3
MWOMERCS.COM said:
Light Machine Gun Design Notes: We are currently observing the state of Machine Guns as a whole, but at this time we only see a need for bringing the LMG into better alignment with its standard counterpart. In its previous state the LMG was outclassing the Standard variant even at ranges where we wished for the standard MG to outperform against the LMG. With the weapons being identical in tonnage and critical, we could not have one weapon outperforming the other to such a significant degree. The changes to spread are tuned to where the LMG will still focus their damage on singular locations while within Optimal Range, but will begin to spread to multiple locations when outside their Optimal Range.
In addition to this, their bonus Critical Chances have been redued to ensure that they will not blow out components as easily from outside the Optimal Range of the weapon. We still want the Range of LMG to be its primary feature, but we want their optimal usage to be brought a bit closer to where the Standard and Heavy MGs can better compete, and potentially overcome LMGs dependent on the engagement range.
In addition to this, their bonus Critical Chances have been redued to ensure that they will not blow out components as easily from outside the Optimal Range of the weapon. We still want the Range of LMG to be its primary feature, but we want their optimal usage to be brought a bit closer to where the Standard and Heavy MGs can better compete, and potentially overcome LMGs dependent on the engagement range.
https://mwomercs.com...14131-19sep2017
That is a statement claiming that, as I interpret it, LMG's outperformed MG's within the optimal range of MG's.
Secondly, we can observe in this statement that the changes were made simply because of this internal discrepancy between LMG and MG, notably seemingly not looking at the overall power of the weapon compared to other weapons nor the power of MG's compared to other weapons.
Now, assuming the spread has something to do with LMG's being superior then the issue is immediately solved with the increased spread to 0.5 in terms of the discrepancy, yet PGI opts to also bake in a damage reduction and double dip the nerf for some reason destroying the weapon.
Do we have any thoughts on this, because I simply cannot see the justification for this heavy handed approach, both spread and damage nerf is cumulatively devastating the weapon especially for mechs that cannot boat many of them, the ones that were never a problem to begin with sending the weapon into a niche boating only role.
To me it seems mostly like a hollow excuse taking the easy way out nerfing LMG's without addressing the polarised issues that actually exist and manifest especially when boating, while then leaving the weapon ever closer to being worthless.
Do note I do not disagree with the spread increase as a property for LMG's as such personally, however I disagree with the following:
- I disagree with the outright nerf of the weapon where it in no way receives any compensating properties for the massive loss of power, its power level was never too high just its specialised application when amassed.
- I disagree with the heavy handed approach of double dipping nerfs, PGI being fully aware that it is an excessive approach I have no doubt.
- I disagree with the damage reduction that I consider completely unwarranted, the raw damage it did was not a problem.
- I disagree with comparing weapons in a vacuum like MG vs. LMG without taking into consideration their current power levels compared to other weapons and gameplay overall.
- I disagree with directly ignoring the core issues of the crit system and properties of machine guns that cause the issues in the first place, and only indirectly trying to adjust said properties by overall nerfs rather than adjusting focus. It was simply a weapon that was specialised by PGI design and that specialisation becomes extreme when boated.
- I disagree with ignoring other types of adjustments that can make the weapon heavier but still remain applicable on heavier chassis, like adjusting ammo tonnage capacity
- I disagree with simply one dimensionally looking at weapons for nerfs when there are massive flaws in the armour system that disallows people to utilise back armour with reasonable compromise of weight only
- Most of all I disagree with making the only machine gun applicable on heavier chassis as a supplementary weapon ever closer to a boating only niche and otherwise uselessness, when the development direction should be the other way around making weapons powerful in singular/few/mixed use.
Now LMG's are largely only useful on the 8x MLX, ACH and possibly SHC-P that can still boat extremes of them for desired effect, they are even more niche than MG's and HMG's as it happens because at least MG and HMG are individually functional as weapons within range for anything fast.
The irony of this nerf for me is that it has not much harmed my MLX which works perfectly fine with MG's and I even prefer it that way for fun times. Instead this¨nerf harmed my JM6-DD, Arrow, Bushwacker, Roughneck, Urbanmech and every other mech that used LMG's as supplementary weapons with 5 or less.
Progress is impossible in this game with these kinds of simplistic unimaginative non-solutions and development oriented on taking giant leaps backward in terms of fun elements, a lack of vision plagues this game more than anything.
Edited by SOL Ranger, 19 September 2017 - 09:23 PM.
