135 replies to this topic

[GalaxyBluestar]

how is there:


Improve machinegun

No(26 votes [18.84%] - View)

no buff at all(28 votes [20.29%] - View)


which 2 voters screwed it?

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 27 December 2012 - 09:24 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

Well it currently has a DPS of .4, it does .04 a bullet.

All of these other changes aren't good enough, no one will use MGs unless they have DPS to back them up, anything less than one, and we won't see them used already. At 1, we still probably won't see it.

A Small Laser has a DPS of 1, and more range, and less weight, I mean what are you afraid of with Cicada-3C? The Jenner-F and Cicada-2A already can use 6 of them, honestly, if it has a DPS of less than 2, it won't be used at all still. You can tell me that MGs are heatless, and I can tell you that if you fire 6 smalls and are overheating, you have heat problems, and then, if you wanted a good comparison, you can add a heatsink for every ton of MG ammo. Anything less than 2, and no one will use it, small lasers aren't used that much right now because they are so close range, and they have a crazy damage to weight and even DPS ratio compared to other weapons.

[chiXnhawk]

NO one cares about MG's in a walking tank game. Just TTers who can't believe there are no elementals in the game. So ***.

[ICEFANG13]

Why were they put in the game then? We should just remove them.

[One Medic Army]

chiXnhawk, on 27 December 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

NO one cares about MG's in a walking tank game. Just TTers who can't believe there are no elementals in the game. So ***.

Tell that to the fast 40ton mech with 4 ballistic hardpoints...

[General Taskeen]

Mech Warrior 3 weapon stats for MG:

Ammo Per Ton 200
Damage Per Shot 0.2 (1 shot consumes 4 bullets, for a total of 0.8 damage)
Range 120m
Cooldown 0.625

Give it 2x ammo per ton in MWO, up the damage quite a bit, but give it a quick cool down (rather than 0 as it is now). Magic, an effective/balanced MG.

Edited by General Taskeen, 27 December 2012 - 10:31 PM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

chiXnhawk, on 27 December 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

NO one cares about MG's in a walking tank game. Just TTers who can't believe there are no elementals in the game. So ***.

Actually, a lot of people care. I know this may be surprising to you, but some of us actually want a balanced game, where everything is fun and viable to use. Why else would something be in the game? Why have it here at all if its trash? You should not have great stuff on one side of a list in your game then useless stuff on the other side. They should all be useful. This is just bad game design, or more specifically, poor weapon balance.

[chiXnhawk]

Bluten, on 27 December 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Actually, a lot of people care. I know this may be surprising to you, but some of us actually want a balanced game, where everything is fun and viable to use. Why else would something be in the game? Why have it here at all if its trash? You should not have great stuff on one side of a list in your game then useless stuff on the other side. They should all be useful. This is just bad game design, or more specifically, poor weapon balance.

If your close enough to expect MG's to count your already dead. MG's were made for soft targets . get over it. there are no soft targets in this game therefore MG's should suck and continue to suck. people who bring them can continue to suck as well.

[Deadoon]

chiXnhawk, on 28 December 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

If your close enough to expect MG's to count your already dead. MG's were made for soft targets . get over it. there are no soft targets in this game therefore MG's should suck and continue to suck. people who bring them can continue to suck as well.

Do you have a reading disability for reading entire threads?

Maybe some wiki-style media should help

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_gun
Damage per ton of ammo 400
Max range 90 meters
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon/2
damage per ton of ammo 90
max range 720

Edited by Deadoon, 28 December 2012 - 12:53 AM.

[ICEFANG13]

chiXnhawk, on 28 December 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

If your close enough to expect MG's to count your already dead. MG's were made for soft targets . get over it. there are no soft targets in this game therefore MG's should suck and continue to suck. people who bring them can continue to suck as well.

Must be a troll, no one in real life could lack this much reading comprehension. I like how we can discuss this in private, because he can't read our secret English language.

[Red squirrel]

ICEFANG13, on 28 December 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

Must be a troll, no one in real life could lack this much reading comprehension. I like how we can discuss this in private, because he can't read our secret English language.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

chiXnhawk, on 28 December 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

If your close enough to expect MG's to count your already dead. MG's were made for soft targets . get over it. there are no soft targets in this game therefore MG's should suck and continue to suck. people who bring them can continue to suck as well.

