57 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

changing it so its more like every other weapon does not make it different from other weapons.

thats the exact opposite of giving weapons different roles.

MGs would still be distinct in the areas of heat (only guns with none at all), the lightest ballistics (until Magshots and AP Gauss which won't be in MWO for at least 5+ years), and being oriented around continuous DPS rather than burst damage (alpha strikes).

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

but its already not used against armor. its used against breached locations that have no armor.

so why do I need it to be more useful against something I dont use it against anyway?

that makes no sense.

The point is to make you want to use it against unbreached locations you dingIeberry.

You've got some serious circular reasoning going on here. MGs are used against breached locations because they suck against armor, so you want to prevent them from being buffed against armor such that they remain only useful against breached locations.

Edited by FupDup, 27 February 2018 - 05:01 PM.

[PocketYoda]

wouldn't that make AC2 LBX2 and UAC2 pointless

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

changing it so its more like every other weapon does not make it different from other weapons.

thats the exact opposite of giving weapons different roles.

Being unique does not automatically give it roles, being good at something does. With the MGs still crit-seeking, it would still be effective at it, it still has 0-heat, close-range weapon for lights.

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

but its already not used against armor. its used against breached locations that have no armor.

And again, it's supposed to be more effective against armor so it would be used on location WITH armor. How is that hard to understand? It is specifically to change how the MG is used, so stop arguing from the standpoint of it's old use.

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

so why do I need it to be more useful against something I dont use it against anyway? while making it weaker at what its actually used it for: killing structure?

Because most of the time, we're dealing with armor than structure. So far mostly lights are the only one that could get on the rear, and the heavier mechs that usually deal face to face with enemy mechs have it useless.

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

that makes no sense. youve just killed the role of the weapon. made it more like every other weapon. and nerfed every mech that relies on machine guns to finish off mechs with breached armor.

Yes it does, it makes MG boats be a lot more viable early-game than having to clean-up in late game. It's still crit-seeking and zero-heat, so it's not dead. It's still good at knocking off equipment.

It's not necessarily a nerf for mechs for cleaning up, it still deals tangible damage to structure than chance crit. It only hurts vultures a bit, but otherwise they are now capable of being a threat even when there's armor -- say dealing with legs for leg-humpers.

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 04:47 PM, said:

right now the machine gun does like x1 damage to armor and x1.9 or so damage to structure

your idea is to make it more like x1.2 damage vs armor and x1.4 damage to structure or something stupid like that

you have just significantly nerfed the weapon for everyone who only fired mgs into locations without armor already.

Sure it does for people, but then it's a buff the weapon for everyone else who doesn't. And if you don't know, there's way more armor than there's structure, and once those armor in the front is already taken away, chances are the mech already dealt most of it's damage and it's dying already.

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 04:47 PM, said:

and for what reason? why does my 4 mg viper need to be nerfed? OMG 4 MG VIPER META OP.

if the problem is the piranha. nerf the piranha.

I'm not even talking about those, are you strawmanning? This is a new low.

[FupDup]

Samial, on 27 February 2018 - 05:03 PM, said:

wouldn't that make AC2 LBX2 and UAC2 pointless

The LB 2-X is already pointless.

All three of them have waaaaaay more range than MGs anyways.

[Khobai]

Quote

Being unique does not automatically give it roles, being good at something does. With the MGs still crit-seeking, it would still be effective at it, it still has 0-heat, close-range weapon for lights.

its already unique and good at something. killing structure.

you want to make it less good at that. that means you are diminishing its role.

Quote

Because most of the time, we're dealing with armor than structure. So far mostly lights are the only one that could get on the rear, and the heavier mechs that usually deal face to face with enemy mechs have it useless

yes and every other weapon in the game deals with armor. its okay to have one weapon thats better at destroying structure than armor.

Quote

And again, it's supposed to be more effective against armor so it would be used on location WITH armor.

no its not. machine guns were never meant to be effective against armor. they were always specialized weapons for critting and killing structure.

at no point in this games history were machine guns ever good vs armor. and thats intentional.

if PGI wanted MGs to be good against armor they wouldve gone that route instead of giving them a very high crit multiplier and making crits do bonus damage to structure. Its very clear what PGI's intent for mgs is.

