383 replies to this topic

[GioAvanti]

J4ckInthebox, on 12 December 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

You too, I am afraid. TT machine guns have indeed a bonus against infantry, but otherwise they work like ac/2's against 'mechs at close range.

Nerf ac2's!!!

[Critical Fumble]

Why are people suggesting that you can balance the MG by matching its DPS to a statistical comparison to it versus the TT small laser? I'm sorry, but that just won't work with the way they implemented weapons.

While at 0.67ish DPS the MG would match the small laser on paper; that idea ignores that the small laser does 3 damage in 0.75 seconds, with a 2.25 cooldown where it does not have to be pointed at the target, while the MG would have to be held on target for the full 3 seconds.

A final version of the MG may well require changing its fire mode, not just its damage.

[Erasus Magnus]

Warrax the Chaos Warrior, on 12 December 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

It's a half-ton weapon that gets 1000 shots per ton of ammo with zero heat (that's the most important part)... it really shouldn't be all that useful, but a critical damage boost to meager base damage is probably no big deal.

I want to re-iterate that the zero heat thing is what you really need to keep in mind when considering how far machine guns should be buffed. Also keep in mind how bad it could be when people start boating (3+) them.

*cough piranha cough*

the "mgs are anti infantry" argument is the same bull as the "lrms are support weapon" bull.

they are weapons. they need to deliver in terms of damage, because thats the sole purpose of weapons.

[MustrumRidcully]

They definitely need a buff. I am not convinced that a crit buff would help anything.
Let's face it, when you're dealing damage to internals, the enemy mech will be dead very soon. And your AC/5 or Medium Laser still deal good damage against the target's internal. The MG would need a massive boost to crits to be worth this.

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

We are going to get dozens of new and differing weapon systems over the next few years in this game, all of which will have unique abilities in their own right. Again, please tell me why we need to inflate the abilities of an anti-infantry weapon.

Oh, and by the way. It's not trolling just because you say it is. If you think not immediately agreeing with someone is trolling, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Over the next few years. It will really be quite some time until these will come. And some of these new weapons will be Machine Gun Arrays.

One of the reasons why MGs must be effective against Mechs is - they were, and some mechs were designed to use MGs against other mechs, and some mechs use them as a sidearm for anti-mech defense when their target enters their primary weapon's minimum range. The Catapult K2 for example uses medium lasers and MGs for close range defense.

[MustrumRidcully]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

Wait. Maybe BT weapons are massively inefficient compared to our own and don't perform as well.

Not only that, they defy physics.

The AC/20 deals ten times the damage of the AC/2, but has about 1/3 its range. Battletech "Long Range" missiles fly only for 800m (the 1000m in MW:O are already more than they could fly in canon).
The AC/20 also produces more waste heat with a chemical explosive than a Railgun (or is it a Coil Gun?) Gauss Rifle with 75 % the damage and 250 % of its range...

Also, for some reason a bipedal vehicle of 100 ton weight is seen as better for use in warfare than a flat tracked or wheeled vehicle.

[De La Fresniere]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

MGs naturally get a "crit bonus" due to their extremely high rate of fire. If weapons have a 1% chance to crit (I actually don't know that the crit chance for a weapon is, because PGI hasn't ever really told anyone) the bonus come from the fact that they get that bonus about 20 times a second, vs the average weapon that gets it fare less because no ROF is anywhere near the MG.

I really hate seeing this garbage being spread around.

PGI *has* explained how crits work.

When you fire into internals, you have 43% chance to hit a critical slot and damage the item that's in that slot. Items have 10 HP each.

MGs and LB10-X fire a lot of small projectiles (MGs for example fire 10 bullets per second). Each projectile has a chance to crit, so they do a ton of critical slot hits, yes. But due to their high number of low-damage crits, they spread their critical slot hit damage evenly among items.

Imagine that you're in a RPG, fighting six opponents with 10 health each. Your Dagger of Quick Suckiness lets you attack 10 times per round, and that makes you feel so very awesome, right?

Except it only has 43% chance to hit one of the opponents, and only does 0.04 damage per hit. Oh, and get this: it attacks opponents at random. You can't take one opponent down quick, you'll have to deal terrible damage evenly among each of them.

If you use the Dagger of Quick Suckiness, you're trying very, very, *very* hard to keep your opponents alive for the longest possible time by spreading your damage evenly among them.
If you use MGs, you're trying very, very, *very* hard not to break any of you're opponent's items by spreading damage evenly among them.

An AC/10 only has 43% chance to crit every time it fires. But if it does crit, it'll break an item instantly.

Unless you're targeting a section with a Gauss Rifle in it (which takes a lot of slots so it'll get crit often, and only has 3 health so it'll break quickly), MGs (and any other weapon dealing damage via multiple small projectiles, which right now includes the LB10-X) are just about the worst weapon in the game for breaking items via critical slot hits.

And going back to the topic... if it's true that the original BattleTech had MGs and no infantry, then it's definitely not a dedicated anti-infantry weapon. Even if it were? This isn't TT. There's only mechs. If they put MGs in, then they intend them to be viable against mechs. Low-damage because of their low weight and heat generation, but overall, balanced weapons.

