339 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 January 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

Could just be that the Text for Machine guns for 25+ years I've played with giant stompy robots say they are for anti infantry use. Could also be that I see them as obsolete just as I did when I first started playing TT. In all the years of playing this genre I have pulled MGs for more armor, heatsinks, medium laser anything but a pop gun. AC2s became PPCs or Large lasers also. I mean really why a space filler weapon? I mean seriously outside of using it to frazzle the nerves of an opposing warrior... MGs and AC2s are pretty pointless weapons.

Hey, I've played for 25+ years too, and I still love running games with the Locust, the Stinger, the Phoenix Hawk, the Thunderbolt, and the Battlemaster.

Now why do you reckon I named these specific 'mechs? No, it's not because they're all Unseen

And don't you find it kind of strange that MGs (and AC/2s - not in MWO though) are "pretty pointless weapons", but the Small Laser isn't? Nor the LRM/5 or SRM/2? Why is it just ballistic weapons that can't have a light option?

[Skyfaller]

MG's simply need be given 1000m minimum range and their rate of fire quadrupled. Damage needs to be upped by 25%.

This would effectively make the machine gun a very high rate of fire 'ac2' type of weapon. The damage it does is insignificant unless the MG is 'on target' for a couple of seconds so its damage adds up.

In short, it makes the MG a great suppression weapon at gives it long reach ..excellent for mechs which dont have the tonnage or crit space to load heavier weapons.

Ammo wise the MG would be an ammo consumption monster so a dedicated MG boat would probably need to carry 12 tons of ammo minimum.

[Boogie Man]

I totally agree with the OP. Anything less than 1 DPS will be severely underpowered.

As for the LBX10 they just need to tighten the spread a lot more so at 100m its more like a slug and at 400m its more like a shotgun.

Edited by Boogie Man, 09 January 2013 - 09:13 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 09 January 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

Hey, I've played for 25+ years too, and I still love running games with the Locust, the Stinger, the Phoenix Hawk, the Thunderbolt, and the Battlemaster.

Now why do you reckon I named these specific 'mechs? No, it's not because they're all Unseen

And don't you find it kind of strange that MGs (and AC/2s - not in MWO though) are "pretty pointless weapons", but the Small Laser isn't? Nor the LRM/5 or SRM/2? Why is it just ballistic weapons that can't have a light option?

I do to! Only My locusts have 2 Small lasers instead of MGs. as do the larger rides. NEVER kept a MG on a Mech. Not even My Battlemaster-1G. Small lasers are pretty pointless to me also. I only use one if I have a .5 ton and no where else to put that weight. And when they changed the armor rules to allow dropping left over armor points I never had to do that any more either.

LRM 5s have a place on light Mechs as do SRM2 (once we house ruled the #of missile rule for the duce).Small, medium, large. MG would be the Tiny Ballistic!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 January 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[malibu43]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 January 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

Could just be that the Text for Machine guns for 25+ years I've played with giant stompy robots say they are for anti infantry use...

Just because they are primarily for anti-infantry doesn't mean they are completely ineffective in other applications. In other words, it just says that anti-infantry is their primary use, it doesn't say "MG's are primarily anti-infantry weapons and are completely useless and silly to use against mechs." Folks provide lots of references for why MG's are best against infantry, but keep making up the part about them being useless against mechs. On the other TT seems to support that they aren't useless against mechs (same damage as AC2). So, IMHO, all the TT rules/lore combined seem to support a buff to make them somewhat useful.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 January 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

I do to! Only My locusts have 2 Small lasers instead of MGs. as do the larger rides. NEVER kept a MG on a Mech. Not even My Battlemaster-1G. Small lasers are pretty pointless to me also. I only use one if I have a .5 ton and no where else to put that weight. And when they changed the armor rules to allow dropping left over armor points I never had to do that any more either.

In my opinion, you missed out

Here's the real issue though: We have light 'mechs in-game right now that have ballistic hardpoints, and there's more lights with ballistic hardpoints on the way - one is coming next week already.

What should a RVN-4X mount in its 2 ballistic hardpoints? What should the SDR-5K or FLE-15 mount in theirs? And the CDA-3C, though a medium 'mech, has four ballistic hardpoints. What should it do with those?

The Jenner and Commando can mount Small, Medium, or even Large Lasers or PPCs in their energy hardpoints, and LRM/5, LRM/10, SRM-2, SRM-4, SRM-6 or SSRM-2s in their missile hardpoints, but what should a light 'mech with ballistic hardpoints mount?

The lightest usable ballistic option right now is the 6 ton AC/2 (7 tons with 1 ton of ammo). Mounting even one of those is a major task for a 'mech that only weighs 3-4 times that much in total. If the MG was as viable a weapon as the Small Laser, they would be a perfect fit for those ballistic hardpoints.