So we're suppose to just "get over it" and forget about the game's shortcomings? If that's your logic, then why are you even on this forum? You then state they "should suck and continue to suck", well then why even put them in the game, if there's no point to using them? Why have something selectable at all that's intentionally designed to suck too much to use it? That rubbish you said about "soft targets" you also contradicted in your own post by saying there are none in the game. Thus why have the gun in the game? Either tell Piranha to remove it entirely, or tell them to fix it. Pick one.

[Utilyan]

MGs and Flamers is my favorite weapons on a mech. I love my 3c Cicada. It is awsome.

REMEMBER.

MGs and Flamers got NERFED in the first place for a reason.

Look at last patch notes.

* HUD will no longer flicker unnaturally when shot with machine gun fire and flamers beyond a certain damage threshold

They had to nerf it even more! They are still getting nerfed!

If someone didn't know how to use LRMs they would shoot them without locks and later swear up and down that LRMs suck. They would think LRMs suck, its simply they suck with LRMs.

If they think MGs suck, its simply they suck with MGs.

If they think flamers suck, its simply they suck with flamers.

But the folks who know how to use them are so badass they are still nerfing them!

MGs are not point and click weapons, for the purpose of killing you have to target mech parts that are missing thier armor shell (the outline around the parts). The biggest advantage of mgs is being able to bring a constant attention of taking damage, even though its not much at all.

A mech in retreat for example under mg fire at worst will retreat further at best will abandon the idea of retreat. He ain't got time to think "oh its just mgs" all he knows is his armor sections are flashing from being lit up.

Flamers and Mgs are pychological weapons, mental warfare. They manipulate and capture attention.

[stjobe]

Here's why MGs won't be overpowered if buffed to three times their current damage (0.12 per round instead of 0.04):

Compare it to the small laser: The small laser does 3 damage in a 0.75s beam, and then recycles for 2.25 seconds, making its DPS 1.0. Over 10 seconds, the SL puts out 12 damage (at 0 seconds, 3 seconds, 6 seconds, and 9 seconds) for a total beam duration of 3 seconds. In other words, you only need to hold your SL on-target for 3 seconds to do those 12 damage.

Now the MG: The MG is a continuous-fire weapon, dealing damage without a cooldown. Putting the MG at 0.12 damage per round would make it do 12 damage over 10 seconds, exactly as much as the small laser - with this very important caveat: You need to hold your MG on-target for the full 10 seconds to do that damage. If you only manage to hold it for 3 seconds like with the SL, you'll only do 3.6 damage.

So let's look at boating the things:
4 x SL: 2 tons, 8 heat, 4 DPS, or 12 damage per 0.75 seconds on-target.
4 x (buffed) MG: 3 tons, 0 heat, 4,8 DPS, but only 3.6 damage per 0.75 seconds on-target.

In short, the continuous-fire nature of the MG allows it to have substantially higher DPS without being overpowered, since there won't be many situations where you'll get to fire at an enemy undisturbed for prolonged periods of time. And even if you do, it's no worse than being hit by a small laser; damaging, but not overpoweredly so.

I think the minimal buff to the MG should be to triple their damage; if they want to give them a crit-buff as well that's fine, but not buffing their damage and only going with a crit-buff won't make the MG a viable weapon.


Edit: Why isn't a crit buff sufficient?

Here's why:

Let's make the buff a big one; let's make MGs crit 100% of the time, and always do three hits on a crit (that's normally a 3% chance).

It would *still* take 10 / (0.04 * 3 * 10) = 8.3 seconds of continuously firing and hitting the same location to destroy a single component!

That's not a buff in anything other than name, now is it?

Edited by stjobe, 04 January 2013 - 08:41 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

Its amazing when you compare MGs to small lasers, how badly they compare. I don't think anyone would even considering using them unless their DPS was at least (or equal to) 1.

[Wintersdark]

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.

1 - You could increase the MG's damage ratio enormously and still pale in comparison to every other weapon. It should be comparable to a Small Laser - it generates no heat (the small laser generates very little) but it is ammo dependent. There's your tradeoff right there. Also, few mechs have more than 2 ballistics hardpoints, so it's hardly a boating concern.

2 - Range. The AC/2 fires at extremely long range. Even if the MG matched that AC/2's dps, it would still be comparable to how Large Lasers compare with Small Lasers. You pay exponentially for range.