important places.
The SL deals 1 DPS, but it deals 3 damage in 0.75s, whereupon it can look away. The SL is a terrible weapon, but it's comparable enough.


I'll just reiterate what I said above: You are going to perform better if you completely ignore your machine gun hardpoints on certain mechs.
Nova and Arrow are prime examples here, partially omni-quirks, partially getting more heatsinks (including arm stripping)

The Arrow CAN be done with machine guns, if you want a more fun than effective build, it also has a 25% RoF boost, returning the MGs to 1 DPS, Where they should be in the first place.
That doesn't reduce the CoF, or increase their range. It just increases their damage to a nearly acceptable place. I still prefer removing them entirely and taking LLs with heatsinks.


MGs need to be viable mech weapons, because they are mech weapons. If you take 6 tons worth, I expect them to perform BETTER than 6 tons of a longer range weapon system, especially if that weapon system has longer range, higher upfront damage and no CoF.

Give us a reason why Machine Guns should not be a viable weapon system in MWO.

Couldn't have said it better my self.

Edited by Ragingdemon, 16 April 2016 - 09:07 PM.

[Rattlehead NZ]

It's an interesting idea.

Could even make the MG Array take up 1x hardpoint, 3x slots for 2 mg's and 1 ton, basically working similar as IS single and double heat sinks. Creating a pro and con for mass banks of mg's because of the space they would take up would limit the use of endo and ferro at the same time due to the space used, but not impossible. Would limit the room to have wub + MG arrays + double heatsinks.

[Master Pain]

MG's need something. They are just so bad right now.

[Chuck Jager]

still need to work on the clan weight balance to the IS. I do play Clan, but see this as a clan advantage in the short range IS arena. This also is an issue with the low heat cost.

Me and my Huggin still really like the idea. Any and all ballistics are just fun to play.

[Bobzilla]

Remove CoF, increase range, have MG dmg not show on the HUD. Useful weapon for a scout.

[QuantumButler]

Remove COF, give MGs the same range as AC/2s, triple their current ROF,, the Living Legends solution.

Edited by QuantumButler, 17 April 2016 - 08:32 AM.

[cazidin]

Mawai, on 16 April 2016 - 07:01 PM, said:

There are lots of interesting ideas about machine guns ... but the bottom line is really ...
- how effective should machine guns be
- how should PGI go about making them that effective

Consider ... MGs are a 2 damage, no heat weapon in Battletech. The primary role was anti-infantry though they could cause some damage to mechs ... they generally weren't worth taking many since they had a limited range.

Translate this to a real time first person shooter game ...
- machine guns are now aimed (even if they do have a cone of fire ... if you are close (and you have to be to use them) then most of the rounds hit the component they are aimed at)
- they can be boated in MWO ... some mechs can have 6 or more MGs already ... allowing multiple MGs/ballistic hard point is just making the problem worse rather than deciding how effective the MG should be and fixing that.

So ... what happens if we scale up MGs to MWO the same as other weapons?
- MGs go to 4 to 6 damage/10s ... 0.4 to 0.6 dps ... with no heat ... according to Smurfy it is already 0.8dps so this is actually in line with the scaling of other weapons (the dps/ton for MGs is already the highest of any weapon system).
- range for MGs listed in Smurfy is 120m with a max range of 240m ... so this is also more or less in line with TT.

Since MGs already appear to be scaled appropriately ... why do folks think that they should be any more powerful than they already are? MGs aren't supposed to be a primary mech weapon system ... they are a support weapon.

Let's say a mech could mount 12 MGs as the OP suggest ... that is a total of 6 tons of weapons ... with a total DPS of 9.6 ... which can run continuously, generates no heat and has a short range.

Why do MGs need to be any more effective than they are now?

You probably think that Ferro Fibrous should stay as an inferior alternative to Endo Steel too?

[wanderer]

cazidin, on 17 April 2016 - 10:16 AM, said:

You probably think that Ferro Fibrous should stay as an inferior alternative to Endo Steel too?

Actually, yes I do. It was designed that way on purpose so you wouldn't get too much benefits from trading in space. That has little to do with machineguns, though.

[Naduk]

Voted NO
I would rather see them go back to 0.12 damage instead of the 0.08 they currently sit at
They copped a damage Nerf and a crit Nerf at the same time

For a 1t weapon it was a bit to harsh
It has to complete with a medium laser after all

Stacking mg's would be nice for a special set of mechs via quirks
Think annihilator

[Troutmonkey]

Make them separate items, and then just add more barrels to the dynamic model

MG
.5 Tonnes, 1 slot

Double MG
1 Tonnes, 3 slots

Triple MG
1.5 Tonnes, 5 slots