383 replies to this topic

[Scarlett Avignon]

Thontor, on 12 December 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

just trying to make them as useful as they were in TT

TT MGs were guns that, for half a ton you got a gun with the same damage ratio as an AC/2. The problem with doing that would mean that you would have to crank it's damage ratio up WAY past that of a Small Laser.

AC/2: 2 damage / .5 sec cooldown = 4 DPS

Small Laser: 3 damage / 2.25 sec cooldown = 1.33 DPS

Now, it's been stated that you want it to be parallel with how it functions in tabletop. You've claimed it needs to be upped to the damage rate of an AC/2 and then upped to the damage rate of a Small Laser? Which one is it? PGI has changed the DPS of all the guns.

Let's take a look at the MG.

MG: .04 damage / .1 sec cooldown = .4 DPS

Food for thought.

All info was taken from OHM's weapon data sheets, which are posted as in the general guide area, lending his numbers some credence.

EDIT: Derped a decimal.

Edited by Franklen Avignon, 12 December 2012 - 04:56 PM.

[4lex]

Are you guys really trying to prove a point, by comparing real modern weapons stats and stuff to a computer game weapon related to giant robots, shooting particle pulse canons at each other, so they can stand in the other team circle?

Seriously ?

[Onyx Rain]

Thontor, on 12 December 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

1 DPS is equal to a small laser.. a bit much IMO.. the MG did do less damage than a small laser in TT

0.6667 DPS would put it right where it needs to be

and it would still need a crit buff.. cause that would still take 27.8 seconds of continuous fire on exposed internals to destroy a single lonely component.... something like a 1.5x damage modifier against components would be good.. cutting that time to close to how long it takes a single small laser to do the job. 18.5 seconds.

I don't see how anyone can feel that would be a bit much...I get that they in fact do...but I don't understand how whatever justifications they give for it are enough to make it seem reasonable to them.

The only one that comes close is the one that takes heat sinks into account...and as others have stated that is fairly moot...IMO because that would already be there for the other weapons, and a bunch come in the engine.... So you're just taking advantage of stuff you'd already have....rarely are you designing an entire build around 1 small laser, thinking OMG i have to have that 1 heat sink or this thing won't work!

So the mg is 3x the weight of a small laser when you include the ammo, takes up 2x the crit spots (minimum, more with more ammo which also increases total weapon system weight), sprays the little damage it does all over the place, which I'm sorry the reality of that is that the damage it does is less useful then the focused pinpoint damage of a small laser....so the weapon is dps is .4 compared to 1....that is almost 1/3 the dps...factor in the weight/crit spots and spray and prey mechanic and you get a weapon that is 1/5 as useful as a small laser or worse...probably worse. The high ammo count is not enough to make it better then the small laser, which has unlimited ammo....or even offset the downsides much. It is basically the one thing that even begins to make the mg useful.

Edited by Onyx Rain, 12 December 2012 - 04:52 PM.

[stjobe]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

MG: .4 damage / .1 sec cooldown = 4 DPS

Seems the MG is already at the same damage ratio of an AC/2. And it FAR surpasses that of a Small Laser.

Food for thought.

No, just bad math. The MG does 0.04 damage per bullet, 10 bullets per second. It has 0.4 DPS, not 4.

[Orzorn]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

TT MGs were guns that, for half a ton you got a gun with the same damage ratio as an AC/2. The problem with doing that would mean that you would have to crank it's damage ratio up WAY past that of a Small Laser.

AC/2: 2 damage / .5 sec cooldown = 4 DPS

Small Laser: 3 damage / 2.25 sec cooldown = 1.33 DPS

Now, it's been stated that you want it to be parallel with how it functions in tabletop. You've claimed it needs to be upped to the damage rate of an AC/2 and then upped to the damage rate of a Small Laser? Which one is it? PGI has changed the DPS of all the guns.

Let's take a look at the MG.

MG: .4 damage / .1 sec cooldown = 4 DPS

Seems the MG is already at the same damage ratio of an AC/2. And it FAR surpasses that of a Small Laser.

Food for thought.

All info was taken from OHM's weapon data sheets, which are posted as in the general guide area, lending his numbers some credence.

WOAH, that is some bad math.

Machine guns to .04 damage per round, for 10 rounds per second. 10 * .04 is .4 damage per second, which means 4 damage per 10 seconds.

