383 replies to this topic

[MechFrog1]

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

Again, why do we need to rely on MGs to destroy components?

We don't. It would however give MGs a purpose in a game where they currently don't have one. If you really think that MGs should fit some imaginary "design" of not doing any damage to armor or sensitive mechanics (which is funny if you've ever shot at anything ever with a gun), shouldn't you be arguing for their removal from the game entirely as they cannot serve their 'purpose' of attacking infantry?

[Scarlett Avignon]

Thontor, on 12 December 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

We don't need to rely on them.. they just need to be able to do it in a reasonable amount of time..

Or you could just use any of the two dozen other weapons that are specifically designed to do the same job more efficiently...

[Onyx Rain]

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

Again, why do we need to rely on MGs to destroy components?

We aren't saying we should rely on them...we are saying we want them to not be gimped at destroying internals compared to other weapons.

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

So...we've successfully proven that lasers were developed because they are (in theory) far superior than machine guns at destroying armor.

Glad we agree.



This is not a bad solution at all.

Maybe but mainly we are saying that they have many advantages over MG (as a response to your question why would you make a laser if you had a MG)....but that the MG in game are so crappy that whatever advantage a small laser would have over a MG it is much more in game then it probably would be in reality and for the sake of game play MG needs to be buffed to make its usefulness similar.

[Ryebear]

Im going to skip reading this thread and just weigh in.

Average damage per tonne of ballistics is 150 (or 125 for UAC and 140 for AC/20).

150/2000 is 0.075 dmg per bullet.
10 bullets per second.
Sustained DPS 0.75.

That's 25% less DPS than a Small Laser but is sustained at 0 heat offset by for a short range and very slow bullet speed weapon. Max boatable ballistic slots so far is 4 making a total max sustained DPS of 3 for 3 tonnes at peak weight efficiency (4 machine guns 1 tonne of ammo).

Seems pretty balanced to me. It gives machine guns value without being abusable. For reference, current machine guns do 0.04 dmg per bullet, so its roughly double the damage.

[MechFrog1]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

Or you could just use any of the two dozen other weapons that are specifically designed to do the same job more efficiently...

I look forward to your passionate posts arguing that no further weaponry be added to the game.

[Onyx Rain]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

Or you could just use any of the two dozen other weapons that are specifically designed to do the same job more efficiently...

Like the other guy said maybe you should just be arguing that they get removed from the game instead of getting a buff because that seems to be how you actually feel.

For those who would like to see a weapon in game that is useless become useful these arguments/idea are all mostly very valid.

[Orzorn]

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

Again, why do we need to rely on MGs to destroy components?

As long as they can destroy one component every ten seconds on average, I'm okay with it. They didn't do any better at crit seeking than other weapons in the TT, in fact, cluster hit weapons (LB 10-X, SRMs, LRMs, etc) did better, because their damage spread.

I never did understand why machine guns didn't use the cluster hits table in the table top.

The issue right now is just that the system they chose really hurts machine guns unfairly.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Onyx Rain, on 12 December 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

We aren't saying we should rely on them...we are saying we want them to not be gimped at destroying internals compared to other weapons.

Maybe but mainly we are saying that they have many advantages over MG (as a response to your question why would you make a laser if you had a MG)....but that the MG in game are so crappy that whatever advantage a small laser would have over a MG it is much more in game then it probably would be in reality and for the sake of game play MG needs to be buffed to make its usefulness similar.

The problem is that we're in a garage full of Ferarri's and you're arguing that your Pinto needs to be competitive.

[Onyx Rain]

mint frog, on 12 December 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

I look forward to your passionate posts arguing that no further weaponry be added to the game.

Ya seriously....they should have just stopped at 1 weapon, oh an 1 mech...then we'd have perfect balance!...what a fun game that would be.

[Orzorn]

Onyx Rain, on 12 December 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

Ok lets put 12 mg at .4 dps on a mech, say an atlas for $hits and giggles... and take it into battle against another atlas with 4 small lasers....12 mg is 1.92 dps.....4 small lasers is 4 dps...so the 4 small lasers is more the twice as powerful...oh but the mg spreads its dmg all over the place, and the 4 small focus it so it is much more useful....I bet you the 4 small laser atlas wins

It could put all that damage on 1 spot and core you out, or head shoot you....the MG will spray that damage all over the place, taking forever to get through the armor of anywhere vital..

12 machine guns is .04 * 10 * 12 = 4.8 damage per second.

[Onyx Rain]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

The problem is that we're in a garage full of Ferarri's and you're arguing that your Pinto needs to be competitive.

I'm saying that the small laser is a nicer pinto...but my old pinto the MG should still get me home in a reasonable amount of time.

[Asmudius Heng]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

The problem is that we're in a garage full of Ferarri's and you're arguing that your Pinto needs to be competitive.

No it is more like you are in a stable of fit horses about to race and the three legged nag is also competing rather than being put down and replaced with another competative horse so the race is more exciting and there are more chances for all to achieve victory.

[Onyx Rain]

Orzorn, on 12 December 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

12 machine guns is .04 * 10 * 12 = 4.8 damage per second.

