261 replies to this topic

[XWorldEaterX]

Yokaiko, on 15 January 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

It would need a cycle time, or you would have people stacking piles of them on awesomes and jamming weapon group keys in so they can use their heavy energy builds.

I don't think we want un-heatable x5 Flamer Awesomes blasting away with x3 ER-PPCs at RoF.

But I like playing awesomes.... and I like flame throwers.... My dreams!!!!

On a more serious note I did see this guy using three flamers on an awesome and while I didn't notice any change in my team members heat I did notice it is really hard to see when being flamed from the front by three flamers.

[Yokaiko]

XWorldEaterX, on 15 January 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

But I like playing awesomes.... and I like flame throwers.... My dreams!!!!

On a more serious note I did see this guy using three flamers on an awesome and while I didn't notice any change in my team members heat I did notice it is really hard to see when being flamed from the front by three flamers.

Depending on the build three may not have been enough to out do his heatsinks. With 9 flamers you can't shut down most mechs, but if you get them to shut down you can keep them that way and heat them over 100 until the explode from internal damage.

[XWorldEaterX]

Yokaiko, on 15 January 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

Depending on the build three may not have been enough to out do his heatsinks. With 9 flamers you can't shut down most mechs, but if you get them to shut down you can keep them that way and heat them over 100 until the explode from internal damage.

lol thats sound pretty awesome. I see lots of people overheat. I might have to try this with my aweomse, now if only I had 9+ energy hardponits. Might be time to buy a hunchback

[stjobe]

Jaynestown, on 15 January 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

MG and Flamers should have comparable damage per second to a small laser when fired at a component that has lost 100% of its armor (+damage vs internals). Against a target with armor, they should do around the same damage they do now. Wouldn't that solve the problem?

No, because keeping them at their current negligible damage to armour also keeps them from being actually useful. Which in turn means nobody will bother with mounting them if they can mount something actually useful instead.

Actually useful would be comparable damage to that of a Small Laser, period. No crit buff needed, just increased damage.

[Yokaiko]

stjobe, on 15 January 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

Actually useful would be comparable damage to that of a Small Laser, period. No crit buff needed, just increased damage.

My exact point. Plus like I said, at one DPS you still have a lot more uptime to actually get that damage on target. It would be a nice buff for the redheaded-step child lights and Cicadas....

.....and give us an option for the -4X that is "LOL GAUSS RAVEN"

[hammerreborn]

Yokaiko, on 15 January 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

Depending on the build three may not have been enough to out do his heatsinks. With 9 flamers you can't shut down most mechs, but if you get them to shut down you can keep them that way and heat them over 100 until the explode from internal damage.

Flamers add a constant percentage, no increase or decrease as far as I'm aware. No testing I have done has ever gotten anyone above 10-13% with 6 flamers to their center torso, and they can cool normally after firing, just never drop below that 13% threshold.

Meanwhile, using 6 flamers, you can never go below 42%

[Yokaiko]

hammerreborn, on 15 January 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

Flamers add a constant percentage, no increase or decrease as far as I'm aware. No testing I have done has ever gotten anyone above 10-13% with 6 flamers to their center torso, and they can cool normally after firing, just never drop below that 13% threshold.

Meanwhile, using 6 flamers, you can never go below 42%

Right, which cuts into heavy energy builds overhead, and it WILL hold them in shutdown.

[Trauglodyte]

Like I said:

- Raise the damage to 0.075 damage per shot (0.75 DPS)
- Halve the soon to be release crit modifier

The end result for crits is the same, you've upped the damage to be near the ratio of what it was to a Small Laser in TT, and you've now got 150 damage per ton of ammo just like every other ballistic weapon.

And the word they said is "balance".

[shintakie]

Yokaiko, on 15 January 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

Right, which cuts into heavy energy builds overhead, and it WILL hold them in shutdown.

It...doesnt work that way though?

Flamers, in effect, don't actually give heat. They raise the minimum heat for a mech. It has absolutely no effect on shutdown mechs at all, nor does it slow the dissipation of heat while you use it.

[HRR Insanity]

Tested the changes and, as I predicted... MGs and Flamers are still useless.

Paul... it's time to up the damage.

You can keep the bonus critical effect if you wish for flavor, but without a damage buff, no one will taste that flavor because MGs and flamers remain useless.

[Khobai]

The only way actively seeking critical hits would make sense is if internal structure was substantially increased. Right now internal structure is destroyed so fast that using weapons that crit is 100% pointless.

