57 replies to this topic

[Jackal Noble]

naterist, on 27 February 2018 - 11:18 PM, said:

change crit chance for clan machine guns to half its current value, leave IS machine guns as is.

2 reasons

1-clan machine guns are half the weight, so they should be half as effective in at least 1 area.

2- clan machine gun spam isnt super-terrible until you lose your armour and are walking around stripped with yellow structure, so only need to nerf crits, damage is already neglible(ish)

Have you you looked at the spread differences between the faction MGs lately?
Just alter crit modifiers on mgs in three groups. 4, 8 and finally 12 (since there are a number of mechs that have those hardpoint groupings). 1 at 4mgs, .5 at 5-8, and .333 at 8-12.
Finally since MGs are the only thing that pirs actually do well, than it should maybe get some love in other areas. Like heat gen for instance.
Idk.

Edited by JackalBeast, 27 February 2018 - 11:58 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

FupDup, on 27 February 2018 - 05:43 PM, said:

Balancing MGs when we have some mechs with 8-12 of them and so many others with fewer than 4 is nearly impossible.

Well, the concept of diminishing returns isn't exactly a newly invented thing that hasn't been explored in numerous games. The issue here is rather that on the one hand PGI so far has done poorly with their implementation of that concept and on the other hand players are still trying to come up with ideas that try to alter the general weapon without actually looking at the ramifications of their suggestions ... and all that because of pretty much a single variant of a single mech chassis.

Just look at the base idea of this thread and instead of asking whether or not the presented "solution" actually hinders the perceived dominance of the PIR-1 ask yourself these questions:

- If mechanics for standard machine guns are altered, doesn't that also demand the alteration of light and heavy machine guns?

- What are the ramifications of said alterations on mech chassis of all weight classes?

To give some pointers: If we actually were to increase damage values on machine guns while significantly decreasing their crit effects what would that mean for heavier mechs like MAL-1P, MAL-MX90 or BLACK WIDOW that could then supplement strong heat intensive weaponry with 4 to 6 heatless (light) machine guns with "insane" ammo amounts and then quite effective armor destruction capabilities.
And then ofc there's the currently just plain stupid 7 (light) machine gun targeting comp and endless ammo Shadow Cat that would get seriously buffed by this thread's suggestion.

I have the rather strong feeling that the then created game environment makes the "PIR-1 issue" very pale by comparison.

[The6thMessenger]

Der Geisterbaer, on 28 February 2018 - 01:04 AM, said:

Well, the concept of diminishing returns isn't exactly a newly invented thing that hasn't been explored in numerous games. The issue here is rather that on the one hand PGI so far has done poorly with their implementation of that concept and on the other hand players are still trying to come up with ideas that try to alter the general weapon without actually looking at the ramifications of their suggestions ... and all that because of pretty much a single variant of a single mech chassis.

Just look at the base idea of this thread and instead of asking whether or not the presented "solution" actually hinders the perceived dominance of the PIR-1 ask yourself these questions:

- If mechanics for standard machine guns are altered, doesn't that also demand the alteration of light and heavy machine guns?

- What are the ramifications of said alterations on mech chassis of all weight classes?

To give some pointers: If we actually were to increase damage values on machine guns while significantly decreasing their crit effects what would that mean for heavier mechs like MAL-1P, MAL-MX90 or BLACK WIDOW that could then supplement strong heat intensive weaponry with 4 to 6 heatless (light) machine guns with "insane" ammo amounts and then quite effective armor destruction capabilities.
And then ofc there's the currently just plain stupid 7 (light) machine gun targeting comp and endless ammo Shadow Cat that would get seriously buffed by this thread's suggestion.

I have the rather strong feeling that the then created game environment makes the "PIR-1 issue" very pale by comparison.

I couldn't fathom why would people waste hardpoints on MGs when they have literally lots of tons to spare for decent ballistic weapons that could touch people from a far better like an AC10.

As for the Dapper-Cat, really? 7 MG with 1 energy weapon -- it has no ECM, it's already a sucky build and you're concerned in making it less-sucky-but-still-sucky? Even if Jagermech, Black Widow, and Mauler would benefit with the buff, realistically it's just a stupid endeavor.

tl;dr it's not exactly a concern when the end result is just less-terrible performance.

[Der Geisterbaer]

The6thMessenger, on 28 February 2018 - 01:12 AM, said:

I couldn't fathom why would people waste hardpoints on MGs when they have literally lots of tons to spare for decent ballistic weapons that could touch people from a far better like an AC10.

And therein lies your problem: You're looking at it with a narrowed view with regards to the established "meta" and outright dismiss the consequences of your changes to said meta. So yes, the mechs I listed are currently using their ballistic slots for heavier ballistics - disregarding the fact that after certain nerfs you no longer see that many builds within 4 AC5s - and supplement that with some energy weaponry.
Your suggestion however would create serious incentives for reversing the weapon roles to energy as main armament with - in case of light machine guns - quite well ranged ballistic side weaponry with high sustained dps at zero heat.

