339 replies to this topic

[rgreat]

Voridan Atreides, on 09 January 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

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.

Still MG give out 2 damage per turn.
Same as AC2. Nearly same as small laser.
But with zero heat.
Can that be counted as effective or not is purely subjective.

Edited by rgreat, 09 January 2013 - 10:29 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Voridan Atreides, on 09 January 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

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.

On sarna.net at least it states that the MG does 2 points of damage. It doesn't say it does it only against infantry.

And in fact, if you have read the MG rules, you will notice that the MG has additional benefits against Infantry. That means it is a 2 point damage weapon against Mechs, but against Infantry, it's more powerful.
It might also shock you to know that pulse lasers also have bonuses against infantry.

[Voridan Atreides]

rgreat, on 09 January 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

Still MG give out 2 damage. Effective, or not - thats purely subjective.

MustrumRidcully, on 09 January 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

On sarna.net at least it states that the MG does 2 points of damage. It doesn't say it does it only against infantry.

And in fact, if you have read the MG rules, you will notice that the MG has additional benefits against Infantry. That means it is a 2 point damage weapon against Mechs, but against Infantry, it's more powerful.
It might also shock you to know that pulse lasers also have bonuses against infantry.

I'm not against the buff...i'm just sayin it should be used as more of an anti-infantry weapon and less of an anti-mech weapon.

Edited by Voridan Atreides, 09 January 2013 - 10:32 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

It might also shock you to know that pulse lasers also have bonuses against infantry.

Pulse Lasers should do x2 crit damage then too. Pulse Lasers certainly need some kind of buff.

[malibu43]

Voridan Atreides, on 09 January 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

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....

So because it doesn't specifically say they are useful against mechs, it means they aren't? It doesn't say anything about them being useful against unarmored or lightly armored vehicles, so I guess they wouldn't do anthing there, right? Or light aircraft? Or turrets? Or light, unarmored structures?

Perhaps we just agree to disagree, since it isn't specifically stated.

Whether or not it's true to TT or lore or sarna or whatever, there are lots of little mechs running around in MWO with ballistics slots that obviously aren't meant to hold AC2's or anything larger. They should give us something to use in those slots with reasonable weight that can serve a purpose in the game. Call it an MG. Call it an AC. Call it a ultra heavy MG. Call it a light-AC. I don't care. But give me something to use that's... useful.

Edited by malibu43, 09 January 2013 - 10:33 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

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

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).

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.

Khobai, on 09 January 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

Pulse Lasers should do x2 crit damage then too. Pulse Lasers certainly need some kind of buff.

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

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 January 2013 - 10:35 AM.

[Kivin]

You all have lost your way. Arguing about sarna and tabletop backstory in an MWO balance discussion is pointless white noise. It's ridiculous. Refer to my post on page 3 regarding player choices if you want something to argue about. Or keep generating more pages of threads bantering back and forth about sarna.

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. On what was armor that was 10-15 years old.

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!

And how performant where the PPCs in the infantry? You're ridiculous. I am absolutely willing to live with the fact that you're shaking your head saying "this wouldn't have happened in the marines" when I kill you with buffed machine guns.

Edited by Kivin, 09 January 2013 - 10:37 AM.

[Voridan Atreides]

malibu43, on 09 January 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

So because it doesn't specifically say they are useful against mechs, it means they aren't?

Am I saying we should delete the MG? I don't give a crap what you put on your mech. Put it on your build for all I care...then I can laugh as you bullets ping off of me. I'm just telling you what its main purpose is. In my experiance playing, MGs have never been a useful weapon against other mechs. Even with the buff I don't think we will be seeing very many of them unless the buff is messed up. The fact that sarna states it is a quintessential anit-infantry weapon means to me...that it should not be useful against mechs. This is a mech sim. I'm pretty sure a machine gun shoud not be able to hurt a mech with how ever many tons of armour it has. Now...if we were talking internals..then that is a diffrent story.

Edited by Voridan Atreides, 09 January 2013 - 10:50 AM.

[malibu43]

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!

While you certainly have more experience in this area than I do, I can point what the GAU8 is capable of doing on an A-10 (never fired one, just going off of internetz and youtoobz). Is a mech tougher than T-72? Probably. But I'm not asking for a gun that pawns a mech the way the GAU8 pawns a soviet tank. Just a gun that does enough damage to make it worth including in the game.

Edited by malibu43, 09 January 2013 - 10:41 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kivin, on 09 January 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

You all have lost your way. Arguing about sarna and tabletop backstory in an MWO balance discussion is pointless white noise. It's ridiculous. Refer to my post on page 3 regarding player choices if you want something to argue about. Or keep generating more pages of threads bantering back and forth about sarna.



