135 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

Mahws, on 27 December 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Honestly I think flamers are fine as they are. Just give them a chance to detonate ammo in unarmored sections or something along those lines and they'd be set.


A. That's a free to edit wiki, written by volounteers. Quoting it as a source of cannon is a little silly.
B. As has been said by several people already, good against infantry =/= only good against infantry. Thus Solaris mechs boating them, thus the damage equivalent of an AC2.

Alright, you forced me to do it..... Here is a screen capture from a book. Also, in a game that is about mechs killing mechs, the omission of it being a viable mech killing weapon is telling.

Edited by cdlord, 27 December 2012 - 10:59 AM.

[Mahws]

No one is asking for a buff, just for them to be returned to their original balance as being comparable in damage output to a small laser. Currently they do less than half the damage for no real reason whatsoever.

Actually, killing infantry (if you consider infantry as anyone who doesn't happen to be in a vehicle) is one of the two primary functions of a nuclear bomb. The other happens to be structural damage. They're designed to destroy the civilian infrastructure, not hit military targets. Not that it wouldn't still be effective to hit military targets with them, but that's not their primary use. Not actually a bad analogy, no?

[verybad]

I like the Devs idea of making it more useful against internals. Heavillly boosting it's damage vers internals, but leaving it the same as current against standard armor makes sence to me. That makes things like the Cicada that has 4 MGs fill an interesting niche (Finishers) and makes putting a machinegun on a mech that has a remaining ballistic slot make sense in this game.

If they're effective crit seakers, that would make them a cool secondary weapon. They should NEVER be a primary weapon though IMO.

As an asside, I think LBX shotgun fire shoudl be similiar. Reduce it's damage vrs external armor, very much increase it's damage vrs internal. If we have these niche weapons that aren't that effective right now fill a role, it will increase the depth of play. Just increasing their damage vrs standard armor is a very boring and uncreative fix for them however.

[CDLord HHGD]

cdlord, on 27 December 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

My only concerns with buffing the MG is:
1. Making sense with the damage ratio vs weapon/ammo weight.
2. Keeping the AC/2 viable.

I also said this ^. So not totally against a buff to make them viable in MWO where there is no infantry BUT my concerns are valid.

[Kale Hessian]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 December 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

I don't use either though Tanker, They are pop guns, they have been pop guns. I see others use Small Lasers with good effect, but to me they are a last ditch space filler weapon(also Small lasers are a better choice than a MG to me). Not deserving a Buff. I will never be convinced of otherwise.

Why do you feel they should be useless? What reasoning could make you actively want a weapon in an MMO to be actually pointless?

[Mahws]

cdlord, on 27 December 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Alright, you forced me to do it..... Here is a screen capture from a book. Also, in a game that is about mechs killing mechs, the omission of it being a viable mech killing weapon is telling.

Nice, that's a hell of an old book! Odd that they'd say that they're "rarely carried by Battlemechs" seeing as they're one of the most common weapons, but I'm guessing by the missing Assault category that that's from one of the much earlier editions. Again though "effective against infantry" does not mean not effective against mechs. Same damage output as the AC2. Machine guns are (relative to the small laser) 50% weaker than they should be in MWO (and that's not taking into account dps lost from their innacuracy/spread).

I don't see anyone complaining about the AC2, a gun that had the same damage output as the machine gun in TT now doing TWENTY times the damage in MWO (2 damage per ten seconds to 40), so why do people have their undergarments in a knot about the machine gun getting the same DPS adjustments that the small laser got?

Edited by Mahws, 27 December 2012 - 11:14 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kale Hessian, on 27 December 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

Why do you feel they should be useless? What reasoning could make you actively want a weapon in an MMO to be actually pointless?

I only have that to me they always have been useless. Why should they become something they never were?

[Orzorn]

In addition to adding in half tons of machine gun ammo (it desperately needs it so the system isn't always 1.5 tons), the damage should be upped to 0.8 DPS.