That's the real reason I want the MG to become viable - to give the light 'mechs a usable ballistic option. But in order to become a viable weapon, the MG needs a major damage buff.

Edited by stjobe, 09 January 2013 - 09:41 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

stjobe, on 09 January 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

I don't know why it's so hard to distinguish between theoretical DPS numbers and practical time-on-target numbers, but apparently it is.

Yes, in a theoretical situation where the target and firer are both stationary, the hypothetical 1.2 DPS MG does more damage to the target than the current 1.0 DPS Small Laser (at least after firing for 2.5+ seconds). However what I'm trying to show you (and apparently not doing a very good job of) is that in practice, the Small Laser only needs to be on-target of 0.75 seconds to do its 3 damage, whereas the hypothetical 1.2 DPS MG needs to be on-target for 2.5 seconds to do the same.

I'll say it again to see if it sticks this time: With the Small Laser you only need to be on target 0.75 seconds out of 3, whereas the hypothetical 1.2 DPS MG needs to be on target for the full 2.5 seconds to do the same 3 damage as the SL.

The Small Laser loses no damage after the 0.75 second beam, but the MG needs to hold on-target for another 1.75 seconds to achieve the same damage. Finally, if the MG manages to hold on-target for another half-second more, yes it will have done more damage than the SL - until the SL fires its next beam.

This means that even though the hypothetical 1.2 DPS MG indeed has a higher DPS than the current Small Laser, it will be a very rare occurance when it can actually achieve that DPS for any substantial amount of time.

Finally, even if it does achieve its full 1.2 DPS we're still talking Small Laser amounts of damage here. It's not like people will be quaking in their boots about it either way. It will be useful as a ballistic alternative to the Small Laser, but it won't be overpowered - unless you want to argue that the Small Laser is overpowered, but that's another discussion altogether.

Maybe consider a theoretical fire exchange between two stationary mechs.
In one scenario, both are using small lasers. If they fire at the same time, they will probably always hit the intended spot they wanted to hit, but if they fire with time delay, than the guy that is not firing right now can twist his torso, so the enemy shot will go into the arms, legs or side torsos instead of head or center torso. If both are using identical weapons, this provides no direct advantage here, and the guy that started firing first would have a slim advantage.

But now let's replace one of these mechs with an MG user.
If the MG has the exact same DPS as the small laser user, then to deal equal amount of damage, he must fire constantly at hist arget. He cannot twist or turn to evade fire. THis means the Small Laser user has the advantage - he can spread the damage of the MG user to non-critical mech sections, the MG user cannot do anything.

[Fut]

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.

This is going to make my story much more... umm.. ******, but...

I can't recall which MW game it was in, but a buddy of mine had a heavy that brought a stupid amount of MGs to the field. He sucked from a distance, but when he got into range and opened fire, the multitude of machine guns would shred the enemy's armor like it was paper.
Was quite the sight to see.

I definitely think that the Machine Guns need a buff in MW:O.
The OP's on the right track, and his reasoning is sound. I fully support his idea.

[Voridan Atreides]

The machine gun will not be useful unless we get armoured vehicles later in the game. It was never meant to go up against other mechs.

[Fat Samurai]

stjobe, on 09 January 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

I'll say it again to see if it sticks this time: With the Small Laser you only need to be on target 0.75 seconds out of 3, whereas the hypothetical 1.2 DPS MG needs to be on target for the full 2.5 seconds to do the same 3 damage as the SL.

Agreed. I see your point.

Let's see if you see mine: You are considering that the Small Laser mech is going to hold the target perfectly still in his reticule for 0.75 seconds, while the MG won't be able to do it for 3 seconds. Why are you handicapping the pilot of the MG mech to support your argument? That's cheating.

Assuming both pilots of equal skill, if your point is that a MG will only hit his target, for example, a 66% of the time, then you should assume that the Laser Pilot will do the same, thus hitting for less than maximun damage.

Lets run some numbers: Small Laser 1 DPS damage. Buffed MG 1,2 DPS. Both pilots hit 66% of the time they are actually shooting. Time= 3 seconds.

- Small Laser: Shoots a 3 damage laser beam for 0.75 seconds, but fails to hit his target for more than 0.5 seconds, then waits until it can shoot again for 2.25 seconds= Damage 2
- MG: Shoots during 3 seconds at a damage rate of 1.2 DPS. Again he fails to hit for more than a 66% of the time= Damage 2.4

So, a 1.2 DPS weapon does 1.2 times more damage than a 1DPS weapon in any amount of time. It seems logical, doesn't it?