The6thMessenger, on 28 February 2018 - 01:12 AM, said:

As for the Dapper-Cat, really? 7 MG with 1 energy weapon -- it has no ECM, it's already a sucky build and you're concerned in making it less-sucky-but-still-sucky? Even if Jagermech, Black Widow, and Mauler would benefit with the buff, realistically it's just a stupid endeavor.

It's not just the mechs that I mentioned that would benefit from a machine gun change like the one you're suggesting and as far as the "DapperCat" is concerned: You just fell in the exact same pit trap that I tried to point out before ... By focussing your comment on the alleged stupidity behind one particular build and use it as a form of justification to assert a rather condescending attitude and tone.

The6thMessenger, on 28 February 2018 - 01:12 AM, said:

tl;dr it's not exactly a concern when the end result is just less-terrible performance.

tl;dr: you're proving the point of the posting you just quoted. Thanks for that.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 28 February 2018 - 01:36 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Der Geisterbaer, on 28 February 2018 - 01:34 AM, said:

And therein lies your problem: You're looking at it with a narrowed view with regards to the established "meta" and outright dismiss the consequences of your changes to said meta.

I don't dismiss the consequences to the meta, rather i question why would it be worthy of worry when the end result is that it's not even really that good to compete with what is meta. Sure the MGs are a legitimate backup now -- so what? No really, so what?

If that is not what we want, say so -- if not, also say so.

Der Geisterbaer, on 28 February 2018 - 01:34 AM, said:

So yes, the mechs I listed are currently using their ballistic slots for heavier ballistics - disregarding the fact that after certain nerfs you no longer see that many builds within 4 AC5s - and supplement that with some energy weaponry.

Your suggestion however would create serious incentives for reversing the weapon roles to energy as main armament with - in case of light machine guns - quite well ranged ballistic side weaponry with high sustained dps at zero heat.

Again, so what? People can main energy and then boat mgs, so what? Other builds would still dominate, depending on the build. If they centered on the dapper-builds, then they are totally beaten by range.

A new playstyle just got a bit more viable, when it's not really that viable in most cases, why is this an issue?

Der Geisterbaer, on 28 February 2018 - 01:34 AM, said:

It's not just the mechs that I mentioned that would benefit from a machine gun change like the one you're suggesting and as far as the "DapperCat" is concerned:

Of course not. Jesus, that wasn't even my point.

Der Geisterbaer, on 28 February 2018 - 01:34 AM, said:

You just fell in the exact same pit trap that I tried to point out before ... By focussing your comment on the alleged stupidity behind one particular build and use it as a form of justification to assert a rather condescending attitude and tone.

So what if we see more mg-boats?

Oh i didn't justified anything. I just asked, why would it be worrisome in the first place. It's not like people use those with great effect, and supposed that they could be viable builds now or just even less sucky -- so what?

It's not even about the Piranha, it's about buffing the MGs as a whole. The Piranha as a mech itself is the problem, not the weapons themselves. A 20-tonner with 12 mgs that could go quickly behind you and is fast enough to prevent effective retaliation, "pales in comparison", it's not really comparable, your concern is unfounded.

Der Geisterbaer, on 28 February 2018 - 01:34 AM, said:

tl;dr: you're proving the point of the posting you just quoted. Thanks for that.

Lol, no i didn't.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 28 February 2018 - 02:39 AM.

[Gradnuko]

The6thMessenger, on 27 February 2018 - 03:55 PM, said:

So, what if we made MGs deal more tangible damage against armor, but less critical damage/less critical chance?

Discuss.

I agree. Better crits is one thing, but instantly stripping out everything the nanosecond your armor is gone is another thing entirely. They're way too effective right now. If I'm damaged I'd rather fight an atlas than a piranha.

[Mystere]

naterist, on 27 February 2018 - 11:18 PM, said:

1-clan machine guns are half the weight, so they should be half as effective in at least 1 area.

Personally, I am very really leery of such suggestions as they tend to invalidate the progress made during the last 50 years or so:

JackalBeast, on 27 February 2018 - 11:57 PM, said:

Have you you looked at the spread differences between the faction MGs lately?
Just alter crit modifiers on mgs in three groups. 4, 8 and finally 12 (since there are a number of mechs that have those hardpoint groupings). 1 at 4mgs, .5 at 5-8, and .333 at 8-12.
Finally since MGs are the only thing that pirs actually do well, than it should maybe get some love in other areas. Like heat gen for instance.
Idk.

If you're going to apply the so-called law of diminishing returns, doing it to crit damage just does not compute for me, at all. Do it somewhere else.

[Jackal Noble]

Mystere, on 28 February 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

If you're going to apply the so-called law of diminishing returns, doing it to crit damage just does not compute for me, at all. Do it somewhere else.

Being half serious Mystere, just trying to quell the masses.
Have we forgotten how long MGs were in the gutter?