Quote

The point is to make you want to use it against unbreached locations you dingIeberry.

again, the thing that makes machine guns different from other weapons is that theyre highly specialized for killing structure.

you are supposed to target breached locations with them.

if you cant accept that, use different weapons.

Quote

You've got some serious circular reasoning going on here. MGs are used against breached locations because they suck against armor, so you want to prevent them from being buffed against armor such that they remain only useful against breached locations.

MGs were deliberately designed to be good against structure and not against armor.

Because it makes them a SPECIALIZED WEAPON.

Again working as intended.

Edited by Khobai, 27 February 2018 - 05:18 PM.

[Tarogato]

The6thMessenger, on 27 February 2018 - 04:40 PM, said:

IDK, but lets say:

LMG: 1.4 DPS
MG: 2 DPS
HMG: 2.8 DPS

Crit Chance to: 31%, 17%, 4% to 16%, 8%, 2%?

OR

Crit Mult:

IS-LMG: 5x
IS-MG: 4x
IS-HMG: 3x
C-LMG: 4x
C-MG: 3x
C-HMG: 2x

Feel free to play, it's open for editing: https://docs.google....vc8M/edit#gid=0

The presents values I have for armour+structure is a WHM with max skill tree. You can put it whatever litmus you like.

[The6thMessenger]

FupDup, on 27 February 2018 - 04:57 PM, said:

You've got some serious circular reasoning going on here. MGs are used against breached locations because they suck against armor, so you want to prevent them from being buffed against armor such that they remain only useful against breached locations.

THIS, exactly THIS.

Tarogato, on 27 February 2018 - 05:07 PM, said:

Feel free to play, it's open for editing: https://docs.google....vc8M/edit#gid=0

The presents values I have for armour+structure is a WHM with max skill tree. You can put it whatever litmus you like.

Oh thanks. TTK lowers by a lot when increasing damage while decreasing either Crit Chance or Crit Damage -- it's definitely a buff.

Any suggestion what TTK value should i go? or maybe DPS or crit DPS? I liked the 1/1.5/2 DPS and 4/3/2 Crit-Mult.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 27 February 2018 - 05:17 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

again, the thing that makes machine guns different from other weapons is that theyre highly specialized for killing structure.

Because being the only weapons with zero heat, the lightest possible ballistics until another timeline advance, and one of the few weapons based around constant firing rather than alpha striking is totally not different from other guns.

Oh, and they're the only hitscan ballistics for now and the foreseeable future.

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

MGs were deliberately designed to be good against structure and not against armor.

Yeah, because PGI are among the silly people that thought MGs were supposed to be "lol anti infantry only bruh THEY'RE ONLY AS STRONG AS A MODERN AK-47 DUUUUUUDE" because they didn't read any of the actual TT game rules or play any previous Mechwarrior games (or perhaps they did but just forgot).

Edited by FupDup, 27 February 2018 - 05:12 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Because being the only weapons with zero heat, the lightest possible ballistics until another timeline advance, and one of the few weapons based around constant firing rather than alpha striking is totally not different from other guns.

which is all the more reason they shouldnt be stronger against armor.

you really want to make a 0 heat weapon that can be spammed in high quantity on a clan chassis to be better at ripping holes in armor?

at least now armor stops the pirahna from being completely broken. you only need to worry about it if your armor is breached or it gets behind you.

brilliant because 12 dps wasnt enough. lets make it 15-16 dps instead. because having it do as much dps as an IS assault wasnt good enough. It should do as much dps as a clan assault.

no we dont need to go there. machine guns are the way they are for a reason.

instead of dumbing machine guns down and making them a less specialized, less skillful weapon, maybe you should learn how to pilot a light properly, and get behind people and unload your machine guns into their backs or into locations that have already been stripped of armor. its not that hard.

Edited by Khobai, 27 February 2018 - 05:33 PM.

[Tarogato]

It's amazing how much a tiny change in raw damage really throws off the crit DPS.