And before you say that having perfect aim during 0.75 seconds is easier than doing it during 3 seconds consider this: if the target of the laser guy managed to avoid the beam during .25 seconds, the accuracy of the laser is down to 66%. To the MG robot, a 66% accuracy means that he has failed to hit his target for 1 full second in a 3 second period.

stjobe, on 09 January 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

Finally, even if it does achieve its full 1.2 DPS we're still talking Small Laser amounts of damage here. It's not like people will be quaking in their boots about it either way. It will be useful as a ballistic alternative to the Small Laser, but it won't be overpowered - unless you want to argue that the Small Laser is overpowered, but that's another discussion altogether.

Again, I'm not arguing that a MG should be more or less powerful than a Small Laser, a Gauss Rifle, a nuclear bomb or a fire sharpened stick. I'm asking that you get your maths right and think of a fully comparable scenario when you're trying to use them to prove something.

[Voridan Atreides]

Quote

Is there a source for the bold part?

From sarna.net: "The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers."


Do you really think machine guns are anti-mech weapons?

Edited by Voridan Atreides, 09 January 2013 - 10:11 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 09 January 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

In my opinion, you missed out

Here's the real issue though: We have light 'mechs in-game right now that have ballistic hardpoints, and there's more lights with ballistic hardpoints on the way - one is coming next week already.

What should a RVN-4X mount in its 2 ballistic hardpoints? What should the SDR-5K or FLE-15 mount in theirs? And the CDA-3C, though a medium 'mech, has four ballistic hardpoints. What should it do with those?

The Jenner and Commando can mount Small, Medium, or even Large Lasers or PPCs in their energy hardpoints, and LRM/5, LRM/10, SRM-2, SRM-4, SRM-6 or SSRM-2s in their missile hardpoints, but what should a light 'mech with ballistic hardpoints mount?

The lightest usable ballistic option right now is the 6 ton AC/2 (7 tons with 1 ton of ammo). Mounting even one of those is a major task for a 'mech that only weighs 3-4 times that much in total. If the MG was as viable a weapon as the Small Laser, they would be a perfect fit for those ballistic hardpoints.

That's the real reason I want the MG to become viable - to give the light 'mechs a usable ballistic option. But in order to become a viable weapon, the MG needs a major damage buff.

Never had to worry about that on TT. Don't like HP because of that limitation (even though i understand it). My suggestion is grind your XP in one of the other models convert to GXP and spam the levels Like I did with Stalkers. I had them mastered before I even went into my first match. I don't intend to use a Spider, I didn't buy the machine gun Cicada though I laugh when I see one. my suggestion is if you want to master them, suffer the grind and sell the chaff.

[Joseph Mallan]

Fut, on 09 January 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

This is going to make my story much more... umm.. ******, but...

I can't recall which MW game it was in, but a buddy of mine had a heavy that brought a stupid amount of MGs to the field. He sucked from a distance, but when he got into range and opened fire, the multitude of machine guns would shred the enemy's armor like it was paper.
Was quite the sight to see.

I definitely think that the Machine Guns need a buff in MW:O.
The OP's on the right track, and his reasoning is sound. I fully support his idea.

Substitute small lasers for Machine guns and your friend would have done the same thing I'd wager.

[Khobai]

Machine Gun should do 0.7 dps and x2 crit damage. That would fix them.

Machine Guns are only supposed to do about 67% of the damage of a Small Laser. Theyre also supposed to do double damage to infantry, but since theres no infantry in MWO, they should just do x2 critical hit damage instead.

Additionally, the devs need to add a ballistic weapon thats in between a MG and an AC/2. Right now there's just no ballistic weapons that weigh 2-5 tons. We need a weapon like the mech mortar to fill that tonnage gap.

Edited by Khobai, 09 January 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[malibu43]

Voridan Atreides, on 09 January 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

From sarna.net: "The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers."

Do you really think machine guns are anti-mech weapons?

Again, that doesn't not say they aren't useful against mechs. It just states that they are best against infantry. TT rules support the MG being as effective against a mech as an AC2. So, yes, that supports some sort of MG being somewhat useful as an anti-mech weapon.

Also -

(From wikipedia) "American waffles^[70] vary significantly, but are often made from a batter leavened with baking powder and may be round, square, or rectangular in shape. They are usually served as a sweet breakfast food..."

Waffles are usually served at breakfast and considered by many or most to be a breakfast food. But I find they are still pretty effective for dinner, or a 2AM post-bar snack.

Edited by malibu43, 09 January 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

malibu43, on 09 January 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Again, that doesn't not say they aren't useful against mechs. It just states that they are best against infantry.