And how performant where the PPCs in the infantry? You're ridiculous.

Wouldn't know we didn't have PPCs to fire. nor did we have armor materials from 2400 different planets... Your just refusing to accept an apposing opinion with respect. I have not insulted any of the other individuals in this discussion, I will expect the same respect in return. it does your position no good to go there sir.

[Red squirrel]

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.

Exactly what it needs bro!

[Joseph Mallan]

malibu43, on 09 January 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

While you certainly have more experience in this area than I do, I can point what the GAU8 is capable of doing on an A-10 (never fired one, just going off of internetz and youtoobz). Is a mech tougher than T-72? Probably. But I'm not asking for a gun that pawns a mech the way the GAU8 pawns a soviet tank. Just a gun that does enough damage to make it worth including in the game.

By the Lore of BattleTech... the Tanks are tougher that the T-72. It;s been discussed to death on the Battletech forums. 31 century Tanks are inferior to Mechs, their weapons are on par, but tanks die much easier than a Mechs.

Quote

[color=#000000]The GAU-8 itself weighs 620 pounds (280 kg), but the complete weapon, with feed system and drum, weighs 4,029 pounds (1,828 kg) with a maximum ammunition load. It measures 19 ft 5[/color] ¹[color=#000000]⁄[/color]₂[color=#000000] in (5.931 m) from the muzzle to the rearmost point of the ammunition system, and the ammunition drum alone is 34.5 inches (88 cm) in diameter and 71.5[/color]

2 tons with ammo. a very light Auto Cannon.

[Operant]

For the people still complaining that MG is an anti-infantry gun---what then is the solution? I guess we'll just have to give up and remove MG from the game.

[JSArrakis]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 January 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

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.

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.

[Kivin]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 January 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Wouldn't know we didn't have PPCs to fire. nor did we have armor materials from 2400 different planets... Your just refusing to accept an apposing opinion with respect. I have not insulted any of the other individuals in this discussion, I will expect the same respect in return. it does your position no good to go there sir.

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.

[The Mecha Streisand]

rgreat, on 09 January 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

In BT rules MachineGun do same damage as AC2. Thats all.

And commonly-issued small arms since the 18th Century AD have had longer effective ranges than our new 31st Century machineguns.

I just saw some folks playing large-scale tabletop turn-based this past weekend at a comic shop. They're still out there, for those inclined to care about TT rules...

[Kivin]

Operant, on 09 January 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

For the people still complaining that MG is an anti-infantry gun---what then is the solution? I guess we'll just have to give up and remove MG from the game.

The "opposition" (read: Mallen) has already said that the MG could and should be removed from the game. I can't imagine why he (or anyone for that matter) would think that's a good idea.

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.

+1 to everything in this. Thank you for saying it. Furthermore, please actually read the link I posted in my page three post. Actually, let me link it again for you.

[malibu43]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 January 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

... 2 tons with ammo. a very light Auto Cannon.

And I would be totally down for that, assuming damage was something like that of a small laser (give or take depending on fire rate, ammo, heat, etc...). Filling the 2 ballistics slots on my Raven 4X with 4 tons or usefulness is much better than trying to fit 14 tons of usefulness, or 2 tons of not-usefulness.

Edited by malibu43, 09 January 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

It's about time the MGs were given SOME sort of buff so they are a viable weapon choice.

And for all of you saying MGs are anti-infantry/light vehicle only weapons..really? Some of you have played TT like Joseph, but you don't use the MG? I created an IS version of the Piranha years before the Clans were introduced in TT, and guess what? It ripped through anything it encountered in nothing flat, especially when it was used as it was designed to be used, JJ in behind the target, open fire, JJ out again. 20+ drops and over 50 kills before the prototype was taken out by a Warhammer..flippable arms..totally forgot about them when I jumped in behind that Hammer..mutual kill though, so it wasn't a total loss.

So..you keep telling yourself that MGs are useless against Mechs...

[MuFasa]

I think this is a case of the OP being a MG fan and wanting his weapon boosted ireguardless of balance or anything else. I think cannon is fine, TT stuff should be a basis, but balance in a turn based system vs a real time system are two totaly different things. Many times I think that is lost in the wash of people screaming "in TT the Xweapon does Y!!!" So far with a few notable exceptions the game feels mostly right. There are some issues, but mg's IMHO are not one of them. Not saying people aren't entitled to their opinion but its not really an issue in my eyes.