339 replies to this topic

[Thomas Dziegielewski]

I'm starting work on it right now. Paul already mentioned in Command Chair.
http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

MG will become the first critical hit weapon. The LBX will get the same treatment as well.

It will be given a huge critical hit multiplier similar to what it does in TT rules.

So against armor the MachineGun will remain useless (but fun to use dammit!). But as soon as armor is gone and it starts tearing into 'flesh' it will be given a big critical hit damage multiplier.

It will literally rip apart the insides of a unprotected component.

Hope you like it.


Release Date : January 29th 2013 or so.

[Vechs]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 January 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

I also am letting my time as an infantry marine affect my reasoning. I've shot thousands of rounds at OLD battered Armored vehicles on Camp Pendleton. I watched 50 cal rounds by the hundreds be denied penetration, as well as 40 mm Grenades from the M203. On what was armor that was 10-15 years old(maybe).

So please let us continue to squawk needlessly. I will continue to debate the need to avoid such a buff, as I would expect others to do if I propose something they disagree with. The best choices are made when pro and con are weighed equally.


Pulse lasers have become the go to anti infantry weapon in my opinion!

http://redwing.hutma...m/centurion.htm

Centurion tries to gain tactical advantage in battle by asserting that he is, or was at one time, in the military. He affects the brusque demeanor and clipped style of a drill sergeant, and intimidates opponents by sprinkling his messages with military verbiage and obscure acronyms. He reinforces weak arguments by constantly reminding other Warriors that he has “done his duty”, or “served his country”. Sometimes Centurion may even post pictures of military hardware or images of himself in fatigues brandishing a weapon. Centurion may actually have a military background, or he may just be a nut case - no one really knows.

Edited by Vechs, 09 January 2013 - 11:05 AM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 09 January 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

I'm starting work on it right now. Paul already mentioned in Command Chair.
http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

MG will become the first critical hit weapon. The LBX will get the same treatment as well.

It will be given a huge critical hit multiplier similar to what it does in TT rules.

So against armor the MachineGun will remain useless (but fun to use dammit!). But as soon as armor is gone and it starts tearing into 'flesh' it will be given a big critical hit damage multiplier.

It will literally rip apart the insides of a unprotected component.

Hope you like it.


Release Date : January 29th 2013 or so.

Oh yes, this I like...very much. Both the MG and LBx parts...very good.

[The Mecha Streisand]

Vechs, on 09 January 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

http://redwing.hutma...m/centurion.htm

Centurion tries to gain tactical advantage in battle by asserting that he is, or was at one time, in the military. He affects the brusque demeanor and clipped style of a drill sergeant, and intimidates opponents by sprinkling his messages with military verbiage and obscure acronyms. He reinforces weak arguments by constantly reminding other Warriors that he has “done his duty”, or “served his country”. Sometimes Centurion may even post pictures of military hardware or images of himself in fatigues brandishing a weapon. Centurion may actually have a military background, or he may just be a nut case - no one really knows.

What's the funny word for someone intimidated by "Centurion'? Y'know, since it's been brought up...

[KuruptU4Fun]

Has anyone stated that shooting a MG against a mech is akin to shooting an airsoft gun against a minivan? That any true "upgrade" to make it viable as an anti-mech weapon would make it an autocannon?

[Joseph Mallan]

Kivin, on 09 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Your opinion has no merit. I explained to you what is good (and bad) for a game. I explained to you what helps make a game great. I provided supporting materials. You came back with "but the infantry marines do it differently." Listen to me for a change- PGI has already said this is how it is, that isn't up for discussion. They don't care what the tabletop rulebook says and they sure as hell don't give a crap about your experience in the military. Go do something constructive.

Ok so lets see. Would not having a machine gun ruin MechWarrior? Lets see. 4 LRMs (5,10,15,20) 4 SRMs (Streak2, 2, 4, 6). 4 Energy weapons (Small, medium, Large, PPC) 1 ER energy weapons (with a 2nd- 4th coming someday) 3 Pulse Energy Weapons, and 7 ballistics from AC 2 to the Gauss. So how does a Machine Gun being a POS stop people from having a bounty of choices again sir? Did I say there we don't need Machine Guns? No. Actually yes I am. A small laser and a heatsink can fill the gap. Are they going to get buffed? DEVs said yes. Do i have to agree with the DEVs? No. do i have a say in how much a Buff they should have? As much say as you do sir. Don't like my opinion? Don't really care. I will continue to constructively discuss this topic until such a time as the buffs come into play, Then I will discuss the pros and cons of those buffs. That is why I signed up to beta test the game... to give my input. So get in line, give your opinion right beside me and we will both be doing our part to improve this game as we believe it needs improved.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 January 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[Kivin]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 January 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