Edited by Khobai, 25 February 2013 - 11:16 PM.

[Elizander]

Dakkath, on 14 January 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

It'd be nice to give them more range. I know this goes against TT rules, but in all reality, the MG should shoot farther than it does, but just less accurate the greater the range.

Allowing your mech to cool down while you use the MG's on a heavily damaged sections is a great idea. I like the new critical hit stuff. (just want more range on the gun).

I'd love more range as well. 2x or 3x more please.

[Carrioncrows]

As i've posted before in other threads.

MG -
0.2 dmg a shot
10 shots a sec
2 DPS
200 rounds of ammo a ton.

Anything less than 2 dps is a waste of time. Simply put you need that damage to be significant and noticeable There are no low weight ballistic options so this needs to work. The downside is the low ammo capacity. That's cool because the MG is a raw DPS ammo dump. And it should be.

Problem. Solved.

Flamers I like the idea of them destroying a % of the heat efficiency rather than just adding heat. That's a nifty way to go about it and I support this idea. Like jumpjets I think we need flame bursts since the flamethrower is basically venting plasma give it time to build up before venting out. That way we can just have it do 2 dmg over 1 sec every 3 secs like a laser.

Problem. Solved.

Pulse lasers

I don't like pulse lasers but there is a way to fix these so they preform better than regular lasers. That fix is simple. The damage is spread out over the corse of the entire beam .75 secs. This is a mistake. Pulse lasers in TT were renown for their +2 Aiming bonus so I think what we can do is incorporate this.

Lets take a Medium pulse laser, it deals 6 damage over the course of .75 secs. Instead of having the entire damage of the laser spread through the entire .75 secs lets condense the bulk of it to happen in the middle of the beam.

Divide the pulse laser up into 3 equal parts with the majority of dmg triggering in the middle, this allows players a short time to correct their aim before the bulk of their damage hits.

Medium pulse laser - 0.75 total - 6 dmg.
First 0.25 secs it deals 1 dmg
Second 0.25 secs it deals 4 dmg
Last 0.25 secs it deals 1 dmg

Over all nothing has changed as far as damage / heat / slots but the way that damage is dealt is drastically improved and more in line with making the pulse lasers a viable alternative over regular lasers.

Problem. Solved.

I could go on but I'll get my own thread.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 25 February 2013 - 11:22 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Carrioncrows, on 25 February 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

As i've posted before in other threads.

MG -
0.2 dmg a shot
10 shots a sec
2 DPS
200 rounds of ammo a ton.

Anything less than 2 dps is a waste of time. Simply put you need that damage to be significant and noticeable There are no only low eight ballistic options so this needs to work. The downside is the low ammo capacity. That's cool because the MG is a raw DPS ammo dump. And it should be.

Problem. Solved.

The MG's total damage per ton is going to have to be at least vaguely similar to the other ammo based weapons. With your ammo/ton, you'd do a total of 40 damage per ton of ammo? That's... crazy low. It should at least be 100 damage per ton (500 rounds). That's still well below the AC2 (150 damage/ton, I think...) and every other Ballistic weapon (GR = 150 damage/ton, AC20 = 140 damage/ton, etc).

[Carrioncrows]

HRR Insanity, on 25 February 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

The MG's total damage per ton is going to have to be at least vaguely similar to the other ammo based weapons. With your ammo/ton, you'd do a total of 40 damage per ton of ammo? That's... crazy low. It should at least be 100 damage per ton (500 rounds). That's still well below the AC2 (150 damage/ton, I think...) and every other Ballistic weapon (GR = 150 damage/ton, AC20 = 140 damage/ton, etc).

It seems that way but there is a method to my madness and a reason. The MG should keep it's critical bonuses like it has now but the 200 ammo per ton is reasonable.

This gives the MG 20 secs of fire per ton.
The AC20 only has 28 secs of fire per ton.

The ammo pool feels very low but the damage it pumps out is extraordinarily high for a no heat weapon and it has to be high to be useful sot he trade off has to come from somewhere.

The 200 rounds per ton just makes sense.

Would you consider taking a single ton of ammo for a AC20? Or a single ton of ammo for a Gauss Rifle? No. So why consider it for a MG if you plan on using it extensively.

For those that slap it on as an additional low weight option it will work and do it's job.

For those that plan on using it as a primarily damage dealer they are going to have to stock up on some ammo for it.

