127 replies to this topic

[adamts01]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 September 2017 - 07:00 AM, said:

What exactly is standard?

Yeah, I should have been more clear. I think all MGs should have the same ammo pool as LMGs. The bigger guys would have much more damage/ton, but I think the weapon weight combined with terrible range would be enough of a detriment to balance them. I actually want to keep the short ranges as they are, just bring up damage a little. Let the HMG be the crit/dps monster, as it's infinitely riskier to use it than the others. Then bump up the damage and lower the crit on the others, much lower crit on the LMG. That way the risk/reward is balanced between them and they all have a different flavor.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

adamts01, on 26 September 2017 - 07:06 PM, said:

Yeah, I should have been more clear. I think all MGs should have the same ammo pool as LMGs.

Why nerf MGs? I mean HMGs could use the help, but MGs don't need the nerf because LMGs are still better.

[adamts01]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 September 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

Why nerf MGs? I mean HMGs could use the help, but MGs don't need the nerf because LMGs are still better.

Please stop saying nerf when I'm suggesting they get a damage buff and more ammo. MGs have a range of 130+ and I think that's still a little far for a light to instantly crit everything in an open component with no more facetime than ER Small lasers.

[Carl Vickers]

adamts01, on 26 September 2017 - 07:27 PM, said:

Please stop saying nerf when I'm suggesting they get a damage buff and more ammo. MGs have a range of 130+ and I think that's still a little far for a light to instantly crit everything in an open component with no more facetime than ER Small lasers.

Yet you are asking for a nerf directly, giving them a buff in other areas doesnt counter the fact that you are asking to nerf one particular area of MG's which allow them to actually be useful.

[adamts01]

Carl Vickers, on 26 September 2017 - 07:30 PM, said:

Yet you are asking for a nerf directly, giving them a buff in other areas doesnt counter the fact that you are asking to nerf one particular area of MG's which allow them to actually be useful.

Don't be so nit picky. If the Atlas lost 10 CT armor but gained 200 CT health then that can be understood as a buff, even though you're technically nerfing armor. Yes, MGs are actually useful now, and the point is to fine tune them so they're still useful in the future. I just think they need a little refinement.

Before the skill tree, there was no point bringing a crit weapon because you could just as easily destroy the structure as crit a weapon. Now that all the big guys are running around with such insane structure levels, crits finally matter, but they're just too easy to get with close to zero risk with LMGs. 300m is just too far away for a quick tap to take out every gun in an exposed part. But...... Take that away, and they're useless again, which is why I'm suggesting a damage boost.

[Carl Vickers]

adamts01, on 26 September 2017 - 07:52 PM, said:

Don't be so nit picky. If the Atlas lost 10 CT armor but gained 200 CT health then that can be understood as a buff, even though you're technically nerfing armor. Yes, MGs are actually useful now, and the point is to fine tune them so they're still useful in the future. I just think they need a little refinement.

Before the skill tree, there was no point bringing a crit weapon because you could just as easily destroy the structure as crit a weapon. Now that all the big guys are running around with such insane structure levels, crits finally matter, but they're just too easy to get with close to zero risk with LMGs. 300m is just too far away for a quick tap to take out every gun in an exposed part. But...... Take that away, and they're useless again, which is why I'm suggesting a damage boost.

Lol, bad example with hyperbole is still bad example with hyperbole.

Damage boost will not help, machine guns are finally worth taking on a mech cause they do 1 thing and do it well.

[Shifty McSwift]

Carl Vickers, on 26 September 2017 - 08:15 PM, said:

Lol, bad example with hyperbole is still bad example with hyperbole.

Damage boost will not help, machine guns are finally worth taking on a mech cause they do 1 thing and do it well.

It might be a bad example, but considering he set the parameters of that example it's not really hyperbole, though it was over the top. The part where he said "too easy to get close to zero risk with LMGs" could be considered hyperbolic as to some people that claim may seem ridiculous and untrue by virtue of making such a task seem easy.

Just saying

For me I am unsure if they do their job "too well" I haven't practiced enough with them and it can at times be pretty hard to tell how effective they are while being shot, but at the very least the point adamts raises about the increased nature of structure rates is something to consider here.

When structure rates went up at first it annoyed me to think about trying to manage the silly number of healthpools on a mech that you are fighting, but after playing against it and getting used to it, the added depth of structure toughness as something to consider when fighting a mech, is pretty decent. I think they could manage a number of aspects of balance using this too, the idea that all your weapons may be destroyed after you lose armor is one thing, but those limbs not actually exploding and dying straight away means you can tank a whole lot more by force. So there is value to limbs stripped of equipment too.

[Shifty McSwift]

It could be interesting to have weapons designed around tougher structure rates too, say if MGs for example, did their normal damage to armor, but only half or less to the structure underneath, while still reliably critting out components, in that sense MGs would be great at stripping back armor and destroying exposed weapons, but would make a terrible weapon for finishing off targets, giving an incentive to pair them with "finisher" weapons like srms or whatnot.

Similarly or inversely the RAC could be a structure smashing gun that doesn't effect armor quite as much, perhaps having no actual crit chance on structure but just dealing a lot more damage to unarmoured structure points that its bullets hit.

Just a couple quick examples of potential ways to balance out such weaponry, those numbers/mechanics I posited are far from perfect in as is.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 26 September 2017 - 10:55 PM.