Ok so lets see. Would not having a machine gun ruin MechWarrior? Lets see. 4 LRMs (5,10,15,20) 4 SRMs (Streak2, 2, 4, 6). 4 Energy weapons (Small, medium, Large, PPC) 1 ER energy weapons (with a 2nd- 4th coming someday) 3 Pulse Energy Weapons, and 7 ballistics from AC 2 to the Gauss. So how does a Machine Gun being a POS stop people from having a bounty of choices again sir? Did I say there we don't need Machine Guns? No. Actually yes I am. A small laser and a heatsink can fill the gap. Are they going to get buffed? DEVs said yes. Do i have to agree with the DEVs? No. do i have a say in how much a Buff they should have? As much say as you do sir. Don't like my opinion? Don't really care. I will continue to constructively discuss this topic until such a time as the buffs come into play, Then I will discuss the pros and cons of those buffs. That is why I signed up to beta test the game... to give my input. So get in line, give your opinion right beside me and we will both be doing our part to improve this game as we believe it needs improved.

Quit embarrassing yourself and go learn a little about fun, game design and player enjoyment.

[Joseph Mallan]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 09 January 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

I'm starting work on it right now. Paul already mentioned in Command Chair.
http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

MG will become the first critical hit weapon. The LBX will get the same treatment as well.

It will be given a huge critical hit multiplier similar to what it does in TT rules.

So against armor the MachineGun will remain useless (but fun to use dammit!). But as soon as armor is gone and it starts tearing into 'flesh' it will be given a big critical hit damage multiplier.

It will literally rip apart the insides of a unprotected component.

Hope you like it.


Release Date : January 29th 2013 or so.

As it should be.

Kivin, on 09 January 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

Quit embarrassing yourself and go learn a little about fun, game design and player enjoyment.

When i post one of these
It means I'm embarrassed.

However Thomas has just listed buffs I can support for machine guns.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 January 2013 - 11:21 AM.

[Fat Samurai]

stjobe, on 09 January 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

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.

This is where you and I don't agree. Why? Why is it easier to hit 50% of the time with a laser than hitting 50% with a MG? Or to put it in seconds: why is it easier to hit during 0.375 seconds out of 0.75 than it is to hit 1.5 out of 3? This is where your reasoning fails, unless you prove it with numbers that make sense.

If the laser pilot misses for .01 second, he's missing a 1.33% of his full damage. If the MG pilot misses for 0.01 second, he's missing 0.33% of his full damage. Wouldn't that mean that it is much more difficult to hit for full damage with a Laser than with a MG?

Yes, it is 4 times easier (not 3. 4. Again, math.) to hit for 0.375 seconds than it is for 1.5. But that is not the point. Otherwise a instantaneous hit weapon, like a gauss would be infinitely easier (and I mean it literally: it would be 15*3/0.00...a lot of zeroes ..0001 easier) to hit with than a MG, because the time you need to keep it on target to do full damage is for 0.00...a lot of zeroes ..0001 seconds. And yet some shots miss.

The truth is that statistically, the longer the time you're aiming, the harder it's to do full damage, but the harder would be to miss completely. A gauss user hits or fails completely, a laser user is almost guaranteed to do at least some damage, but probably not all, and a MG's damage will fall more in the middle of the range between maximum and none. But all of them will deal the same % of their maximum damage over time if they are equally good shooters.

Think of this way: If I aim a laser pointer at a target for 2 seconds out of 4 (the other 2 missing because my hand trembles, or the object moves) and you aim at it for 1 second out of 2, are you twice as bad as I? After all, you have hit the target for half the time as me. In this case, you're the laser player and I'm the machinegunner. The important value to use is the percentage of the time we are aiming properly, not the time measured in seconds itself.

I'm going to shut up now, because if I haven't convinced you that you cannot compare an infinitely accurate pilot with a "normal" pilot, and that you have to use equivalent units to compare things, I'm not going to do it now. Please take your calculations to someone whom you trust and that knows math, and have fun explaining stompy robits to him or her.