Ok ya now I screwed up the math...stupid decimal point...so even with 12 MG...I get .8 more damage then 4 small lasers....but that damage is all spray and pray where the guy with the lasers can aim at one section and burn it down much faster then I'll probably be able to put enough MG damage on any one spot vital enough to kill him...

So bad math, but the 4 small laser atlas will probably still win the fight most times.

Edited by Onyx Rain, 12 December 2012 - 06:23 PM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

mint frog, on 12 December 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

I look forward to your passionate posts arguing that no further weaponry be added to the game.

Good point.

Except that I talked about all the coming weapons before.

Your sarcasm add so much. Thank you.

Asmudius Heng, on 12 December 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

No it is more like you are in a stable of fit horses about to race and the three legged nag is also competing rather than being put down and replaced with another competative horse so the race is more exciting and there are more chances for all to achieve victory.

So, strip your machine guns (like every one else does) and fit more useful equipment than anti-infantry weapons. Problem solved!

[Onyx Rain]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

So, strip your machine guns (like every one else does) and fit more useful equipment than anti-infantry weapons. Problem solved!

Except many of us see having a weapon in the game that is useless...in fact actually hurts a mech because it robs you of weight/space that could be used better...as a problem.

So problem not solved...and we see removing the weapon completely as removing content...content that could/should in our opinion be made useful as another problem.

[Asmudius Heng]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Good point.

Except that I talked about all the coming weapons before.

Your sarcasm add so much. Thank you.



So, strip your machine guns (like every one else does) and fit more useful equipment than anti-infantry weapons. Problem solved!

No.

Sorry to be blunt but that is pretty rediculous seeing there are no viable light ballistic weapons. Machines can be that but you are so mired in a single mentatlity that you fail to see what good game design is.

If you are so insistant that you follow what you believe to be some sort of canon interpretation of BT then perhaps you might not like MANY other parts of MWO.

Might not be the game for you just sayin.

[Onyx Rain]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 December 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

No.

Sorry to be blunt but that is pretty rediculous seeing there are no viable light ballistic weapons. Machines can be that but you are so mired in a single mentatlity that you fail to see what good game design is.

If you are so insistant that you follow what you believe to be some sort of canon interpretation of BT then perhaps you might not like MANY other parts of MWO.

Might not be the game for you just sayin.

I know he just seems mired by machine gun hate...at least the anti-infantry only people have some kind of argument they think is rational....this guy just hates on everything MG related practically. Pretty much getting to the point it is just sad that his thinking is so limited...or he has gone into troll mode and is now just perpetuating this to screw with people....which would also be sad.

[Orzorn]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

So, strip your machine guns (like every one else does) and fit more useful equipment than anti-infantry weapons. Problem solved!

Small laser were useful against mechs in the tabletop. They were good back up weapons.

They dealt 3 damage.

Machine guns dealt 2 damage.

Remind me again why everyone seems to think that machine guns are magically supposed to be awful and only good against infantry?

[Onyx Rain]

Orzorn, on 12 December 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Small laser were useful against mechs in the tabletop. They were good back up weapons.

They dealt 3 damage.

Machine guns dealt 2 damage.

Remind me again why everyone seems to think that machine guns are magically supposed to be awful and only good against infantry?

No but I'll give you another reason why they could damage a mech...

The first layer of armor is steel (according to sarna)... hit that steel denting it, puncturing it etc..etc...and you make it less capable of stopping other weapons....I consider that damage.

The game can't simulate all the physics/variables...so it uses a simplified HP system. It isn't perfect...but it works...and there is a place for MG in it.

The anti-personal only argument people should be outraged that MG do any damage at all if they are going to go that route....but I've just given them an extremely plausible way in which MG would cause damage...damage that leads to more damage over time as that area is hit by other weapons. Bullets cause stress to armor...stress causes armor failure... armor failure= exposed internals, stress to internals by bullets causes internal failure which = dead mech.

Edited by Onyx Rain, 12 December 2012 - 06:42 PM.

[Liberty]

Hmm.... Just thought I'd throw my two cents in here. I saw someone park behind an idle Assault during a match while I was dead. He shot machine guns only at the rear Center Torso for minutes before the mech finally caved. Not one minute or two minute but minutes. He must have gone through over a 1000+ rounds of ammo easy. Thats against a mech that isn't moving, in the back, and point blank. No weapon should take freakin minutes to do that. Especially two of them. So.... Either there is something off in how those suckers hit the target or the damage is absolutely pitiful. Buff? Sheesh I wouldn't talk about 1.2 or 1.4 damage buffs. I'd double the damage of those suckers. Few mechs can have the hardpoints to boat them and they are short range. The only one mech I believe that can boat MGs is a variant of the Flea which is one Alpha strike away from Heaven at 20 tons. Maybe if MGs actually did something the Flea could have something to contribute. Oh, and buff the flamer too. I'd like to see the Fire Ant variant of the Flea come into play in some other way since there are no infantry to shoot at.

Edited by Liberty, 12 December 2012 - 06:46 PM.