You took the .4 damage as though it was per bullet. It is not. .4 is the damage PER SECOND. Go look at Ohm's guide if you don't believe me.

[stjobe]

At this point I'd like to point out that Franklen Avignon has been arguing for 10 pages against an upcoming change to a weapon he quite apparently doesn't even know the stats of.

Ridiculous.

Edited by stjobe, 12 December 2012 - 04:55 PM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Orzorn, on 12 December 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

WOAH, that is some bad math.

Well, the math is right, but my numbers were off. It is.4 DPS

That still doesn't change my point. It's been called to buff it to the same DPS as a Small Laser and the AC/2.

Which one do we buff it to?

[Orzorn]

As a side note, the small laser's dps is calculate as 1.0, not 1.1, because it has a beam duration of .75 seconds, meaning you have 3 seconds between the beginning of one shot and the beginning of the other (or the end and the end), as opposed to 2.25 seconds.

[Onyx Rain]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

TT MGs were guns that, for half a ton you got a gun with the same damage ratio as an AC/2. The problem with doing that would mean that you would have to crank it's damage ratio up WAY past that of a Small Laser.

AC/2: 2 damage / .5 sec cooldown = 4 DPS

Small Laser: 3 damage / 2.25 sec cooldown = 1.33 DPS

Now, it's been stated that you want it to be parallel with how it functions in tabletop. You've claimed it needs to be upped to the damage rate of an AC/2 and then upped to the damage rate of a Small Laser? Which one is it? PGI has changed the DPS of all the guns.

Let's take a look at the MG.

MG: .4 damage / .1 sec cooldown = 4 DPS

Seems the MG is already at the same damage ratio of an AC/2. And it FAR surpasses that of a Small Laser.

Food for thought.

All info was taken from OHM's weapon data sheets, which are posted as in the general guide area, lending his numbers some credence.

Uh you sure your numbers are right? You are talking about in this pc game right?

the small laser according to ohms guide in mwo is 1 dps...

The mg according to ohm's in mwo is .4 dps....not 4 it is .04 dmg per bullet...10 bullets per second, so that = .4 dps...which comes out to 2 damage per 5 seconds of sustained fire....sprayed all over the mech, not concentrated in 1 useful spot like a small laser's damage.

...and that is why even at 1dps...the MG would still not be nearly as useful as a small laser because that 1 dps would be spread all over the mech instead of focused on the CT, Head...or other vital area you were trying to kill.

.04 dmg per bullet means that even if you get the max 3x crit on a bullet it does .12 damage...horrible. The only remotely saving grace is with so many bullets hitting it can add up...but that dmg is so small that even if every shot is a 3x crit shot it still doesn't do crap compared to what other weapons do when they crit just once

[Orzorn]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Well, the math is right, but my numbers were off. It is.4 DPS

That still doesn't change my point. It's been called to buff it to the same DPS as a Small Laser and the AC/2.

Which one do we buff it to?

Definitely not the AC/2, I can agree with you there.

The reason people (such as myself) were giving .066 damage per round was because its a good base line for a weapon to be as good as it was in the TT (in relation to the small laser).

As for myself, I think .08 damage per round would be acceptable. 8 damage per 10 seconds versus 10 damage per 10 seconds. Explosive ammo with no heat vs no ammo and 1 heat.

But testing will have to figure out exactly where it lies. At least with .066 its getting a fair shot.

[Onyx Rain]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Well, the math is right, but my numbers were off. It is.4 DPS

That still doesn't change my point. It's been called to buff it to the same DPS as a Small Laser and the AC/2.

Which one do we buff it to?

Ok sorry my post took longer so other people had already corrected you by the time it showed up.

Anyways personally I feel like given the weight/characteristics of the weapon and that we aren't on a 10 second turn like in TT it should be more in line with the small laser for dps then the AC2. IF it did the dmg/dps of an ac2 the way this game is setup that would probably be OP.

[Gaeb]

I take it this poster just read the weapons balance command chair post where they said Machine Guns were going to 500 damage in 2 patches?

[Scarlett Avignon]

Onyx Rain, on 12 December 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

Uh you sure your numbers are right?

Already fixed my post. I derped a decimal.

Again, still doesn't change my point. It's been called to buff it to the same DPS as a Small Laser and the AC/2.

Which one do we buff it to?

Also again, (for about the 5th or 6th time) as I've said from the beginning, I don't care about a damage buff. What I care about this this silly talk of making it a "High Crit" gun. It makes no sense. If it's not doing enough damage buff it. No reason to give it special abilities, though.