Edited by Fat Samurai, 09 January 2013 - 11:50 AM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Vechs..personal attacks..really not good and definately not needed.

As for Joseph's time in the USMC, thank you for your service, but I'm afraid that doesn't actually qualify your opinion about how weapons in the 3000s work. MGs in BTech aren't a few kg and aren't firing 5.56 or 7.62 rounds, they are half ton machines..much like the GAU8... BTech MGs are quite capable of shredding the armor on a Mech, they are even MORE capable of shredding infantry and light vehicles, things they get special bonuses against..remember? Comparing what an M16 will do against armor vs what something the size of a GAU8 will do against armor...bad choice there

Try to keep in mind folks, 1 shot from the MGs and ACs in TT is NOT 1 single round of ammunition, it's usually a group of shots, multiple rounds, that impact the same location and give the damage. So the MGs, they aren't firing 1 bullet that does 2 points of damage, they are firing a stream of low calibre(compared to the ACs, which are 150-220mm) projectiles per 'single shot', exactly how the ACs work. A half ton MG isn't firing 7.62mm slugs...more like 30mm or larger.

[Kurshuk]

stjobe, on 09 January 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

Here's what Paul said on Dec. 12th:

source: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1591483

I'm seriously worried about this, because the MG will not become a viable weapon by either "a very slight damage increase" or "crit at a higher rate with a crit damage boost". It needs a substantial damage boost, even in conjunction with a crit boost.

Let's start with where we are now: The MG does 0.04 damage per round, 10 rounds per second, for a total of 0.4 DPS. This means it takes 2.5 seconds to do 1 damage, and 25 seconds to do 10 damage. Crit-wise, it has the same crit chance as any other weapon, but it only does 0.04 damage per crit, so it would take 25 seconds of non-stop critting to destroy a single component. If every crit was three hits (a 3% chance per shot) and they all hit the same component, it would still take 8.3 seconds to destroy that component.

Clearly the MG is underpowered and needs a buff, and it's good that the devs see it that way too. However, this buff needs to be huge, not "very slight". It needs to be on the order of a 300% damage increase.

Here's why: Compare the MG to the Small Laser. The Small Laser does 3 damage over a beam duration of 0.75, and has a recycle time of 2.25 seconds, giving it a DPS of 1.0.

The MG, with its continuous-fire mechanism, does 0.4 DPS. Let's say we buff this to 1.2 DPS, a 300% increase, by increasing the damage per round from 0.04 to 0.12. Would this make the MG overpowered?

The answer is no. To understand why, we need to look a bit at how different weapons deliver their damage:

Instant-hit weapons like ballistics or PPCs deliver their damage all at once, and then recycles for a long period. This means that to do your full damage you need only to keep the weapon on-target for an instant as you press the trigger. There is no partial damage with instant-hit weapons.

Beam weapons like lasers deliver their damage over a short period of time, and then recycles for a long period. This means that to do all your damage you need to keep the weapon on-target for the beam duration, but not for the recycle.

Now the continuous-fire weapons like the MG deliver their damage in a constant stream. This means that to do all your damage you need to keep the weapon on-target for as long as it takes. Any time not on-target is lost damage (as opposed to the other weapons where you can go off-target for the whole recycle duration without losing any damage).

What does this mean for the hypothetical 1.2 DPS MG? Let's again compare it to the Small Laser. In 0.75 seconds, the Small Laser delivers 3 damage. In the same 0.75 seconds, the 1.2 DPS MG delivers 0.9 damage, a full two-thirds less than the laser.

Over ten seconds, the Small Laser will deliver 12 damage in four beams with a total of 3 seconds duration. In 3 seconds, the hypothetical 1.2 DPS MG would deliver 3.6 damage. Only if you can hold it on-target for the full 10 seconds would you do as much damage as the Small Laser.

I don't think it's overpowered to have the MG do as much damage as a Small Laser over 10 seconds.


Now let's have a look at that crit increase. A "higher [crit] rate with a crit damage boost" is what they're looking at, so let's look at a huge boost to that; let's make the MG crit 100% of the time, and always do three hits (which is normally a 3% chance per hit). So 100% crit rate and 3x damage boost.

With a buff that huge, it would still take (10 / 0.04 * 10 * 3 ) = 8.3 seconds of continuosly hitting the same location and the same component to destroy that single component. That's not really enough to make the MG viable, is it?

