339 replies to this topic

[BoomDog]

I'm of the opinion that there's a fine line between "MGs need a buff" and "MG-warrior online". They should do this very carefully and in small increments.

[Squigles]

Repeatedly saying the MG is strictly an anti-infantry weapon is as astoundingly dumb as trying to say the Plasma Rifle is strictly an anti-infantry weapon because it does alot of extra damage to infantry.

The Battletech MG is an anti-armor weapon, always has been. The fact that it's superbly effective against infantry does not make it any more specifically an anti-infantry weapon then it does the Plasma Rifle, Plasma Cannon, or Inferno SRM.

Keep screaming that when a Clanner walks up to you, waves, and then unloads his piddily 4 ton load of machine guns at you and chews off more armor then a pair of gauss rifles would take off in the same time span.

The MWO MG is rediculously "under-powered". As the OP said, a 300% increase in damage is in order, and also serves to bring the damage per ton of ammo back into it's proper range.

[General Taskeen]

Novawrecker, on 10 January 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

However, buffing the MG in this game beyond .5 damage is borderline too much. It truely does not need it.

It truly does, albeit from a different approach. From my idea earlier, the MG/Flamer Useful Weapon Buffs/Adjustment Numbers™. The problem area is that they both have 0 cool down. Change this, and the rest just falls into place to find the sweet spot of balance.

Reduce Ammo Per Ton to 200 or 400 or 600
Change Damage Per Bullet to 0.6 (or 0.8)
Change Cooldown to 0.3 (or 0.2)

(0.6 with 0.3 CD is 2DPS; 0.8 with 0.3 cool down is 2.66DPS) (0.8 / 0.3 is basically an MW3 MG in MWO, better approach since the DPS is more reflective if the bullet actually hits compared to a lazer)
(0.6 with 0.2 CD is 3DPS; 0.8 with 0.2 cool down is 4DPS) (approaching over buff!)

For the Flamer:

Damage Per Flame (lul) to 2 (+5 Heat Transfer)
Heat Per Shot to 3
Range 90
Cool Down changed to 1 or 2 or 2.25
(or use similar damage/cooldown per MG + add heat transfer ability + heat per shot for the "continuous" flamethrower that cause massive heat build up, but still do something)

Edited by General Taskeen, 10 January 2013 - 05:50 PM.

[slayerkdm]

Aside from the hilarity of reading about the canon of MW, i dont understand why it is so often fixated on. There will be no light vehicles, there will be no infantry, so if you have MG's, they need to do something. This is MWO, not some TT thing. I cant believe the rules of the TT leave the discussion of whether it was a anti mech or anti infantry weapon, open to discussion. Regardless of what they really said, they are in the game, if they are in the game they need to serve a function, or you are wasting resources on them. Many mechs need something to mount on their ballistic hard points, that are not too heavy.

Lots of theory crafting here, does anyone use them beside me, and have a reason for it? They should not be a primary choice in my opinion, thought 6MG was fun in what MW2? I would love any boost to them.

The problem as I see it, so many theory craft, that they dont actually ever play anything. For instance, if I run my 4G as a AC20/3ML build, everyone nods, yep that is solid. Its not, its terrible. Its slow, its hot, its vunerable. Now when I run my 3MPL/3MG, it gets laughed at. Forget that it usually doubles the damage of the AC model (any AC model). MG are something to add additional damage, when you cannot affort to mount a heavy ballistic.

I dont think range helps the MG enough, I would like damage increase, or to a lesser extent, crit increase.

I will concede, those who hate MG's, will die inside if they become more prevelant and start killing there beloved "traditional" mechs.

[KerenskyClone]

Why include a useless weapon in a Mechwarrior game, because lets face it MGs and Flamers are useless. Are we playing a PC game or are we playing TT Battletech?? Make up your minds. If you want to HAVE a useless weapon in a game fine, but please mark it as such in the mechbay preferably in BOLD:

Machinegun - DONT BUY THIS WEAPON!

I have fond memories of the intro from Mechwarrior2, where the Dire Wolf (Mad Cat) opens up with machineguns at one point...Ever since watching that intro MGs were an integral part of many of my builds in all the various Mechwarrior games, because they were actually usable...

Buff the machinegun properly!

