106 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

BlackSquirrel, on 01 December 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Just because lore of some author states them being used... I'm guessing to little effect. (No grand MG battle that smashed faces) and the fact that they are in fact primarily anti infantry/soft...and a back up weapon should still signify that they have no purpose in mech v mech combat.

They did as much damage as an AC/2 in TT - and AC/2s seem rather popular in MWO.
So up their damage so they do 2 DPS and hey presto - useful anti-mech weapon.

Just for the record, they do 0.4 DPS at the moment. (And I must say I have absolutely no idea why the devs thought this would be a good number).

Edited by stjobe, 01 December 2012 - 10:07 AM.

[Saint Rigid]

I'm not wildly familiar with the canon, but I might have some points to help people wrap their minds around the subject. Has anyone else heard of the Battlemech Taser? It's a taser... but it is scaled to the size of a battlemech. I think it is important to think about this when thinking about the machine gun, as it is a Battlemech Machine Gun. It is sized to fit on (and yes even cause some damage to) battlemechs. No one is asking for the machine gun to be a super weapon, or the next OP FOTM. People are simply asking for it to be given "some" of the same treatment that other weapons have received.

Machine guns right now are not "underpowered"... they are "overbalanced". They are padded up and locked down so people can't take 10 of them and stomp through the enemy unimpaired. But the hardpoint system limited that from day one. The largest amount of ballistic hardpoints in the game is 4. The average mech with ballistic points has only 2. That's all. What is everyone so afraid of?

The balancing of the machine gun is just like any other weapon, you tweak your different specifications up and down and see how the community reacts. I suggest at LEAST a 50% increase in the damage of the mach to start (to be fair that is only a difference of .02 damage per round). If everyone starts taking machine guns and pwning premades with them, then you have probably overshot. If, however, machine gun popularity stays about the same... then you add another small tweak (another 0.02 increase for example) and see where it goes from there. These people are scientists... and their subject is the science of FUN!

[superteds]

Natanael Cormac, on 01 December 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

I'm not wildly familiar with the canon, but I might have some points to help people wrap their minds around the subject. Has anyone else heard of the Battlemech Taser? It's a taser... but it is scaled to the size of a battlemech. I think it is important to think about this when thinking about the machine gun, as it is a Battlemech Machine Gun. It is sized to fit on (and yes even cause some damage to) battlemechs. No one is asking for the machine gun to be a super weapon, or the next OP FOTM. People are simply asking for it to be given "some" of the same treatment that other weapons have received.

Machine guns right now are not "underpowered"... they are "overbalanced". They are padded up and locked down so people can't take 10 of them and stomp through the enemy unimpaired. But the hardpoint system limited that from day one. The largest amount of ballistic hardpoints in the game is 4. The average mech with ballistic points has only 2. That's all. What is everyone so afraid of?

The balancing of the machine gun is just like any other weapon, you tweak your different specifications up and down and see how the community reacts. I suggest at LEAST a 50% increase in the damage of the mach to start (to be fair that is only a difference of .02 damage per round). If everyone starts taking machine guns and pwning premades with them, then you have probably overshot. If, however, machine gun popularity stays about the same... then you add another small tweak (another 0.02 increase for example) and see where it goes from there. These people are scientists... and their subject is the science of FUN!

Please take the time to read this.

[Major Dick]

**** they should put a GAU-8 in the game it weighs 700lbs and shoots 30mm shells 70 rounds/sec.

[Aquilus]

stjobe, on 01 December 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

They did as much damage as an AC/2 in TT - and AC/2s seem rather popular in MWO.
So up their damage so they do 2 DPS and hey presto - useful anti-mech weapon.

Just for the record, they do 0.4 DPS at the moment. (And I must say I have absolutely no idea why the devs thought this would be a good number).

Pretty sure 2DPS would be massively OP. 1 DPS might work though, which is the same as the small lasers. No heat to be concerned about, but you obviously need ammo, which adds weight and can explode, so it should be a reasonable trade-off. PGI stated in their balance thread that MGs need a buff, so we'll hopefully see that soon. Should be a boon to lighter mechs that have ballistic slots, like the Raven and Cicada as well as the Dragon.

[Asatruer]

ferranis, on 01 December 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

But honestly, wo builds a mech around Machineguns? Cheesebuilds yes.

