135 replies to this topic

[Mahws]

Cest7, on 27 December 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

They're getting a higher critseeking chance, if no ones mentioned this before

Which is a joke. Even if a machine gun scored an automatic crit on every bullet with the current damage stats they'd take at least twenty five seconds of sustained fire on a mech to destroy a single ten hitpoint component. Compare that to an AC10 that has a 42% chance to destroy an item every shot. Every time you hit an internal with an AC10 you have a 25% chance of destroying one item, a 14% chance of destroying two and a 3% chance of destroying 3. Big guns are better crit seekers by pure mathematics, (which is why they need to fix the LBX10 which is inferior to the AC10 as a crit seeker, despite the popular myth, but that's another thread). To actually have any kind of use as a "crit seeker" a machine gun would have its crit chances or crit damage buffed to an absurd level. And if you make taking ONE machine gun viable that way you then make taking four or six TOO powerful, which is the same problem they're having with the flamers.

A straight DPS buff is the simplest, sanest and most logical way to make machine guns viable. PGI's 'some kind of crit bonus' that they've been floating around for half a year and never implemented is a dead fish, it's frankly silly and unnecessary.

[One Medic Army]

It's also worth mentioning that in TT, MG ammo had the highest potential damage per ton of ammo (and the highest ammo explosion damage).
In TT 1 ton of MG ammo was 200 rounds, at 2 dmg/round. That's 400 potential damage per ton of ammo.
Currently in MWO after buffing the amount of ammo carried for ballistics and missiles we have SRMs at 250 dmg/ton, most ballistics at 150dmg/ton, and LRMs at 324 dmg/ton.

MWO MGs are at 80dmg/ton...

[Tickdoff Tank]

Mahws, on 27 December 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

Which is a joke. Even if a machine gun scored an automatic crit on every bullet with the current damage stats they'd take at least twenty five seconds of sustained fire on a mech to destroy a single ten hitpoint component. Compare that to an AC10 that has a 42% chance to destroy an item every shot. Every time you hit an internal with an AC10 you have a 25% chance of destroying one item, a 14% chance of destroying two and a 3% chance of destroying 3. Big guns are better crit seekers by pure mathematics, (which is why they need to fix the LBX10 which is inferior to the AC10 as a crit seeker, despite the popular myth, but that's another thread). To actually have any kind of use as a "crit seeker" a machine gun would have its crit chances or crit damage buffed to an absurd level. And if you make taking ONE machine gun viable that way you then make taking four or six TOO powerful, which is the same problem they're having with the flamers.

A straight DPS buff is the simplest, sanest and most logical way to make machine guns viable. PGI's 'some kind of crit bonus' that they've been floating around for half a year and never implemented is a dead fish, it's frankly silly and unnecessary.

If they only buff the *chance* to crit then I agree with you. But I thought they were looking at making the MG have a higher chance to crit *and* do additional damage when it does crit. If that is the case then it might work, but I still think that a damage buff to .8DPS or 1.0 DPS is needed no matter what else they do.

[Rippthrough]

Triple the fire rate. Leave everything else alone.

Then they're useful but the ammo weight prevents boating to an extent.

[Deadoon]

I'd say double damage, very long max range(maybe 720 meters), with the same effective range. The low dropoff of the weapons effectiveness would be a great way of keeping it not a major weapon but rather a good tracer weapon that constantly fires. Make it drop off to 0 by the end range of the weapon, at about half way it would be almost the same as currently, but up close it would still be below a small laser. I'd also say increase the ammo count to make it in line with mwo ammo increases and BT damage as well. at .08 damage per round you should get 7500 rounds of ammo equaling 600 damage per ton of ammo at max effectiveness. Still heavier than a .50 bmg though.

[Trauglodyte]

If you triple the rate of fire, then you burn through ammo that much faster to create damage done while still sitting outside of ballistic balance. All ballistic weapons do 150 damage per ton of ammo.