They need a big buff.

[General Taskeen]

Critical Fumble, on 13 December 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

Why are people suggesting that you can balance the MG by matching its DPS to a statistical comparison to it versus the TT small laser? I'm sorry, but that just won't work with the way they implemented weapons.

While at 0.67ish DPS the MG would match the small laser on paper; that idea ignores that the small laser does 3 damage in 0.75 seconds, with a 2.25 cooldown where it does not have to be pointed at the target, while the MG would have to be held on target for the full 3 seconds.

A final version of the MG may well require changing its fire mode, not just its damage.

A Micro Small Laser does 2 damage. Small Laser 3. ER Small Laser 3 (Clan 5). Not sure what you are suggesting, but the MG definitely needs to be redeveloped. The only reason people are suggesting to bring its damage value up is because every other weapon so far has the perceived 'balance' of retaining its TT damage value. It could be done, but the fire rate would have to be adjusted to make it work right, possibly a burst of bullets (4 bullets consumed in 1 shot, doing 2 damage for instance). Right now the damage of an MG bullet does 0.04 damage, which is pretty hilariously bad.

[MustrumRidcully]

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

I believe you're missing the beam duration as part of the weaons effective recycle time. The final DPS of a Small Laser is 1.0, IIRC. (2.25 seconds cooldown, 0.75 seconds beam duration, total cycle time => 3).

[Erasus Magnus]

Skyfaller, on 12 December 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Use some common sense.

Each mg weighs half a ton.
2000 rounds weigh one ton.

Not even WW2 machine guns mounted on ships or aircraft weigh that much so it's definitely not an anti infantry weapon nor even an anti vehicle weapon. To give you an idea, an m61 vulcan 20mm gatling weighs roughly 250kg.

One ton for 2 thousand bullets? That would roughly put it near the weight of two thousand 20mm cannon rounds.

So, it makes zero sense this being anti personnel nor anti vehicle weapon.

I think the devs should make it to be more like a specialized very high speed, armor piercing 50cal machine gun. Give it 2km range, twice the rate of fire than what it has now and make each gun take up 1/4th of a weapon slot (not crit slot) so you can put four per one ballistic weapon slot.

This would make the weapon quite effective only when used in large quantities and with an insane ammo load.

phew...my 4 slots ballistic cicada would love that.

[Erasus Magnus]

Rofl, on 12 December 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

That should be obvious. Compare any modern weapon system with it's BT equivalent.

EDIT:

Just so we're clear:
Basing the MG off TT is not going to work.
Basing the MG off real life is not going to work. (both extremes of 'real life' examples end up with silly results)

How about we base the MG off balancing around the other weapons?!?!?!

HERESY!

[gamingogre]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

Again: WHY?

Are we finding ourselves short of weapons that are capable of making critical hits? Is there a dirth of mech variants in the game that mount machine guns as their main weapon system and are woefully under-powered? Is there even one? Are people being forced to mount anti-infantry weapons on their mechs and made to fight mechs mounting only the other 24 anti-armor weapons in the game? Are machine guns unable to be dismounted and replaced with more effective weapons? Weapons that were perhaps designed to be used against heavily armored targets? Is there no way that the machine gun is simply an anti-infantry weapon that is included on some of these designs because they operate in a universe where infantry exists, even though it is not included in this game?

Simple, I have a 40t mech with 4 ballistic hardpoints and 1 energy hardpoint. There is not enough weight for the mech to fill all 4 slots with ACs. It has the lowest DPs (lower than commandos) and is mostly worthless. I remember one match, I had 4 MG with several tons of ammo. I used up all the ammo and then died. I didn't die quicker because everyone ignored me. They knew my MG were no threat. Clearly this mech needs to be deleted or the MG needs to be buffed. This is a call for balance. All your arguments against the MG are just stupid. Any statement that strays outside of game balance can just go to hell. Balance my mech or give me one worth playing! Enough said.
Also, the crit. ability should be increased. Diversity is better in all cases where it doesn't overpower (i.e. unbalance) something.

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

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.

Not true. The Heat Per Second for the small laser is 0.66, medium laser is 1HPS, and large laser is 1.64HPS. (http://www.dotamento...MWO-weapons.pdf)

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

Yes, they all come with 10. That doesn't change the fact that lasers create heat which needs to be dissipated.

You can't dismiss the heat of practically the least heat-efficient weapon in the game when comparing it to a weapon that literally has infinite heat efficiency.

It's a factor.

When building small mechs, those 'free' 10 heat sinks make 100% difference. While the percentage slides down, the bigger the mech is; it never goes below 33% or 25% (depending on the 30 or 40 heat sink max mentioned earlier), therefor it is ALWAYS a factor.

[MustrumRidcully]

Small Laser the least heat efficient weapon? Not really. You get 3 damage for 2 heat, that's 1.5 damage for 1 heat. A Medium Laser generates 1.25 damage per 1 heat, a PPC 1.11 damage per 1 heat.