[Mahws]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 December 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

I only have that to me they always have been useless. Why should they become something they never were?

They weren't useless in tabletop, they weren't useless in previous Mechwarrior games. Were they the best weapon? Not even close, but they weren't completely and utterly useless either, just like any other space filler in the game. If you don't want to use them, that's cool. They'd be no more powerful than a small laser if they were given stats equivelant to tabletop/mechwarrior. No skin off your nose, so why are you opposed to it?

[Kale Hessian]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 December 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

I only have that to me they always have been useless. Why should they become something they never were?

Because there's no point including a useless weapon in the game; because they're not useless against 'mechs in the tabletop from which the MMO is based; because there's new players who may not know they're pointless and will be trapped; and because there could be a good, useful, balanced weapon in its place.

One could, hypothetically and ignoring the dates, remove the machine gun and replace it with a HVAC/2. It'd be a good weapon and people would love having a new tool to play with. Alternatively, they could implement an entirely new weapon; people would still love it (though the purists may grumble- "what the heck's this 'gatling microlaser?!'"). Just as easily, they could make the existing and pointless weapon viable.

Having more tools and more viable customization is a good thing. I don't understand how having an entirely unviable, useless weapon could ever be considered good.

Edited by Kale Hessian, 27 December 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kale Hessian, on 27 December 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

Because there's no point including a useless weapon in the game; because they're not useless against 'mechs in the tabletop from which the MMO is based; because there's new players who may not know they're pointless and will be trapped; and because there could be a good, useful, balanced weapon in its place.

One could, hypothetically and ignoring the dates, remove the machine gun and replace it with a HVAC/2. It'd be a good weapon and people would love having a new tool to play with. Alternatively, they could implement an entirely new weapon; people would still love it. Just as easily, they could make the existing and pointless weapon viable.

Having more tools and more viable customization is a good thing. I don't understand how having an entirely unviable, useless weapon could ever be considered good.

Useless is such a subjective word. 25 years of playing TT I used MGs and small lasers in official games. They never made it on the table I ran.

I never said we had to have Machine guns or flamers in the MMO. HVAC/2 is an Advanced weapon which is not in the MMO at this time.

Why do we have to have useless weapons? MGs and Flamers were for different tactical uses. Uses we do not have in the MMO so why include them unless at some time we will have vehicles and Elementals, and PBI. I do not use the weapons we are talking about. If they were removed from the game I would just need to figure out a new way to fill that last 0.5 ton or as I do now. leave it empty.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 December 2012 - 11:32 AM.

[Tarman]

BrewnIx, on 27 December 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

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?

I think you have to look at the fact that this is a video game, and that the MG needs to have a point to bother existing in the game at all. Look at AC2s here, look at the massive amount of dust on them in a TT game, and come talk to me again. MWO should ditch them or fix them, and they're actually looking to fix them (finally). MGs need a purpose in THIS game, and right now they have none.

[Kale Hessian]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 December 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

I never said we had to have Machine guns or flamers in the MMO. HVAC/2 is an Advanced weapon which is not in the MMO at this time.

Why do we have to have useless weapons? MGs and Flamers were for different tactical uses. Uses we do not have in the MMO so why include them unless at some time we will have vehicles and Elementals, and PBI. I do not use the weapons we are talking about. If they were removed from the game I would just need to figure out a new way to fill that last 0.5 ton or as I do now. leave it empty.

Thing is, while they're designed for anti-infantry, two damage is two damage- four of those is as good as a large laser. Get within 90m and in the tabletop, and those machine guns unleash some pain.
In tabletop, they're not great, but they're not useless. In MWO, they ARE useless. They need a buff until they reach the same level of usefulness- about as good as an AC/2 over the same duration, but with a piddly range. Even if they're Small Pulse Laser bad, that's better than nothing.

A viable fully automatic weapon would make a lot of people happy- and I don't think it'd make anyone sad.

