116 replies to this topic

[Red squirrel]

DoRkZiLLaa, on 03 October 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

As supplementary fire, they function passably for their weight. A few of my unit-mates have varieties of MG hunchies that put out respectable damage output. But they are weak otherwise.

And they would probably deal just as much damage without those MGs.
e.g. in my HBK-4G if I have 2 spare tons I rather take a larger engine or more AC20 ammo than 2 MGs and 1 ton of MG ammo.

I have to say that I love MGs just for the sound and feel, but to argue that they have any use in game is just a wish and not based on facts.


PS: Best feeling in MW:O -> getting kill shots with an MG.

[Sifright]

Khobai, on 08 November 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

In table top machine guns do 2 damage while small lasers do 3 damage. So if you keep the 2:3 dps ratio between machine guns and small lasers then machine guns should do 0.67 dps, instead of the 0.4 dps they currently do. In other words, PGI needs to give them a 70% damage increase to make them as effective as they are in TT.

Additionally PGI needs to add a new ballistic weapon with weight in between a machine gun and an AC/2. Currently theres a huge weight gap in ballistic weapons. We need a ballistic weapon that weighs 3-4 tons so light mechs with ballistic slots have other options besides machine guns. One possibility is to add mech mortars, which do exist in 3049, and fall right in that gap for weight.

except such a direct translation of TT to the game wont be enough and mgs will still be trash.

small lasers dont need you to hold on target constantly mgs do.

Your buff amounts to a slightly greater than 50% increase in dps. or to put it another another 50% more of nothing is still nothing.

[Glythe]

Crieghton James, on 24 October 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

One of the coolest sounding weapons in the game...but that's all they are good for.

Gnereally agree but not entirely true. One of my builds has .5 tons left over and 1 critical slot. Armor is already max (medium mech). Having 1 machine gun with no ammunition can actually save a meaningful weapon from being destroyed.

[Tarman]

Glythe, on 10 March 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

Gnereally agree but not entirely true. One of my builds has .5 tons left over and 1 critical slot. Armor is already max (medium mech). Having 1 machine gun with no ammunition can actually save a meaningful weapon from being destroyed.

This is hilarious.

[UnseenFury]

Keep in mind that MGs almost instantly destroy internals (engine excluded) of an unarmored component.

Apart from that, they are useless.

[Terror Teddy]

Paran01ac, on 10 March 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:

Keep in mind that MGs almost instantly destroy internals (engine excluded) of an unarmored component.

Apart from that, they are useless.

Which makes them useless when you need to take out an enemy on your own and you have 4MG's as your primary wepon.

Not to mention - If you go with 2 tonnes of ammunition (a reasonable load on a Spider) you have enough damage for the ENTIRE MATCH at 160 points if you hit with EVERYTHING.

With 4 MG's that's 100 seconds.
And basically ALL other ballistics do 125-150 per tonne.

[Sifright]

Terror Teddy, on 10 March 2013 - 02:39 AM, said:

Which makes them useless when you need to take out an enemy on your own and you have 4MG's as your primary wepon.

Not to mention - If you go with 2 tonnes of ammunition (a reasonable load on a Spider) you have enough damage for the ENTIRE MATCH at 160 points if you hit with EVERYTHING.

With 4 MG's that's 100 seconds.
And basically ALL other ballistics do 125-150 per tonne.

It's pretty clear pgi shoots from the hip when balancing. I just wish i knew why even their hip firing is so inaccurate...

[Nihtgenga]

Pretty much ironic is the fact, that a company named Piranha Games strips itself by the issue of balancing the machine guns from reasonably implementing the Piranha Mech into the game...
As MWO is anyway deviating from strictly implementing TT rules 1:1 for playing fun, I do not see sense in implementing weapons, which are only effective on enemies, which will not be in the game, "because TT rules said so".

In the current (MWO) field, there is no reasonable alternative build that would not more than compensate the additional damage amount (if worth to be called so) from an MG by either additional (other) weapons' power, accuracy or ammunition - or by additional battlefield endurance via more armour, higher speed, or additional supportive systems like TAG, Command Console, BEAGLE or AMS. Therefore, either the MGs (along with the flamers, I guess) will have to get a reasonable boost to make them worthwile weapons against mech targets, or PGI needs to implement infantery/vehicles. Otherwise, they will inevitably end up as an entry in the weapons list, which serves solely the purpose of decoration.

[Fishbulb333]

MWO's machineguns (and flamers) are the worst weapons I've ever used... Not only in this game, but in any I can remember... Avoid like the plague.

[Melcyna]

once in a while though, MG makes you feel like you are the boss, like when you are circle strafing an assault that's taken substantial armor damage and you disarmed him with MG, watching his weapons destroyed one by one.

well...

then you realized, that if you just pack something else instead of MG you could've just killed him right then and there much faster given he had no armor left.

but HEY, at least now MG can sometimes gives you the illusion that it does SOMETHING useful, even if it's still worthless.