[Joseph Mallan]

KerenskyClone, on 11 January 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

Why include a useless weapon in a Mechwarrior game, because lets face it MGs and Flamers are useless. Are we playing a PC game or are we playing TT Battletech?? Make up your minds. If you want to HAVE a useless weapon in a game fine, but please mark it as such in the mechbay preferably in BOLD:

Machinegun - DONT BUY THIS WEAPON!

I have fond memories of the intro from Mechwarrior2, where the Dire Wolf (Mad Cat) opens up with machineguns at one point...Ever since watching that intro MGs were an integral part of many of my builds in all the various Mechwarrior games, because they were actually usable...

Buff the machinegun properly!

You know, When I started playing BattleTech in 86. The original Box Set had...16 Mechs. It wasn't till the release of CityTech that Machine Guns really had a use. That was because of infantry being brought into the game. Sure it is future speculation but it is quite possible that at a later date We may see infantry (even Elementals) on the Battlefield. Flamers are wonderful for making Elementals cook off and go pop. MGs should be pretty good v them too.

BTW I just rewatched the MW2 intro to be sure i was thinking of the right intro. I was, That MG didn't appear to do a lick of damage compared to the PPCs and other weapons fired.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 January 2013 - 04:27 AM.

[Doc Holliday]

Not going to read 13 pages.

I've been saying for a while now, MGs simply need to do .1 damage per bullet. Nothing else needs to change. That brings it up to 1.0 DPS, which to me seems pretty much perfectly balanced with other lightweight weapons available.

As for the flamer, they just need to make it not cause heat for the pilot using it, or even possibly reduce heat by a very small amount (perhaps have it remove .1 to .25 heat per second).

[Joseph Mallan]

you are aware that is damage is upped to 0.1 per bullet you will have a 200 point ammo explosion on a full ton of ammo. Which will destroy your Mech. Very efficiently. once R&R returns that will make you have a very steep repair bill w/out CASE. If you are aware and accept. Then your argument is fine by me. I disagree with it, but you are accepting the Cons with the Pros.

[Doc Holliday]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 January 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

you are aware that is damage is upped to 0.1 per bullet you will have a 200 point ammo explosion on a full ton of ammo. Which will destroy your Mech. Very efficiently. once R&R returns that will make you have a very steep repair bill w/out CASE. If you are aware and accept. Then your argument is fine by me. I disagree with it, but you are accepting the Cons with the Pros.

Absolutely I'm OK with that. That's barely more than most ballistic ammo does per ton. I'd just use the same tactics I currently use: put the ammo in the legs and/or use CASE.

[twibs]

Flamers, venting the internal heat into a stream of burning gasses... sounds nice but hardly canon.

[Doc Holliday]

twibs, on 11 January 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

Flamers, venting the internal heat into a stream of burning gasses... sounds nice but hardly canon.

Most of MWO is hardly canon.

[Shae Starfyre]

I think they should make them like uac 5, with the same damage as AC2, but instead of just jamming events, there is also weapon malfunction/destroyed events like a bullet that jams and then explodes. But, each mount has 3 MG on it, so it is a diminishing return.

That is my thought.

That's .66 damage per MG for 2 dmg per rack of 3 MG.

When a jam happens, and that could be the whole rack is jammed, as they are all tied to the same ammo feeding belt like a gattling gun, and then within that jamming event, there is a chance for it to explode. which would take out the whole rack if they are all connected to the same feed, as this would jam the feed mechanisms. Or in this scenario, it could cause jamming to occur more frequently with each malfunction, until it is totaled.

Edited by Aphoticus, 11 January 2013 - 05:03 AM.

[AlexWildeagle]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 January 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

you are aware that is damage is upped to 0.1 per bullet you will have a 200 point ammo explosion on a full ton of ammo. Which will destroy your Mech. Very efficiently. once R&R returns that will make you have a very steep repair bill w/out CASE. If you are aware and accept. Then your argument is fine by me. I disagree with it, but you are accepting the Cons with the Pros.

OK, the guass rifle I use does that more times then not when it explodes as well. I still use it.

(not saying gauss rifle does 200, just the explosion tends to knock me out)

[Odanan]

Congzilla, on 09 January 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

The machine gun never was a viable weapon against other mechs. It is an anti-infantry / light armor weapon.

