25 replies to this topic

[SovietArmada]

Very hyped for the new weapons coming out, any word if machine gun arrays will be viable in the future, cause mass machine guns is just pure joy.

[FupDup]

PGI would nerf individual Machine Guns into the ground if MG Arrays became a thing. Do you remember when MGs only dealt 0.04 per bullet? That could very well happen again, and it would make me a sad panda.

[Kaeb Odellas]

My understanding of Machine Gun Arrays is that they just let you turn multiple machine guns into a single weapon with the addition of half a ton, so instead of having 4 half-ton machine guns that do 2 damage on potentially 4 different components, you'd have a 2.5 ton machine gun array that does 8 damage on whatever it hits.

This would be useless for MWO, as every weapon targets the same point anyway.

[Y E O N N E]

Kaeb Odellas, on 14 March 2017 - 07:16 PM, said:

My understanding of Machine Gun Arrays is that they just let you turn multiple machine guns into a single weapon with the addition of half a ton, so instead of having 4 half-ton machine guns that do 2 damage on potentially 4 different components, you'd have a 2.5 ton machine gun array that does 8 damage on whatever it hits.

This would be useless for MWO, as every weapon targets the same point anyway.

People have it in their heads that MG Arrays in MWO would let you apply multiple MGs to a single ballistic hardpoint.

TBQH, it is the only way Light MGs would actually be useful short of buffing the entire MG range again.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 March 2017 - 07:17 PM, said:

People have it in their heads that MG Arrays in MWO would let you apply multiple MGs to a single ballistic hardpoint.

TBQH, it is the only way Light MGs would actually be useful short of buffing the entire MG range again.

Well, how else would the MG Array justify its added weight and slot consumption over just taking multiple normal MGs? It's kind of a hell if you do, hell if you don't kind of deal.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 14 March 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

Well, how else would the MG Array justify its added weight and slot consumption over just taking multiple normal MGs? It's kind of a hell if you do, hell if you don't kind of deal.

I didn't say it was a bad idea, only that it is the current groupthink.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 March 2017 - 07:17 PM, said:

People have it in their heads that MG Arrays in MWO would let you apply multiple MGs to a single ballistic hardpoint.

TBQH, it is the only way Light MGs would actually be useful short of buffing the entire MG range again.

They should just give LMGs the same damage as regular MGs, but without the crit bonuses.

[Y E O N N E]

Kaeb Odellas, on 14 March 2017 - 07:24 PM, said:

They should just give LMGs the same damage as regular MGs, but without the crit bonuses.

Or, and people are going to hate me for saying this, use spread.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 March 2017 - 07:36 PM, said:

Or, and people are going to hate me for saying this, use spread.

As in, Light MGs not having spread? Because their whole point is to have good range, and having spread on them makes them unable to effectively use that range increase (potential range =/= effective range).

[Kaeb Odellas]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 March 2017 - 07:36 PM, said:

Or, and people are going to hate me for saying this, use spread.

That would be super counter-intuitive though, if the longer-ranged LMGs had more spread.

Now if you're arguing to give standard MGs more spread, I will fight you.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 14 March 2017 - 07:40 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 14 March 2017 - 07:39 PM, said:

As in, Light MGs not having spread? Because their whole point is to have good range, and having spread on them makes them unable to effectively use that range increase (potential range =/= effective range).

More or less. They should have a tighter cone than MG and HMG, regardless. I would actually rather all three have the same range and just use spread and damage to differentiate them.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 14 March 2017 - 06:28 PM, said:

PGI would nerf individual Machine Guns into the ground if MG Arrays became a thing. Do you remember when MGs only dealt 0.04 per bullet? That could very well happen again, and it would make me a sad panda.

pretty sure of the hassle of coding them to work is just not something they consider worth the headache, anyhow.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 March 2017 - 07:40 PM, said:

More or less. They should have a tighter cone than MG and HMG, regardless. I would actually rather all three have the same range and just use spread and damage to differentiate them.

Tigher cone as in no cone at all? If Light MGs are going to do piddly damage, they need to be fully accurate at their intended ranges.

You can argue for spread on something like a Heavy MG that could potentially do a lot of damage (depending on how PGI decides to roll), but the LMG ain't so lucky.

Bishop Steiner, on 14 March 2017 - 07:41 PM, said:

pretty sure of the hassle of coding them to work is just not something they consider worth the headache, anyhow.

PGI could (and probably would) easily sidestep that by making MG Arrays into entirely separate items. MGA-2, MGA-3, and MGA-4.

Then we'd have to deal with the balance issues though...

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 14 March 2017 - 07:42 PM, said:

Tigher cone as in no cone at all? If Light MGs are going to do piddly damage, they need to be fully accurate at their intended ranges.

You can argue for spread on something like a Heavy MG that could potentially do a lot of damage (depending on how PGI decides to roll), but the LMG ain't so lucky.

Yup, that's basically it. I wouldn't say no cone at all because it would look really stupid, just a cone so small that it doesn't make a difference because 'Mechs aren't small enough for it to at the intended ranges.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 March 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

Yup, that's basically it. I wouldn't say no cone at all because it would look really stupid, just a cone so small that it doesn't make a difference because 'Mechs aren't small enough for it to at the intended ranges.

How would it look stupid?

If it's getting so small that it's not an issue at its maximum range, then it's only there "just because" rather than serving some kind of specific purpose.

[Deathlike]

So... preemptive "make MGs great again" thread is in the cards.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 14 March 2017 - 07:45 PM, said:

How would it look stupid?

If it's getting so small that it's not an issue at its maximum range, then it's only there "just because" rather than serving some kind of specific purpose.

Because it's a perfectly precise stream of bullets hitting one spot. Yes, the special effect does actually follow the otherwise hitscan cone.

You have no room to complain if the aesthetic preference isn't harming the function. That's just complaining to complain.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 March 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

Because it's a perfectly precise stream of bullets hitting one spot. Yes, the special effect does actually follow the otherwise hitscan cone.

You have no room to complain if the aesthetic preference isn't harming the function. That's just complaining to complain.

Just like Autocannons already do? The difference is that the bullets are just much smaller.

And really, if it truly was that tiny as to not harm function, then wouldn't it be difficult to actually see the spread with the human eye?

Edited by FupDup, 14 March 2017 - 07:49 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 14 March 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

Just like Autocannons already do? The difference is that the bullets are just much smaller.

And really, if it truly was that tiny as to not harm function, then wouldn't it be difficult to actually see the spread with the human eye?

No, it wouldn't be hard to because 'Mechs are pretty big. Or maybe I've just been playing too many games with spread mechanics and that stuff sticks out to me...

I don't like that ACs are perfectly precise, either. However, the streams are not dense, so it isn't as jarring to watch.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 March 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

No, it wouldn't be hard to because 'Mechs are pretty big. Or maybe I've just been playing too many games with spread mechanics and that stuff sticks out to me...

I don't like that ACs are perfectly precise, either. However, the streams are not dense, so it isn't as jarring to watch.

The size of mechs is a "relative" sort of thing. We're huge compared to infantry in normal games, but since everyone is a mech around here it's like we're just really really big infantry. The fraction 2/4 is the same as 1/2, etc. etc.

Anyways, to elaborate on the not harming function part, the spread would have to be tight enough to get every bullet into a single hitbox (excluding head since those are microscopic) on almost any mech (including lights) pretty close to their maximum range (assuming double range of current MG, so 480m max and 240m optimal).

I imagine that such a spread might require a bit of squinting at the max distance, and in shorter ranges (where things are more visible) it probably couldn't be seen at all.