[MustrumRidcully]

Glythe, on 10 March 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

Gnereally agree but not entirely true. One of my builds has .5 tons left over and 1 critical slot. Armor is already max (medium mech). Having 1 machine gun with no ammunition can actually save a meaningful weapon from being destroyed.

Hehe. it occured to me that this could be a way to crit-pad AC/20s a tiny bit.

Though I think I wil lgenerally still err on using AC/20 ammo for that purpose.

[Cathal Witwemacher]

MGs need a range boost like crazy. They are in the neighborhood of 20mm rounds, which are effective out to TWO kilometers in the real world. The MGs in this game are low powered and you have to be on top of an enemy to even do a small amount of damage. Ignoring the damage, which could probably use a little boost, doubling their range would be highly effective in making them less crit-paddy.

[General Taskeen]

Cathal Witwemacher, on 26 March 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

MGs need a range boost like crazy. They are in the neighborhood of 20mm rounds, which are effective out to TWO kilometers in the real world. The MGs in this game are low powered and you have to be on top of an enemy to even do a small amount of damage. Ignoring the damage, which could probably use a little boost, doubling their range would be highly effective in making them less crit-paddy.

MW3 MG - 120m
MW4 MG - 150m

Legit. And they did straight up damage to armor. Cool right?

[FupDup]

General Taskeen, on 26 March 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

MW3 MG - 120m
MW4 MG - 150m

Legit. And they did straight up damage to armor. Cool right?

MW4's Machine Gun Arrays had 400m range, actually.




EDIT: At least the standard ones did. MekTek's Light MGA's had 600m range and Heavy MGAs had 150m.

Edited by FupDup, 26 March 2013 - 09:40 AM.

[General Taskeen]

FupDup, on 26 March 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

MW4's Machine Gun Arrays had 400m range, actually.

Even Better™.

[Cathal Witwemacher]

General Taskeen, on 26 March 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

MW3 MG - 120m
MW4 MG - 150m

Legit. And they did straight up damage to armor. Cool right?

Are you telling me this is only effective up to 120m?

20mm, .50BMG, 5.56/.223 (for comparison)



MW4 has it more right.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Sifright, on 10 March 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

It's pretty clear pgi shoots from the hip when balancing. I just wish i knew why even their hip firing is so inaccurate...

Rambo knows the pain you feel... LOL

Seriously though, John Rambo supports an MG damage buff...

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 26 March 2013 - 05:25 PM.

[Melcyna]

the question is whether it needs a flat out raw damage buff (which i think is impossible to balance out, it's either going to be doing too much damage and thus becomes the most effective short range weapons for heavy ballistic mechs, or too little in which case no one ever going to use them)

or if it just needs to do more internal damage than it currently already is (which i personally think is on the right track, but it's just not doing enough internal damage even with the buff to justify using it still).

OR, if it should do something else as well aside of just raw damage or internal damage buff, something that can give it a unique advantage over other weapons... similar to how PPC have a short term (too short in fact) ECM disabling effect which obviously is not enough but is a unique property of the weapon.

[Terror Teddy]

saber15, on 03 October 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

People saying they're "crit seekers" also lets you know who is a forum-warrior and who actually plays the game.

I hate the MG's utter ***** damage it has but it IS a (barely) functional crit weapon on heavier mech like the hunchback as a supplemental weapon to say an AC/10.

Standalone to any 20-35 tonner they are garbage - utter and complete garbage as a light ballistic weapon for light mechs - the mechs the damn weapon was designed for.

1/10 dps of the least damaging ballistic
60% damage per tonne (80 vs 50)
4-5 times slower time to deliver damage per tonne.

example: ac/2 deliver 800 damage in the same time the MG deliver 80...

EDIT: at 0.5 tonnes and 1 crit slot it is also a good damage buffer to protect your more important ballistic weapon mounted at the same place.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 27 March 2013 - 09:25 PM.

[Davers]

Terror Teddy, on 27 March 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

I hate the MG's utter ***** damage it has but it IS a (barely) functional crit weapon on heavier mech like the hunchback as a supplemental weapon to say an AC/10.

Standalone to any 20-35 tonner they are garbage - utter and complete garbage as a light ballistic weapon for light mechs - the mechs the damn weapon was designed for.

1/10 dps of the least damaging ballistic
60% damage per tonne (80 vs 50)
4-5 times slower time to deliver damage per tonne.

example: ac/2 deliver 800 damage in the same time the MG deliver 80...

EDIT: at 0.5 tonnes and 1 crit slot it is also a good damage buffer to protect your more important ballistic weapon mounted at the same place.

I find it funny that the AC/2 received a tremendous buff, and none of the 'machine guns should suck' crowd went on rants about how they should only be good at AA like in TT. But talk about machine guns, which have a tiny fraction of their range, and everyone starts yelling. It really makes no sense.

Glythe, on 10 March 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

Gnereally agree but not entirely true. One of my builds has .5 tons left over and 1 critical slot. Armor is already max (medium mech). Having 1 machine gun with no ammunition can actually save a meaningful weapon from being destroyed.

I've seen that done before too. It really is the best use of them.