If it is in the game, it should be viable.
The same for NARC.

[Rippthrough]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 January 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

you are aware that is damage is upped to 0.1 per bullet you will have a 200 point ammo explosion on a full ton of ammo. Which will destroy your Mech. Very efficiently. once R&R returns that will make you have a very steep repair bill w/out CASE. If you are aware and accept. Then your argument is fine by me. I disagree with it, but you are accepting the Cons with the Pros.

As I've mentioned on many MG threads before. They don't need to touch the damage, they don't need to alter the ammo, they don't need to touch the crits.
All that is needed, is to triple the rate of fire, that means the ammo still only explodes for the same amount of damage at the moment.
If you want to boat them, fine, but with that fire rate, it's gonna cost you a stupendous weight of ammo compared to using them as an auxilary weapon, where they'll be in a nice spot comparable to a small laser.

Edited by Rippthrough, 11 January 2013 - 05:07 AM.

[Doc Holliday]

Rippthrough, on 11 January 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

As I've mentioned on many MG threads before. They don't need to touch the damage, they don't need to alter the ammo, they don't need to touch the crits.
All that is needed, is to triple the rate of fire, that means the ammo still only explodes for the same amount of damage at the moment.
If you want to boat them, fine, but with that fire rate, it's gonna cost you a stupendous weight of ammo compared to using them as an auxilary weapon, where they'll be in a nice spot comparable to a small laser.

So you're fine with getting a maximum damage potential of 80 per ton? Because I sure the heck am not. I practically never die to ammo explosions because I put them in the legs where it's not an issue, and otherwise I make room for CASE. It's only .5 ton and 1 crit FFS.

[Joseph Mallan]

The Gauss only does 20 points of damage. There is a huge difference. A ton of MG ammo theoretically at 200 damage explosions could destroy an Atlas's entire internal structure. A Gauss explosion cannot. I don't know if the MMO follows TT for Ammo explosion effects but a ton of MG ammo (at 200 damage) in your Mechs leg would destroy the leg, then the side torso, then the center torso. That is a lot of repair. That is what I am reminding folk of. Remember the Nerf when asking for Buffs. They must balance. Gauss Rifle (Buff) Heavy hitting hammer at all ranges no heat. (Nerf) Blows up when the enemy looks at it cross eyed! Balance.

[AlexWildeagle]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 January 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

The Gauss only does 20 points of damage. There is a huge difference. A ton of MG ammo theoretically at 200 damage explosions could destroy an Atlas's entire internal structure. A Gauss explosion cannot. I don't know if the MMO follows TT for Ammo explosion effects but a ton of MG ammo (at 200 damage) in your Mechs leg would destroy the leg, then the side torso, then the center torso. That is a lot of repair. That is what I am reminding folk of. Remember the Nerf when asking for Buffs. They must balance. Gauss Rifle (Buff) Heavy hitting hammer at all ranges no heat. (Nerf) Blows up when the enemy looks at it cross eyed! Balance.

Isn't that what case is for?

[Joseph Mallan]

Yes. For those who forget to use it.
A costly mistake.

[KerenskyClone]

Rippthrough, on 11 January 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

As I've mentioned on many MG threads before. They don't need to touch the damage, they don't need to alter the ammo, they don't need to touch the crits.
All that is needed, is to triple the rate of fire, that means the ammo still only explodes for the same amount of damage at the moment.
If you want to boat them, fine, but with that fire rate, it's gonna cost you a stupendous weight of ammo compared to using them as an auxilary weapon, where they'll be in a nice spot comparable to a small laser.

This is also acceptable, and also very easy to implement. No one is asking for something unreasonable here. All we want is a weapon that is usable in the game, drawbacks included.

When I can roleplay my clan, faction whatever, when the fights start to have meaning and we are defending or invading territory, planets whatever, when there are proper objectives in the missions instead off very simple 8v8 deathmatch scenarios and most importantly when there is INFANTRY (in other words when hell freezes over) in the game then maybe we could accept the machine gun as it is. Right now there is no good reason that the MG and the Flamer even exist in their current states...

Edited by KerenskyClone, 11 January 2013 - 05:27 AM.