With the hypothetical 1.2 DPS MG and the above crit buff, the time taken to destroy a single component would become (10 / 0.12 * 10 * 3) = 2.8 seconds.

So you see, not even with a 300% damage increase, a 100% crit rate buff, and always doing three hits per crit would the MG be overpowered. It would, however, become a viable back-up weapon, and the crit-seeking weapon it is sometimes referred to as.


In closing I must plead to the developers to not underbuff the MG. As the above shows, the MG needs a substantial damage boost to make it even comparable to the Small Laser - and even with that substantial boost, it still won't do as much damage as the Small Laser unless you can hold it on target for prolonged periods of time.

Oh, and to the "'mechs shouldn't mount MGs" and "MGs are anti-infantry weapons" crowd: In Battletech, the MG does exactly as much damage to a 'mech as an AC/2 - a 4 DPS weapon in MWO. In TRO:2750, fully a fifth of the 'mechs mount MGs. So let's try to refrain from the discussion on whether MGs should even be in MWO or not; they are in-game so they should be a viable choice. At the moment they aren't, and I fear that with a too small buff they still won't be.

I'm sold.

Kurshuk

[Joseph Mallan]

Kristov Kerensky, on 09 January 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

Vechs..personal attacks..really not good and definately not needed.

As for Joseph's time in the USMC, thank you for your service, but I'm afraid that doesn't actually qualify your opinion about how weapons in the 3000s work. MGs in BTech aren't a few kg and aren't firing 5.56 or 7.62 rounds, they are half ton machines..much like the GAU8... BTech MGs are quite capable of shredding the armor on a Mech, they are even MORE capable of shredding infantry and light vehicles, things they get special bonuses against..remember? Comparing what an M16 will do against armor vs what something the size of a GAU8 will do against armor...bad choice there

Try to keep in mind folks, 1 shot from the MGs and ACs in TT is NOT 1 single round of ammunition, it's usually a group of shots, multiple rounds, that impact the same location and give the damage. So the MGs, they aren't firing 1 bullet that does 2 points of damage, they are firing a stream of low calibre(compared to the ACs, which are 150-220mm) projectiles per 'single shot', exactly how the ACs work. A half ton MG isn't firing 7.62mm slugs...more like 30mm or larger.

Yeah never does, but hey trying to give a better perspective on what weapons can and can't do.

As to the GAU8... It is one Bad Ash 21 century weapon v 21 century armor. If the Machine guns in MechWarrior we said to be depleted uranium AP rounds, I might reconsider. I haven't seen such a blurb... yet.

[Jman5]

People arguing against machine gun buffs because of Table Top rules are so maddeningly illogical. Here is the reality: This isn't table top, and there are no infantry. But there are mechs, and there are machine guns.

Therefore, it stands to reason that machine guns should have some role in Mechwarrior Online against other mechs. Otherwise what the hell was the point in spending so much time and effort developing it? You don't spend days creating something for your game just to be the "wrong choice" every time.

Put aside Battletech Table Top for just a minute and you will see why buffing the machine gun makes perfect sense.

Edited by Jman5, 09 January 2013 - 11:38 AM.

[JSArrakis]

Im still waiting on your reply Joseph. Or can you not stand up to my questions and are just the strawman I think you are.

[Joseph Mallan]

JSArrakis, on 09 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Wait.
So what you are saying is that there SHOULD be non viable mech variant in the game just for grinding and time wasting purposes? Not because they should fill a niche of player who has a certain playstyle?

Just because you are unable to enjoy things like the Flea or the Spider does not mean that you should hinder other people's enjoyment of said mechs.

Also you are arguing against math with feelings, opinions and interpretations. Just because the way you perceived MGs in TT rules does not mean thats how they should be in this game. PGI has clearly already deviated from TT rules in alot of aspects (Firing rate, DHS) and other aspects have gotten left behind thus far (MGs and Flamers). Your opinion is relative, if you dont want MGs to have a large buff, provide your answers of why in a mathematical format please.

From how I hear both my friends and other players complain about this Mech or that, they already have those. Some Raven variants make my friends cringe that they have to use them, so that already happens now. I Chose to grind an Atlas K, it sucked, and i am glad to be done with it. I have a low opinion of teh 3 Mech Grind and said what I do to circumvent it.

I don't see how My not grinding a Spider because i don't like it stops someone from trying it. I don't like Commandos but I still see many of them in the field, so someone is enjoying them even though i can't see me piloting one.