Who builds a mech around Small Lasers? The MG in BattleTech was slightly less damage than the SL, but or no heat, but with a chance of the largest ammo explosions in the game. Every ton of ammo was 200 points of damage waiting to happen to your own mech.

Dudeman3k, on 01 December 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

BT mech's use a HALF TON machine gun, which would be more powerful and more advanced so why would it still only do chicken scratch to bi-pedal tanks???
It's simple.... the creators of BT have never actually shot a .50 or 20mm MG, so they just believe a MG should be an anti-personnel weapon. But, if thats the case, they should lessen the TONNAGE to about .2 TONS.

While it is probably very true that the creators of BattleTech, those FASA guys back in the `80s, never actually shot a .50 or 22mm MG, they never believed that an MG should be an anti-personnel weapon only able to chicken scratch a mech. There were no infantry for an infantry only weapon in the earliest days of BattleTech, but there was this half-ton "MG" that had the same weight characteristics of the Small Laser, and did 2/3rds the damage for no heat. This very same "MG" did the same damage to a mech as an AC/2, or one SRM, or two LRMs, it clearly was not designed as an anti-infantry weapon that could only chicken scratch a mech's paint job.

Now PGI seems to have taken a different approach (which they have remarked they plan on fixing) where the MG's average damage over time with 100% accuracy compared to the same above weapons
does not do 2/3rds the damage of a SL, but rather does 4/10ths the damage
does not do 1/1 the damage of an AC/2, but rather 1/10th the damage
does not do 1/1 the damage of one SRM, but rather 6/10ths the damage
does not do 2/1 the damage of one LRM, but rather 8/10ths the damage

Aquilus, on 01 December 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

Pretty sure 2DPS would be massively OP. 1 DPS might work though, which is the same as the small lasers. No heat to be concerned about, but you obviously need ammo, which adds weight and can explode, so it should be a reasonable trade-off.

I do agree that doing 2/3rds DPS of a SL as TT values would indicate would be underpowered, and doing the same 1 DPS would be a lot better, I am not convinced that it is enough. It is difficult to quantify how much of a disadvantage the MG has doing 1 DPS compared to the SL's 1 DPS when you have to hit with the MG for the full 3 seconds to do the same damage an SL does in the first 3/4ths of a second but then has to wait the rest of the three seconds to do it again.

Hidirian, on 01 December 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

What you are suggesting already exists but not until 3068 ~ Machine_Gun_Array.

The primary advantage of the MG Array's in TT was that they made one hit roll, and all hit in one location. This was a pretty good buff at the cost of half a ton... but since we already have both of those perks here in MWO, there is no good reason to give us access to MG Arrays.

[stjobe]

Aquilus, on 01 December 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

Pretty sure 2DPS would be massively OP. 1 DPS might work though, which is the same as the small lasers. No heat to be concerned about, but you obviously need ammo, which adds weight and can explode, so it should be a reasonable trade-off. PGI stated in their balance thread that MGs need a buff, so we'll hopefully see that soon. Should be a boon to lighter mechs that have ballistic slots, like the Raven and Cicada as well as the Dragon.

Yeah, 2 DPS would perhaps be a tad OP, but OTOH they have very limited range, and need to fire (and hit!) continuously to reach that DPS.

Make it 1 DPS to be on par with the small lasers (while retaining the one weakness of all ballistic weapons - ammo weight). This would make them the ballistic equivalent of the small laser; same damage, same range, same weapon weight. If you need to balance them further, make them generate a small amount of heat.

The 0.04 per shot/0.4 DPS they have now is ridiculous, and I fear that the upcoming buff is going to be less than the 0.1 damage/shot they need to hit 1 DPS - which I think is a minimally viable DPS for them.

Edited by stjobe, 01 December 2012 - 11:33 AM.

[LauLiao]

Dudeman3k, on 01 December 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

Well, to put some realism into the picture:

...but ignore completely the fact that a BattleMech is not a practical or viable combat vehicle...

[Sug]

Give machine guns a 1200 meter range!!

[Antony Weiner]

LauLiao, on 01 December 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

...but ignore completely the fact that a BattleMech is not a practical or viable combat vehicle...