Remember, there's hundreds of other players, and many would love a viable fully automatic weapon- even if there's better weapons. It need not be a great weapon, only not so terrible eight Atlases using only machineguns can't kill a stationary Awesome.

[Erasus Magnus]

Shlkt, on 27 December 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

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).

a month or so ago i had the chance on running my 4 machine gun cicada and was able to shoot into the back of an atlas that dced in the middle of the game. i positioned myself behind him and shot him in the rear center torso at point blank range.

i needed more than a minute to get though the center torso armor, and another 30 secs or so to chew through the internals. i stood still and did not miss a single shot into other troso sections. after that i left the game and sold my cicada. mgs are just a bad joke.

another thing is that in bt lore mgs are indeed anti infantry weapons because they get monstrous modifiers against infatry, while still decent gainst mechs. there are even mechs that solely rely on machine guns like the piranha.
this mech is a beast in tt even against mechs it performs very well.

[Joseph Mallan]

I'm sorry but those other players don't care one whit about my wants sir(not a complaint only a statement of fact). So I will give my opinion on MGs as they are doing. What the DEVs do with the discussion will be the final outcome... Until the next Nerf/Buff.

I think/feel that including the weapons as near useless anti Infantry/Vehicle weapons is in line with how I have seen them in action.

Outside of Battleshipping (Extreme boating), These Weapons are a joke and for infantry only.

So I am fine with these weapons as is.

[stjobe]

Ah, the old Machine Gun debate.

A couple of points:

1. GAU-8 or m249? From wikipedia's page on machine gun: "Machine guns are generally categorized as submachine guns, machine guns, or autocannons". I think it's fair to say that the MWO MG is closer to a GAU-8 than an m249.

2. Infantry weapon? Since in TT it does 2 damage versus 'mechs, it's not a pure anti-infantry weapon. There are plenty of those in the TT rules, but the MG does do damage versus 'mechs. And so it should in MWO.

3. Current damage. 0.04 per round, 10 rounds per second for a grand total of 0.4 DPS. Way lower than anything else in the game, and low enough to render it a complete waste of tonnage. Anything - perhaps barring a flamer - is better use of your tonnage. This is clearly not the way it should be, since plenty of 'mechs in TT mount MGs, especially lights.

4. Crit seekers? Yes, they do get a lot of crits. Thing is, those crits are 0.04 damage crits, and since just about everything inside a 'mech has 10 health, those crits are *useless*. The only thing they do is bring up the "Critical Damage" warning.

So yes, the MG does need a buff, and it needs it badly. My personal preference is that they get a DPS buff to 1.0 DPS *and* an increased crit damage modifier. Keep the range as-is as a balancing factor.

[Daekar]

I vote that they improve them the way they say they are going to in the weapon balancing Command Chair post.

[Megahard]

I think machine guns should be that weapon you just throw on if you have very little tonnage left over. It should be a "better than nothing" weapon.

[Sug]

Kale Hessian, on 27 December 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

Thing is, while they're designed for anti-infantry, two damage is two damage- four of those is as good as a large laser. Get within 90m and in the tabletop, and those machine guns unleash some pain.

Except that they do 2 damage per shot in 4 separate shots, possibly to 4 different locations. Great when there's a spot or two stripped of armor but almost useless against a fresh mech.

[Lavrenti]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 December 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Good v Infantry is definitely Military double talk for not an Anti vehicle weapon.

Sorry, but that is just not true. I used to be an observer in an artillery unit. Artillery is "good versus infantry", no argument there. But I would be happy to call in the same rounds with the same fuse against armoured vehicles, and have a reasonable expectation of knocking them out. So weapons that are good against infantry absolutely can be used against vehicles.

I've heard it said that the Browning .50 machinegun was originally designed as an anti-tank weapon, and a .50 cal certainly has a decent chance against APCs such as the BTR or M-113.