And apparently the DEVs were thinking the same thing I was cause the new buff will do nothing to help AP but will make them nice for blasting the crunchy bits.

Sorry I'm not a number cruncher. I go by feel. If a game/weapon/character feels fun its good. If math was fun to me I'd have aced Calculus and Compound angles during my apprenticeship.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 January 2013 - 11:54 AM.

[Vechs]

Kristov Kerensky, on 09 January 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

Vechs..personal attacks..really not good and definately not needed.

Then he shouldn't have referred to the OP's discussion as "needless".

My main point is that he's injecting real-life experiences into a videogame that's about robots blowing things up in the year 3000. Like you said, real-life military service is pretty much irrelevant when talking about (fictional) space robots. (If we were talking about robotic satellites that were designed to launch tungsten rods from orbit to strike targets on the ground... in other words, real-life space robots as they exist today... I'd be more inclined to listen to other military personnel. )

To add to that, again, this is a videogame, and players should have fun and interesting choices -- having an option in the game be totally useless, and then to try and justify it by saying "well, it would be good against a certain enemy type that's not even in the game, nor do we have plans of putting them in the game" is just incredibly lazy design.

[Orzorn]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 09 January 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

I'm starting work on it right now. Paul already mentioned in Command Chair.
http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

MG will become the first critical hit weapon. The LBX will get the same treatment as well.

It will be given a huge critical hit multiplier similar to what it does in TT rules.

So against armor the MachineGun will remain useless (but fun to use dammit!). But as soon as armor is gone and it starts tearing into 'flesh' it will be given a big critical hit damage multiplier.

It will literally rip apart the insides of a unprotected component.

Hope you like it.


Release Date : January 29th 2013 or so.

Can the MG please at least get a buff to 0.066 damage per round? That would actually give the 2/3rds ratio that they had in the TT (mguns did 2 damage. Small lasers did 3 damage). Currently, we do NOT have that ratio, what with machine guns doing 0.4 DPS compared to the 1 DPS of a small laser (Which is, obviously, a 2/5th ratio).

Basically, the mgun doesn't even do close to the same type of damage it even had in the TT compared to the small laser.

[MourningZero]

Why do people think AK-47 when they read "machine gun", and not GAU-8 Avenger 30mm or Vulcan 20mm? Rotary medium caliber machine guns are perfectly capable of shredding armor.

Sure in CBT they get a *bonus* vs. infantry targets, but they are still perfectly capable of ripping armor off of Mechs. Even moreso with the Solaris rules that we are playing with.

[Joseph Mallan]

Vechs, on 09 January 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

Then he shouldn't have referred to the OP's discussion as "needless".

My main point is that he's injecting real-life experiences into a videogame that's about robots blowing things up in the year 3000. Like you said, real-life military service is pretty much irrelevant when talking about (fictional) space robots. (If we were talking about robotic satellites that were designed to launch tungsten rods from orbit to strike targets on the ground... in other words, real-life space robots as they exist today... I'd be more inclined to listen to other military personnel. )

To add to that, again, this is a videogame, and players should have fun and interesting choices -- having an option in the game be totally useless, and then to try and justify it by saying "well, it would be good against a certain enemy type that's not even in the game, nor do we have plans of putting them in the game" is just incredibly lazy design.

And now we have the interesting choice of testing how MGs work v the crunchy innards of a Mech, or complaining cause they still don't go through armor well. The DEVs seem to have gone a more "Anti Infantry" weapon role still and I am happy to see this. Now when they hit the field we still need to test there usefulness.

Also did I say the Ops position was 'Needless" or I thought the Mg was Needless? There is a difference, and one DOES deserves an apology.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 January 2013 - 12:03 PM.

[Orzorn]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 January 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

And now we have the interesting choice of testing how MGs work v the crunchy innards of a Mech, or complaining cause they still don't go through armor well. The DEVs seem to have gone a more "Anti Infantry" weapon role still and I am happy to see this. Now when they hit the field we still need to test there usefulness.

Their use will still be dubious because, unless they also buff the damage to even just 0.066, they won't even have the ratio they once had with the small laser.

Every other weapon gotten about a 3x increase in damage over 10 seconds compared to the TT (3 damage vs 10 damage for the small laser), but the machine gun went from 2 damage to... 4 damage. It doesn't seem to have gotten the treatment most other weapons did, and its suffered for it.

Edited by Orzorn, 09 January 2013 - 12:03 PM.