TT rules support the MG being as effective against a mech as an AC2. So, yes, that supports some sort of MG being somewhat useful as an anti-mech weapon.

If you notice the least amount of damage a TT weapon did for the longest time was 2(maybe still). Just sayin.

[Voridan Atreides]

malibu43, on 09 January 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Again, that doesn't not say they aren't useful against mechs. It just states that they are best against infantry.

TT rules support the MG being as effective against a mech as an AC2. So, yes, that supports some sort of MG being somewhat useful as an anti-mech weapon.

It states they are an anti-infantry weapon. Go to the link and look at the description. It says nothing about it saying they are useful against mechs....it only talks about how they are usefull against infantry. That is the whole purpose of putting a MG on your mech. To defend yourself from an infantry attack without having to overkill and use something like a Gauss Rifle, or a big AC.

Edited by Voridan Atreides, 09 January 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[Kivin]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 January 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

Could just be that the Text for Machine guns for 25+ years I've played with giant stompy robots say they are for anti infantry use. Could also be that I see them as obsolete just as I did when I first started playing TT. In all the years of playing this genre I have pulled MGs for more armor, heatsinks, medium laser anything but a pop gun. AC2s became PPCs or Large lasers also. I mean really why a space filler weapon? I mean seriously outside of using it to frazzle the nerves of an opposing warrior... MGs and AC2s are pretty pointless weapons.

Oh and also, unless there is something somewhere that says Mech Machine guns are using Depleted Uranium ammo. they would not have the same AP potential of an AC2. I've fired a lot of MGs at armor in my days... those rounds stripped pain and pinged the armor.

The others don't want to make it personal, so I'll let that job fall upon me, an outside opinion. Try not to let that reflect on the OP.

I think I see what's going on here. You're letting your (significant) years of tabletop affect your judgement of in-game decisions. We shouldn't need to tell you that this isn't tabletop. I will anyways - it isn't tabletop. Seriously. It isn't. This isn't up for discussion, the devs have already stated that it isn't and they have no intention of it being so.

What we have here is an action game. We have to make decisions that are good for an action game. If we don't, we end up with a ****** action game that hardly anyone wants to play. That isn't good for you, me, Piranha or their publisher. Many brilliant game designers, including the likes of Sid Meier, have gone to great lengths to put their finger on what makes a game great. One thing in particular is choices. In order for players to feel engaged, they must be permitted to make choices and they must feel like those choices matter. Blanket removing any weapon from the game that isn't strictly viable as a Mech killer in TT is a poor decision because it takes away player choice. And nerfing the weapon in to the ground (or allowing it to stay that way) makes peoples' choice to use it feel inconsequential. If you're not just cupping your hands over your ears and saying la-la-la, feel free to read this. We already have a relatively small pool of weapons to choose from in this game. Don't start a witch hunt for one that's already in the game just because your board game does it different.

Its entirely possible that my efforts wont dissuade you from your needless and wasteful squawking, but I hope you'll leave the OP in peace to present his case to PGI (who happens to already agree with him, not you, I might add).

Edited by Kivin, 09 January 2013 - 10:22 AM.

[stjobe]

Fat Samurai, on 09 January 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

Agreed. I see your point.

Let's see if you see mine:

I do see your point, but I think you're still missing mine: The MG pilot needs to have three times as good aim as the SL pilot, since he needs to hold the MG on-target for three times as long to do the same damage. The pilot with the SL has a much easier job doing his full damage than the MG pilot has.

And yes, one could turn that around and say if the MG pilot managed to avoid the SL for just 0.25 seconds he'd only take 2 damage, and the SL pilot would need to avoid the MG for 0.8 seconds to do the same. That's fair, and a good point. On the other hand, the SL pilot still needs only 0.5 seconds of on-target to do those 2 damage, whereas the MG pilot needs 1.6 to do the same.

[Joseph Mallan]

malibu43, on 09 January 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Again, that doesn't not say they aren't useful against mechs. It just states that they are best against infantry. TT rules support the MG being as effective against a mech as an AC2. So, yes, that supports some sort of MG being somewhat useful as an anti-mech weapon.

Also -

(From wikipedia) "American waffles^[70] vary significantly, but are often made from a batter leavened with baking powder and may be round, square, or rectangular in shape. They are usually served as a sweet breakfast food..."

Waffles are usually served at breakfast and considered by many or most to be a breakfast food. But I find they are still pretty effective for dinner, or a 2AM post-bar snack.

Claymore mines anti infantry weapon, can it be used v armored vehicles? Sure, not as effectively as other weapons. Should you use claymores v armored vehicles?

MGs are fine v a Mech with very light armor. v a Cataphract or Atlas... it is a annoyance at best.