In my playing around, I figured maybe a 15% buff for MG raw DPS across the board, and then reduce the crit damage multiplier to bring it down to the same average TTK as we have today. Even for only a +0.01 damage boost on LMG for example, I had to reduce the crit multiplier by 66%. Wacky.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 05:26 PM, said:

which is all the more reason they shouldnt be stronger against armor.

you really want to make a 0 heat weapon that can be spammed in high quantity on a clan chassis to be better at ripping holes in armor?

at least now armor stops the pirahna from being completely broken. you only need to worry about it if your armor is breached or it gets behind you.

brilliant because 12 dps wasnt enough. lets make it 15-16 dps instead. because having it do as much dps as an IS assault wasnt good enough. It should do as much dps as a clan assault.

no we dont need to go there.

That's what your proposed negative MG quirks are for.

[Khobai]

Quote

That's what your proposed negative MG quirks are for.

making a weapon so good that you have to put negative quirks on a mech is some pretty poor weapon balancing

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 05:26 PM, said:

which is all the more reason they shouldnt be stronger against armor.

you really want to make a 0 heat weapon that can be spammed in high quantity on a clan chassis to be better at ripping holes in armor?

While we agree that IS MG needs buff, that's a whole another story.

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 05:26 PM, said:

at least now armor stops the pirahna from being completely broken. you only need to worry about it if your armor is breached or it gets behind you.

brilliant because 12 dps wasnt enough. lets make it 15-16 dps instead. because having it do as much dps as an IS assault wasnt good enough. It should do as much dps as a clan assault.

That's what the negative ROF quirk is for right? You're balancing the way PGI does balance, there's a lot of other mechs out there, balancing it by one overperformer is stupid, that's Kodiak's story.

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 05:41 PM, said:

making a weapon so good that you have to put negative quirks on a mech is some pretty poor weapon balancing

To be fair, BT isn't supposed to be balanced, there are supposed to be objectively better tech. Quirks are the way of balancing inherently UP or OP aspect in BT that wouldn't translate properly in FPS. If IS were being god-quirked to be viable, why wouldn't the Piranha be nerfed to be not OP?

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 05:26 PM, said:

no we dont need to go there. machine guns are the way they are for a reason.

Crits aren't exactly a good reason, not when it's generally not useful at most of the duration of the match.

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 05:26 PM, said:

instead of dumbing machine guns down and making them a less specialized, less skillful weapon, maybe you should learn how to pilot a light properly, and get behind people and unload your machine guns into their backs or into locations that have already been stripped of armor. its not that hard.

Instead of being a close-minded ****, hows about reason a lot better, think a lot deeper, and look at the bigger picture.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 27 February 2018 - 05:48 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 05:41 PM, said:

making a weapon so good that you have to put negative quirks on a mech is some pretty poor weapon balancing

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

Edited by FupDup, 27 February 2018 - 05:52 PM.

[Foxfire]

Honestly, the only change that should be considered, outside of messing with specific mechs (e.g. Paranahs) is to reduce the amount of damage they do against armor.

This is probably still an issue with mechs that can mount MG's en mass... but that really negates the disadvantage that MG's are supposed to have in exchange for having the high crit chance against exposed sections.

[Khobai]

Quote

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

gimme a break the mechs with 8 machine guns arnt a problem. mist lynxs arnt dominating the meta.

the pirahna is the only machine gun mech that could even be considered problematic

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 10:10 PM, said:

gimme a break the mechs with 8 machine guns arnt a problem. mist lynxs arnt dominating the meta.

the pirahna is the only machine gun mech that could even be considered problematic

Exactly, MG is just powerful on those mechs, so they need negative quirks. Why jeopardize other mechs?

[Jackal Noble]

How about decreasing crit chance on equipment based on how many slots it occupies?
Paired with a tonnage modifier too.
Larger/heavier reduced crit chance.
Make it scaleable with all slot and tonnage demands.
Bing bam boom. Problem solved.

The6thMessenger, on 27 February 2018 - 10:31 PM, said:

Exactly, MG is just powerful on those mechs, so they need negative quirks. Why jeopardize other mechs?

............

[The6thMessenger]

JackalBeast, on 27 February 2018 - 10:34 PM, said:

............

He suggested a negative quirk for Piranha, but then backpedaled like so:

Khobai, on 27 February 2018 - 05:41 PM, said:

making a weapon so good that you have to put negative quirks on a mech is some pretty poor weapon balancing

It's not that the weapon is so good, if anything it needs buff and or tweak. It's the piranha that is the problem, blame it, not the weapon.

[naterist]

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)