[stjobe]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

AC/2: 2 damage / .5 sec cooldown = 4 DPS

Small Laser: 3 damage / 2.25 sec cooldown = 1.33 DPS

Mister, if you're going to start throwing numbers around, it would help your case a lot if you actually knew how the game worked and what those numbers stand for.

The small laser does three damage over 0.75 seconds, and has a 2.25 second recycle. The recycle doesn't start until the beam is done, so the total time between firings isn't 2.25, it's 3.0.

The small laser has a DPS of 1.0.

[Scarlett Avignon]

stjobe, on 12 December 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

Mister, if you're going to start throwing numbers around, it would help your case a lot if you actually knew how the game worked and what those numbers stand for.

The small laser does three damage over 0.75 seconds, and has a 2.25 second recycle. The recycle doesn't start until the beam is done, so the total time between firings isn't 2.25, it's 3.0.

The small laser has a DPS of 1.0.

Does that change my point at all?

[Onyx Rain]

Orzorn, on 12 December 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Definitely not the AC/2, I can agree with you there.

The reason people (such as myself) were giving .066 damage per round was because its a good base line for a weapon to be as good as it was in the TT (in relation to the small laser).

As for myself, I think .08 damage per round would be acceptable. 8 damage per 10 seconds versus 10 damage per 10 seconds. Explosive ammo with no heat vs no ammo and 1 heat.

But testing will have to figure out exactly where it lies. At least with .066 its getting a fair shot.

8 damage per 10 seconds is just .8 dps....that is less then a small laser still for 3x the weight 2x the crits, and it is still spray and pray so even if a small laser did .8 dps too...it would still be way more useful then a machine gun.

It is the spray/pray mechanic that holds the machine gun back more then anything else....its is like a DOT spell....but one that jumps around doing little ticks of damage to different spots....like the arms, which won't kill the mech....but you can put that small laser dps on their head, CT, rt/lt (bad if they have an xl or ammo in there) etc..etc... Much more focused/controllable and much more useful.

[Gabrielpendragon]

Ac2 fire rate to 1/s would fix its dps nicely. at .5 s the uac2 is kinda meaningless, while i know it isn't in game it does still exist in BT.

So mg dmg/bullet to .1 would give it a 1 dps, dropping the ac2 to 1 shot per second drops its dps to 2. then leaving small laser and flamers alone. This puts all light weapons about the same floating at that 1 dps mark, and short range. Each one just has slightly different flavors in how it deals that dps. The only way to scale it better would be to fix the heat system, which would likely mean upping the heat inflicted by the flamer so the fire is noticeable, also maybe adding a ability to set things on fire to make areas of higher heat on the map for a duration.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Onyx Rain, on 12 December 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

8 damage per 10 seconds is just .8 dps....that is less then a small laser still for 3x the weight 2x the crits, and it is still spray and pray so even if a small laser did .8 dps too...it would still be way more useful then a machine gun.

You aren't taking into account the bonus of ZERO heat at all. Small lasers are pretty horrible on the heat scale. That's a pretty big buff.

[stjobe]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

Does that change my point at all?

Your point being...? That the MG shouldn't get a crit increase to make it a viable weapon?

So far you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge of how the MG works in MWO, even what damage it does, and also an almost fanatical devotion to the idea that MGs aren't to be used against 'mechs at all.

Yes, it does speak against your point. If you have no idea how a weapon works or what it's supposed to do, you're in no position to advocate against it being changed one way or another.

For the record, I'm not opposed to it getting *both* a small DPS increase and a crit increase. It needs it.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Just to lay the range issue and perhaps the crit issue to rest. Think of 'Mech MGs like this: the orphaned, range gimped, overweight (and in seeming general player consensus, though not unanimous, unwanted) hybrid offspring of a 20mm Vulcan cannon and a Mk.19 automatic grenade launcher firing high explosive rounds, likely armor piercing in nature, that range in size from 12.5mm to 20mm depending on the manufacturer.
There, rate of fire, range and increased crit ability all in one nice little package. Why anyone would build such an impractical system is beyond me, but armed forces have adopted stranger and more impractical things over the ages.

MGs are in desperate need of a damage buff though at least the ammo is not like the TT where it does 400 points of damage if a full ton went off where as it stands it should only do 80 points.