AC/2 - 75 rounds (150)
AC/5 - 25 rounds (150)
AC/10 - 15 rounds (150)
AC/20 - 7 rounds (140, the anomoly due to the decimel [can't have a half of a round])
Gaus Rifle - 10 rounds (150)

MG - 2000 * 0.04 (80 damage, an additional anomoly)

Unless PGI wants to increase the amount of ammo to 4000 rounds, which would make us all cry, they need to simply increase the damage to 0.075 per round. That way, we've got a near same DPS as the small laser, we maintain the balance of all ballistic weapons at 150 damage per ton of ammo, and everyone will be happy - except the people that hate MGs.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 27 December 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[Deadoon]

Trauglodyte, on 27 December 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

If you triple the rate of fire, then you burn through ammo that much faster to create damage done while still sitting outside of ballistic balance. All ballistic weapons do 150 damage per ton of ammo.

AC/2 - 75 rounds (150)
AC/5 - 25 rounds (150)
AC/10 - 15 rounds (150)
AC/20 - 7 rounds (140, the anomoly due to the decimel [can't have a half of a round])
Gaus Rifle - 10 rounds (150)

MG - 2000 * 0.04 (80 damage, an additional anomoly)

Unless PGI wants to increase the amount of ammo to 4000 rounds, which would make us all cry, they need to simply increase the damage to 0.075 per round. That way, we've got a near same DPS as the small laser, we maintain the balance of all ballistic weapons at 150 damage per ton of ammo, and everyone will be happy - except the people that hate MGs.

Actually mgs have 400 damage per ton in TT, most ammo has increased by 50% to give us the 150 per ton.
And ac/5 have 30 rounds per ton, uac/5 have 25.

Edited by Deadoon, 27 December 2012 - 07:54 PM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Trauglodyte, on 27 December 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

If you triple the rate of fire, then you burn through ammo that much faster to create damage done while still sitting outside of ballistic balance. All ballistic weapons do 150 damage per ton of ammo.

AC/2 - 75 rounds (150)
AC/5 - 25 rounds (150)
AC/10 - 15 rounds (150)
AC/20 - 7 rounds (140, the anomoly due to the decimel [can't have a half of a round])
Gaus Rifle - 10 rounds (150)

MG - 2000 * 0.04 (80 damage, an additional anomoly)

Unless PGI wants to increase the amount of ammo to 4000 rounds, which would make us all cry, they need to simply increase the damage to 0.075 per round. That way, we've got a near same DPS as the small laser, we maintain the balance of all ballistic weapons at 150 damage per ton of ammo, and everyone will be happy - except the people that hate MGs.

I still think the damage should be .1 per bullet. Yes, that would be 1 DPS, the same as the small laser, but the SL has a beam duration of .75 while the MG would need the full 1 second to do it's damage, so I would expect that the MG would actually do around .8 DPS in an actual fight.

[Trauglodyte]

Deadoon, on 27 December 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Actually mgs have 400 damage per ton in TT, most ammo has increased by 50% to give us the 150 per ton.
And ac/5 have 30 rounds per ton, uac/5 have 25.

I get that. But they also only fired one round per 10s doing 2 damage with a 200 round per ton ammo load. We don't have that now. So, to balance the MG against the other ballistics based on the MWO ammo load, you'd have to do 0.075 per shot IF you maintained the 10 rounds per second. I'd rather they drop it down to 5 rounds per second and up the damage to 0.15 per shot. But that's just me.

[Deadoon]

Trauglodyte, on 27 December 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

I get that. But they also only fired one round per 10s doing 2 damage with a 200 round per ton ammo load. We don't have that now. So, to balance the MG against the other ballistics based on the MWO ammo load, you'd have to do 0.075 per shot IF you maintained the 10 rounds per second. I'd rather they drop it down to 5 rounds per second and up the damage to 0.15 per shot. But that's just me.

Actually they fired 100 rounds, according to the support machine gun(infantry version of vehicular/battlemech MG).
so they had 20000 round of ammo per ton at .02 damage per shot. Why don't we go with that and triple the rate of fire to be on par with other weapons?
Each shot is not actually 1 shot of the weapon, it is 10 seconds of firing.

[Orgasmo]

Sug, on 27 December 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

0.6 damage per shot at 10 shots a sec would give machineguns a dps of 6. Making them one of the highest dps weapons in the game.

Currently they do 0.04 damage per shot, at 10 shots a second giving them a dps of 0.4. (This number over the 10 sec TT value gives them a TT value of 4.)

I meant 0.06 dmg per shot, forgot to add an zero in there. The optimal should be 180m instead of current 90.