And besides, damage/heat efficiency is not that important. What's important is the resulting damage/tonnage efficiency, if you consider the cost of the weapon, the ammo and the heat sinks.

I did the math for people trying to boat some guns, reaching a minimum damage output, and a minimum time before they overheat.

This one is suited for light mechs - a high value is good:



If you just want to know the weight cost to achieve the damage/time goals (low is better):

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 13 December 2012 - 04:37 AM.

[Elizander]

Just buff it up to 0.88 / 0.89 / 0.9 DPS and it will be on par with what the MG is to the small laser in the tabletop (3 damage is to 2). Honestly I'd be happy if it was just 0.80 dps. I'm not too keen on the crit mechanic though it would make them somewhat unique. I'd rather have them work all the time and not just when a mech lost some armor tho.

The lack of heat is offset by the following:

• Heavier (requires 1.5 tons due to ammo)
  
• Risk of ammo explosion

I am not sure if the heat scale also works in numbers less than 1 (like armor is actually 100 points per 1 point) so you can make an incremental heat increase if boating Machine Guns is a big risk.

[Stingz]

Elizander, on 13 December 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Just buff it up to 0.88 / 0.89 / 0.9 DPS and it will be on par with what the MG is to the small laser in the tabletop (3 damage is to 2). Honestly I'd be happy if it was just 0.80 dps. I'm not too keen on the crit mechanic though it would make them somewhat unique. I'd rather have them work all the time and not just when a mech lost some armor tho.

The lack of heat is offset by the following:

• Heavier (requires 1.5 tons due to ammo)
  
• Risk of ammo explosion

I am not sure if the heat scale also works in numbers less than 1 (like armor is actually 100 points per 1 point) so you can make an incremental heat increase if boating Machine Guns is a big risk.

I don't think anything but the Piranha(Clan, 12 MG) has enough ballistic hardpoints, and it's a dedicated clan MG boat.

Edited by Stingz, 13 December 2012 - 05:11 AM.

[Elizander]

Stingz, on 13 December 2012 - 05:11 AM, said:

I don't think anything but the Piranha(Clan, 12 MG) has enough ballistic hardpoints, and it's a dedicated clan MG boat.

I can just see people complaining after they die to a 4x MG Cicada.

[Sifright]

machine guns and flamers both worthless.

Machine guns could do with having their damage uped by 5X. 1DPS for a half tonne weapon seems fair.

At the moment both of those weapon systems are trash.

[MustrumRidcully]

Sifright, on 13 December 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

machine guns and flamers both worthless.

Machine guns could do with having their damage uped by 5X. 1DPS for a half tonne weapon seems fair.

I think 0.75 to 0.8 DPS would already be sufficient. It needs 1 or more tons of ammo, but a small laser needs several tons of heat sinks...

[Plavis]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

WHY?

How on earth do you explain a machine gun bullet doing "increased" critical damage over the plethora of weapons that are purpose-built to destroy battlemechs?

Furthermore, why is this needed?

Does a dedicated anti-infantry weapon really need to be given a special ability?

Why can't it be left in the condition it is right now, where logic and common sense dictates it should be: basically useless in armored warfare where we do not see infantry on the battlefield.

Seriously. It's just silly that they are doing to buff an anti-infantry weapon. There is no good reason other than some people think that, because it's there, it needs to be it's own special little flower.

P.S.- If they want to buff the damage a bit, I don't care. It's just silly they they would give it a nonsensical "crit buff."

Direct Dicendant of the Gattling Gun
http://en.wikipedia....i/GAU-8_Avenger

This Gun is so cool they built an airplane as an acessory to it(A-10 warthog, tankhunter).

[Sifright]

MustrumRidcully, on 13 December 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

I think 0.75 to 0.8 DPS would already be sufficient. It needs 1 or more tons of ammo, but a small laser needs several tons of heat sinks...

Hmm, I'd disagree yes they are less total tonnage than a small laser on the other hand lasers are infinite ammo and in theory shouldn't need you to lead the target at all.

Machine guns even if you could boat say 6-8 of them would still only be 6-7 dps. Sure against light mechs that isn't completely terrible but it's not good either. Especially as there is no way you will ever maintain 100% accuracy.

[Joseph Mallan]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

WHY?

How on earth do you explain a machine gun bullet doing "increased" critical damage over the plethora of weapons that are purpose-built to destroy battlemechs?

Furthermore, why is this needed?

Does a dedicated anti-infantry weapon really need to be given a special ability?

Why can't it be left in the condition it is right now, where logic and common sense dictates it should be: basically useless in armored warfare where we do not see infantry on the battlefield.

Seriously. It's just silly that they are doing to buff an anti-infantry weapon. There is no good reason other than some people think that, because it's there, it needs to be it's own special little flower.

P.S.- If they want to buff the damage a bit, I don't care. It's just silly they they would give it a nonsensical "crit buff."

Two words:
Golden bee-bee!

Plavis please note the description of said weapon:

Quote

GAU-8/A Avenger is a 30 mm hydraulically-driven seven-barrel Gatling-type cannon

Not a machine gun.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 13 December 2012 - 05:37 AM.