25 replies to this topic

[1Grimbane]

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

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

didn't pgi literally just REDUCE spread and make it so mg's hit same spot?

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 14 March 2017 - 07:57 PM, said:

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.

It only needs to get them all in a hitbox at the optimum, not the maximum. That's playing exactly to the definition of "optimum."

And like I said, I'd rather all MGs share an optimum (let's call it 180 meters) and use the cone to directly offset damage, requiring you to get closer for each increasing MG type to take advantage of your damage. Yes, that results in an MG being sort of as effective as an LMG out at the same distance through sheer volume of fire, but...MGs and HMGs are not trivial investments...at least not for the IS.

1Grimbane, on 14 March 2017 - 08:01 PM, said:

didn't pgi literally just REDUCE spread and make it so mg's hit same spot?

Not quite that far, but they did reduce it.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 March 2017 - 08:05 PM, said:

It only needs to get them all in a hitbox at the optimum, not the maximum. That's playing exactly to the definition of "optimum."

And like I said, I'd rather all MGs share an optimum (let's call it 180 meters) and use the cone to directly offset damage, requiring you to get closer for each increasing MG type to take advantage of your damage. Yes, that results in an MG being sort of as effective as an LMG out at the same distance through sheer volume of fire, but...MGs and HMGs are not trivial investments...at least not for the IS.

240m is still pretty "short" range in my book, so the practical range advantage wouldn't really offset having your DPS slashed in half. I wish PGI would let it reach out to at least 360 optimal to emphasize the range gap, but that is unlikely...

For the investments part at the end, do remember that the Light MG weighs the same as the regular MG.

[1Grimbane]

i thought they reduced it. i love mg's no matter how useless they are and will be sure to run several atlas' with nothing but mrms and Hmg's just for salt. talk about a waste of tonnage but it will be FUN

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 14 March 2017 - 08:09 PM, said:

240m is still pretty "short" range in my book, so the practical range advantage wouldn't really offset having your DPS slashed in half. I wish PGI would let it reach out to at least 360 optimal to emphasize the range gap, but that is unlikely...

For the investments part at the end, do remember that the Light MG weighs the same as the regular MG.

Also worth remembering: MGs typically go on fast 'Mechs, and the range differential across the weapon series is nothing to them.

[1Grimbane]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 March 2017 - 08:20 PM, said:

Also worth remembering: MGs typically go on fast 'Mechs, and the range differential across the weapon series is nothing to them.

yeah when your closing in at 165-7 kph "close" and "far" are the same thing