[Mystere]

The6thMessenger, on 28 February 2018 - 01:12 AM, said:

I couldn't fathom why would people waste hardpoints on MGs when they have literally lots of tons to spare for decent ballistic weapons that could touch people from a far better like an AC10.

Why do some people prefer a silenced Type 77 pistol over an assault rifle?

[Jackal Noble]

Mystere, on 28 February 2018 - 08:28 AM, said:

Why do some people prefer a silenced Type 77 pistol over an assault rifle?

So I should be trying to cram an AC10 on my PIR

[Der Geisterbaer]

The6thMessenger, on 28 February 2018 - 02:31 AM, said:

Lol, no i didn't.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that bceause so far your response to that initial comment about neglecting ramifications of proposed solutions outside the focus item "PIR-1's excessive crit damage with 12 mgs" includes merely this:

a ) the bold but unproven claim that regardless of how your proposed alteration to machine guns buffs other builds all the other - i.e. current meta - builds will remain better.

b ) your admission to not actually having put a thought in the idea that for the mentioned mechs anyone would could think of not going with the established heavier ballistic builds

c ) various iterations of "so what?" and "who cares" that also directly speak of the associated neglection of aspects outside the primary target ... which despite possible claims to the contrary is still not the current machine gun crit damage but only the results that this crit damage can yield on that one specific little Clan mech.

All things that from my PoV most definitely "prove the point" of that initial comment of mine.

We could certainly continue this "discussion" but unlike your OP might have suggested, you're appearantly not really interested in anything of the sort at this stage.

On that rather disappointing note it's time to say "good-bye" to this thread from my end.

[Jackal Noble]

Fine. Nerf Machine guns.
Piranha doesn't care.

[Jackal Noble]

Have to admit the UAC2 looks pretty sweet. lol

[Nik Reaper]

JackalBeast, on 28 February 2018 - 08:57 AM, said:

Have to admit the UAC2 looks pretty sweet. lol

Hollanders lil brother that you?

[LordNothing]

hmg should be anti armor, the stopgap between the ac2 and the mg. but the others can keep their current niche.

[Mystere]

JackalBeast, on 28 February 2018 - 08:42 AM, said:

So I should be trying to cram an AC10 on my PIR

I think you missed my point.

[MechaBattler]

I think they should just change how crits work so boating them isn't as strong against internals. I think otherwise they're fine as crit seekers and when boated their damage isn't that bad.

[The6thMessenger]

Mystere, on 28 February 2018 - 08:28 AM, said:

Why do some people prefer a silenced Type 77 pistol over an assault rifle?

No it depends. But if you're in an open field where a pistol round isn't cut out for hitting targets for afar when you have the capacity to bring an assault rifle, maybe you shouldn't bring a pistol.

Likewise if you're a mauler, then you shouldn't be boating MGs as a dapper-mauler.

Der Geisterbaer, on 28 February 2018 - 08:52 AM, said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on that bceause so far your response to that initial comment about neglecting ramifications of proposed solutions outside the focus item "PIR-1's excessive crit damage with 12 mgs" includes merely this:

a ) the bold but unproven claim that regardless of how your proposed alteration to machine guns buffs other builds all the other - i.e. current meta - builds will remain better.

c ) various iterations of "so what?" and "who cares" that also directly speak of the associated neglection of aspects outside the primary target ... which despite possible claims to the contrary is still not the current machine gun crit damage but only the results that this crit damage can yield on that one specific little Clan mech.

As opposed of bold unproven claim that MG boats would actually be better than current meta builds that it's worrisome. A lot of us know and have gauged the power of current meta builds, just making the MGs a bit more anti-armor yet still is short-ranged face-time weapon that has less damage/tic than lasers at longer range would still be at the mercy of longer-range equipment that can poke and even auto-delete components from a much farther range, at shorter exposures than the MGs could facetime. Quite simply it wouldn't really far that much better.

Sure they could par a lot more better as backups than what they were before, but again so what? Other weapons would par better.

Likewise, what stats did i proposed yet? How the MGs would par would be completely contingent to the amount of change they underwent, and apart from Tarogato and me theory crafting, i have NOT pushed for any values.

I didn't ignored the ramifications, but knowing how the game is best played, based on the experience i have with the game I know what it is, it would be better but it's not exactly that concerning given the other issues that MGs have, and not yet until we actually proposed a really high value.

Der Geisterbaer, on 28 February 2018 - 08:52 AM, said:

All things that from my PoV most definitely "prove the point" of that initial comment of mine.

No, it does not. All it really shows is that you don't exactly have the capacity to predict.

Der Geisterbaer, on 28 February 2018 - 08:52 AM, said:

We could certainly continue this "discussion" but unlike your OP might have suggested, you're appearantly not really interested in anything of the sort at this stage.

On that rather disappointing note it's time to say "good-bye" to this thread from my end.

Believe what you want. Whatever lets you sleep at night.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 28 February 2018 - 03:54 PM.