135 replies to this topic

[Awesome Master]

Vote in the poll and give your opinions if machingeguns need a buff and by how much.

Edited by Awesome Master, 27 December 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[siLve00]

since i dont use them...

and they are alrdy annyoing like hell.... for such a low heat and an huge amount of ammo per ton..

i did vote no

Edited by siLve00, 27 December 2012 - 07:26 AM.

[Awesome Master]

siLve00, on 27 December 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

mhh i will vote no.. but i cant.

you need to add "no buff at all" at the 2nd poll ^^

fixed

Edited by Awesome Master, 27 December 2012 - 07:23 AM.

[Hobo Dan]

They need a buff. Not a big one, but just enough that when I have one ballistic slot and 1.5 tons left over, I'd at least consider them before throwing in a heat sink and .5 tons of armor...

[Pygar]

I like machine guns, and they do seem a little "meh" in the game right now... but I don't think they need to be buffed very much to be where they should be- in fact they have to be careful with machine guns because they can quickly make them too good for 1/2 ton weapons.

[BrewnIx]

i think you have to look at what there design purpose was for.In Battle tech is there a weapons description of when you are supposed to use em?

[Gen Kumon]

2x minimum. I'd favor 3x, since it spreads damage around so badly, but I could certainly live with 0.8dps considering the lack of heat. That would still make it the second lowest DPS, above only the flamer, but enough damage to make boating 3 or 4 of them a viable defense against fast lights, without making them too powerful.

Edited by Gen Kumon, 27 December 2012 - 07:34 AM.

[Kaspirikay]

siLve00, on 27 December 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

since i dont use them...

and they are alrdy annyoing like hell.... for such a low heat and an huge amount of ammo per ton..

i did vote no

Theres a place in hell for people like you.

[Gen Kumon]

siLve00, on 27 December 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

since i dont use them...

and they are alrdy annyoing like hell.... for such a low heat and an huge amount of ammo per ton..

i did vote no

You realize you can only do a maximum of 80 damage per ton of ammo, if every shot hits, right?

[AlexWildeagle]

siLve00, on 27 December 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

since i dont use them...

and they are alrdy annyoing like hell.... for such a low heat and an huge amount of ammo per ton..

i did vote no

remind me again, what is the heat for a weapon that does 15 pts damage at what 1000 meters? 1? And machine guns only go to 90 meters. I don't think a little buff would be too much to ask. That is as long as they don't get carried away with it.

[Name140704]

I voted yes on improve, but no buff. I'm not sure what that counts as.

[Wrenchfarm]

I use 3xMGs in my Dragon just because there really isn't space for anything else - even another DHS would be a waste since he already runs plenty cool. They don't do much damage, but they are free (no heat, plenty of ammo for one ton) and they pester people, so I like them.

Personally, I want to see MGs buffed, but not by much. Giant armoured robots really shouldn't have much to fear from a few small chunks of lead when they can shrug off storm clouds of missiles and super heated laser blasts.

I would rather see them still suck against armoured parts, but get a substantial buff against internals or an improved chance to crit and ruin equipment. I see that as the best way to improve the MGs.
- Logically consistent. Terrible against armour, causes a bunch of ricocheting chaos inside a mech.
- Adds a skill indexed element to them (not much, but smart pilots will know to use them to aim at exposed components and not just spam)
- Prevents them from becoming too powerful with boated. I would hate to see an Atlas taken down by a Cicada wielding 4 overly buffed MGs.

Now whether they can make that kind of adjustment with the way they have internal damage and critting set up is another question.

[Kaspirikay]

NARCoMAN, on 27 December 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

I voted yes on improve, but no buff. I'm not sure what that counts as.

Any improvement counts as a buff.

[Awesome Master]

A Cicada with 4 machineguns atm does 1.6dps, with 1 ton of ammo it would run out of ammo in (2000 ammo/4(machineguns) 500 ammo per machinge gun fireing 10 shots per sec (500/10) which is 50 seconds of firing doing a max of 1.6dps x 50secs 80 damage in 50 seconds is it really worth getting a machinge gun.

siLve00, on 27 December 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

since i dont use them...

and they are alrdy annyoing like hell.... for such a low heat and an huge amount of ammo per ton..