*insert TT fanboy foam-filled rebuttal of how battlemech is the future of combat.*

[Dagnome]

They are going to be giving Machine guns a boost and the flamer as well. Though they wont be a primary weapon, which they shouldn't be, but they may beef them enough where they could act as a good secondary weapon. For the tonnage and the great returns on ammo per ton the machine gun really shouldn't be powerful enough to do significant damage.

Edited by Dagnome, 01 December 2012 - 12:36 PM.

[stjobe]

Dagnome, on 01 December 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

the machine gun really shouldn't be powerful enough to do significant damage.

It should do exactly as much damage as an AC/2, but with a 90m range. They are secondary weapons, to be sure, but that's partly because of their low damage and partly because of their low range.

[Konrad]

We have been asking for a MG fix since the beginning of closed beta.

[Ghostrider0067]

stjobe, on 01 December 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

It should do exactly as much damage as an AC/2, but with a 90m range. They are secondary weapons, to be sure, but that's partly because of their low damage and partly because of their low range.

I can't agree with that. An AC is essentially a smaller caliber recoilless rifle round. As such, it should do more damage than any machine gun as the projectile is far larger, fired from a larger weapon, and fired at much higher velocity.

[Hatachi]

I would just like them to feel like the ballistic equivalent of small lasers as far as the pure dps aspect is concerned. You lose half a ton to ammo and risk the chance of an ammo explosion for lower heat. Not saying I want them to fire in a similar manner to small lasers.

[stjobe]

Ghostrider0067, on 01 December 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

I can't agree with that. An AC is essentially a smaller caliber recoilless rifle round. As such, it should do more damage than any machine gun as the projectile is far larger, fired from a larger weapon, and fired at much higher velocity.

Reality notwithstanding, in BT the MG does 2 damage, same as the AC/2.

I've already said that I'd be fine with the MWO MG being on par DPS-wise with the small laser (1.0 DPS).

[Ghostrider0067]

stjobe, on 01 December 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

Reality notwithstanding, in BT the MG does 2 damage, same as the AC/2.

I've already said that I'd be fine with the MWO MG being on par DPS-wise with the small laser (1.0 DPS).

I must have missed that one. I agree with you on the damage as you've stated here.

[Trauglodyte]

Ghostrider0067, on 01 December 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

I can't agree with that. An AC is essentially a smaller caliber recoilless rifle round. As such, it should do more damage than any machine gun as the projectile is far larger, fired from a larger weapon, and fired at much higher velocity.

You don't agree with it because you're taking TT values and applying them to MWO. The Machine Gun is very similar to the lasers in this game in that they do X damage but that damage is done over time. If you hit a moving mech with a large laser, you're pretty much dragging the laser beam across the mech doing the amount of damage across two or three locations. WHEN they buff the MG to do the same amount of damage as the AC/2, which they should, it'll be 2 damage but over the course of time it takes the MG to do damage now and not 2 damage in one specific shot. Right now, the MG fires 10 rounds of ammunition per second with each round doing 0.04 damage per round or 0.4DPS. The trick is buffing the MG so that it maintains the same damage, or within the same realm, of the Small Laser and AC/2.

Just a main reason as to why the MG needs a buff: I'm currently working on the Cicada Mastery and, as such, I'm driving the CDA-3C. I sat behind a trial Atlas in a game earlier today and unloaded 1500 rounds of ammunition with 4 MGs along with a Medium Laser. I finally burned through the back armor and killed the wonderful AFKer. The amount of damage that I did at the end of the game? 74, now, how much do you surmise was from the Medium Laser versus the MGs? It is really really sad.

PS> MGs spray like LRMs/SRMs and I don't know why - it sucks!

Edited by Trauglodyte, 01 December 2012 - 01:27 PM.

[verybad]

I don't want better machineguns, I want PVE infantry I can shoot the current machineguns at.

[Ghostrider0067]

I don't agree with it because MGs and ACs are different in terms of caliber and for the reasons I stated previously: ACs should do more damage than any machine gun as the projectile is far larger, fired from a larger weapon (and a longer barrel), and fired at much higher velocity.

Forgive me for injecting some realism into what clearly isn't, but I guess it's of no matter since some people can't do the same. Shame on me.

Edited by Ghostrider0067, 01 December 2012 - 01:31 PM.