Quote

And now we have Hunchbacks running around with 9 flamers shutting down enemy mechs in about 7 seconds. With the ability to keep a mech shutdown permanently. No thanks. I like this game without Crowd Control.

If you want to buff weapons you need to give them drawbacks.

Example: Buff the flamers like you said but now they have a limited supply of fuel, maybe 30 seconds worth, that can't be increased, and they now explode on a critical hit.

Make it so that mechs heat cannot go above 70% under the flamer. So the guy you are using the flamer on will not go above 70% heat. Also in the BT lore, the flamer draws particles directly from the engine to generate heat, thus there is no fuel supply limit. There is already a drawback to flamers, that it does nearly no damage.

[Tennex]

didnt' vote there are no options less than a 2x buff. too big buff

[One Medic Army]

Orgasmo, on 27 December 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Make it so that mechs heat cannot go above 70% under the flamer. So the guy you are using the flamer on will not go above 70% heat. Also in the BT lore, the flamer draws particles directly from the engine to generate heat, thus there is no fuel supply limit. There is already a drawback to flamers, that it does nearly no damage.

As I understand it, in TT you get to either deal 2 dmg to a mech with the flamer or deal 2 damage.
Either heat or damage, not both.

[Deadoon]

Tennex, on 27 December 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

didnt' vote there are no options less than a 2x buff. too big buff

Ok to put this into perspective:
Bt machine gun in this game translated properly
.02 damage per shot- 10 shots per second-.2 dps- 20000 rounds of ammo per ton- 2000 seconds of firing- 400 damage per ton
Mwo machine gun
.04 damage per shot- 10 shots per second-.4 dps- 2000 rounds of ammo per ton- 200 seconds of firing - 80 damage per ton

80/400
.2

The Mwo machine gun has 20% the capacity for damage as the BT machine gun.
20%.

Now where am i getting the 10 shots per second?
It is 100 shots per 5kg reload , aka 100 per 1/200 of a ton each turn is 10 seconds 100 rounds per 10 seconds is 10 shots per second. Simple.

Edited by Deadoon, 27 December 2012 - 09:02 PM.

[Caseck]

Keep them same range and damage, but make sure they can get the crit hits they should.

[Deadoon]

Caseck, on 27 December 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

Keep them same range and damage, but make sure they can get the crit hits they should.

Still doesn't have a proper amount of ammo for it's damage.

It doesn't even have anywhere near the canon amount of ammo.

[One Medic Army]

In TT you could put on 1/2 a ton of MG ammo to feed 4 MGs, and it would last for 25 combat rounds, or about 4 minutes.

In MWO you can put 1 ton of MG ammo to feed 1 MG, and it will last for 200 seconds, or about 3.3 minutes.

Edited by One Medic Army, 27 December 2012 - 09:27 PM.

[Coole]

It first off needs to do ACTUAL damage.
A damage output of .4 per round actually doesn't seem so bad to me considering how fast it fires.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

MGs need a damage buff. Plain and simple. Even if that translates into them weighing more than .5, it still needs to happen. I'd rather pay more and get something of value than drop 1.5 and get NOTHING but a bullet water gun. That's what it is. It's a squirt gun. In fact there are super soakers IRL right now that would hurt you more than this thing. Currently there's no reason to take this over a Medium Laser. .5 less weight, 5 damage up front per shot. MG can't even measure up to a Small Laser, which is really pathetic. Small Laser is .5 weight, 3 damage per shot, and you can use the extra 1t for a heat sink or 2 more Small Lasers. These are far more logical than spraying water rounds all day hoping they add up to something. This is why NO ONE but Trial 4Xs use a Machine Gun.(And I bet they hate it every game) They are as useless as the Flamer. Which is more useless? That's actually a hard question because they're both so pathetically bad and you shouldn't go near either of them.

Edited by Bluten, 27 December 2012 - 09:25 PM.

[Deadoon]

Coole, on 27 December 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

It first off needs to do ACTUAL damage.
A damage output of .4 per round actually doesn't seem so bad to me considering how fast it fires.

it is .04 per shot, not .4.

At .4 per shot it would be doing 4dps, which is among the highest in the game.

Edited by Deadoon, 27 December 2012 - 09:21 PM.