If you think 80 dmg per ton with a 90m range and 1.6dps with 4 WHOLE machingeguns is a lot, I would compare it with another weapon like for example an AC2 which shoots every 0.5secs doing 2 dmg per shot with a 750m optimum range and a 4dps and 75 ammo per ton doing 150dmg per ton and some heat. I would say that for 5.5tons extra its much better than having 0.4dps with no heat and 90m optimum range.

it would take 10 manchineguns to have the same dps as an AC2, and 10 manchingeguns isnt possible to fit on any mech atm (dont know if there are going to be any mechs with lots of balistics), + 10 machingeguns would run through all its ammo in (2000/10 shots per sec 200, 200/10 machineguns (20 secs)) making it run into 1 ton of ammo in 20 secs.


Those 10 machingeguns would weigh 5 tons comparing to an AC2 which weighs 6 tons for the same dps some heat and about 8x the range of a machinegun.

Edited by Awesome Master, 27 December 2012 - 07:57 AM.

[Malevolent Twitch]

Mech mounted Machine Guns were not anti-mech weapons. They were anti-personel weapons. Infantry. Not mechs. Of course they are going to do little damage to a mech. How much damage do you expect a Ma Duece is ever going to do to an MBT?

Edited for spelling. Cellphone.

Edited by Malevolent Twitch, 27 December 2012 - 08:33 AM.

[Rathverge]

Robots eat small shells for breakfast and tires for licorise!!!

... ok, sure. Im going to play the counter tablejockey card and say they need a MASSIVE range increase. *in real(fake giant robot) life these things are only able to blah blag blah.* .... k well in the real world similar designed shells also travel kilometers... so give me that range, ill fill up my hunchie with ammo like a LRM cat if need be.

They do need a DPS buff aswell though, not sure what everyone is scared of. Do you really get a little scared when you hear them firing.... No not likely you probably giggle a bit inside. Like me. I use them a lot but either to add ambiance to the fight or make my opponents soil their pants with laughter and have to change them mid fight only to realize I also have flamers and will need a second changing.

[Shlkt]

On paper the machine gun stats are comparable to other weapons: the DPS per ton comes out to 0.4, which is actually a little higher than most autocannons (which are about 0.25 to 0.3, depending on how you account for heat generation and ammo). Only the AC/2 is actually better than a machine gun in that respect.

The problem with machine guns is that it's very, very rare to make full use of them during a match. You have to close to 90 meters AND be in a position to hold your crosshair on an enemy constantly. Presemably you're being shot up while you do this.

So you're basically being asked to sacrifice a hardpoint and at least 1.5 tons of space for a weapon that will only come into play for a small percentage of engagements... so it can't really compete with an extra heatsink, with is useful in nearly 100% of engagements.

I like that it's a niche, super-short-range weapon. I don't think a range buff is the right answer; it should remain a specialty weapon that's hard to use. A damage boost of 100% is not out of the question IMO. That would increase the damage-per-ton of ammo to 160, which is on par with other weapons (about 150 for autocannons, about 250 for SRMs).

[Gorith]

The machine gun does indeed need a buff to be usable as a light ballistics weapon.

It seems like they want to be a crit seeker weapon (In TT they can do this fairly well on MG heavy builds like the piranha in addition to anti infantry/light armor) like an LBX the problem being unlike TT we cannot get penetrating hits and their damage is far to low to justify using one.

[General Taskeen]

Malevolent Twitch, on 27 December 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Mech mounted Machine Guns were not anti-mech weapons. They were anti-personel weapons. Infantry. Not mechs. Of course they are going to do little damage to a mech. How much damage do you expect a Ma Duece is ever going to do to an MBT?

Edited for spelling. Cellphone.

So you are against making a weapon useful in a Mech vs. Mech game? I'm confused. MG's/Flamers are obviously here to stay since PGI decided to add variants that had them in 'canon,' they now need to be made useful for Mech Vs. Mech combat. There is no way around it and no amount of "but,... BUT they are anti-infantry!" is going to change that.

[Volume]

Malevolent Twitch, on 27 December 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Mech mounted Machine Guns were not anti-mech weapons. They were anti-personel weapons. Infantry. Not mechs. Of course they are going to do little damage to a mech. How much damage do you expect a Ma Duece is ever going to do to an MBT?

Edited for spelling. Cellphone.

2 damage a turn, the same way it was in BT, MW2, MW3, MW4, etc.
I'd even say as much as an AC/2 would, but now they do 4DPS, so...

I think 2DPS is plenty. That said maybe increase it incrementally, as we wouldn't want them to actually become a viable weapon choice, right? It's much better to just have an option to mount a weapon that doesn't ******* do anything. At least it is to many people on here.

I think 2DPS or 2x range and 1.2 DPS would be fine.

It should be comparable to a small laser that takes ammo, except worse in every way apparently. Maybe crit-seeking will make up for it.