For a low weight option the MG throws a LOT of DPS for it's range and weight and as I've said it's a "RAW INEFFICIENT DPS DUMP"

I'd rather have to the gun work first and then worry about ammo later.

A MG with x3 tons of ammo (120 dmg) would work out to 3.5 tons exactly half of what the a AC2 with 1 ton (150 dmg) of ammo would be. Which just so happens is 1/2 of what a AC2 dps would be.

I can't make the gun weigh more so the balance has to come from somewhere.

If the ammo really concerns you we can go to a -

MG 0.4 dmg a hit
5 shots a sec
2 DPS
200 Rounds of ammo

That's 40 secs of firing time and 80 dmg a ton.

But at the end of the day I would like a functional weapon, I can deal with drawbacks in ammo if I plan on building extensively around the weapon. But what i can't deal with is having 2 battle tech weapons that are worthless.

And right now the MG and Flamer are.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 25 February 2013 - 11:47 PM.

[shintakie]

Carrioncrows, on 25 February 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

It seems that way but there is a method to my madness and a reason. The MG should keep it's critical bonuses like it has now but the 200 ammo per ton is reasonable.

This gives the MG 20 secs of fire per ton.
The AC20 only has 28 secs of fire per ton.

The ammo pool feels very low but the damage it pumps out is extraordinarily high for a no heat weapon and it has to be high to be useful sot he trade off has to come from somewhere.

The 200 rounds per ton just makes sense.

Would you consider taking a single ton of ammo for a AC20? Or a single ton of ammo for a Gauss Rifle? No. So why consider it for a MG if you plan on using it extensively.

For those that slap it on as an additional low weight option it will work and do it's job.

For those that plan on using it as a primarily damage dealer they are going to have to stock up on some ammo for it.

For a low weight option the MG throws a LOT of DPS for it's range and weight and as I've said it's a "RAW INEFFICIENT DPS DUMP"

I'd rather have to the gun work first and then worry about ammo later.

A MG with x3 tons of ammo (120 dmg) would work out to 3.5 tons exactly half of what the a AC2 with 1 ton (150 dmg) of ammo would be. Which just so happens is 1/2 of what a AC2 dps would be.

I can't make the gun weigh more so the balance has to come from somewhere.

If the ammo really concerns you we can go to a -

MG 0.4 dmg a hit
5 shots a sec
2 DPS
200 Rounds of ammo

That's 40 secs of firing time and 80 dmg a ton.

But at the end of the day I would like a functional weapon, I can deal with drawbacks in ammo if I plan on building extensively around the weapon. But what i can't deal with is having 2 battle tech weapons that are worthless.

And right now the MG and Flamer are.

And the AC/20 in the 28 seconds of firin would do 140 damage compared to the MG's 40.

That's not acceptable and I really don't understand why you think it is.

[Carrioncrows]

shintakie, on 25 February 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

And the AC/20 in the 28 seconds of firin would do 140 damage compared to the MG's 40.

That's not acceptable and I really don't understand why you think it is.

Because for .5 tons it can do 2 dps and that is amazing.

Lets take a Spider-5K
4MG's - 2 tons
4 tons of ammo
1 Medium laser.

9.25 dps every sec for 7 tons.

Over the course of 20 secs (which is how long your ammo would last) you would deal a grand total of 185 provided every shot hit. That is an amazing amount of firepower.

But that's in a perfect world and if you were just standing still point blank letting each other have it.

That 20 secs of ammo would last closer to 40-50 secs as your target gets out of view or out of range and you cycle the weapon on and off.

The reason is:
Less than 2 DPS a sec makes the MG worthless. 1 dps, is just as bad as 0.4 dps as it is now. Just not enough damage to be worthwhile.
MG's have a range of 90m (For full 0.2 dmg) and 90m - 200m (for 0.1 dmg)
MG's generate zero heat.

So where is your balance? It has to come from the ammo.

I think 200 ammo is good, it's canon, but honestly It's an example, and at the end of the day I could care less about the final ammo count.

What I care about is the DPS.

Lets get the DPS up to 2 and then worry about how much ammo later.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 26 February 2013 - 12:15 AM.

[Khobai]

2 DPS for a machine gun? What?! An AC/20 only does 4 dps. And you want to give a spider the equivalent of two AC/20s worth of DPS?

No no no. A machine gun should do 0.6 dps (50% damage increase). Plus the crit damage boost.

[sC4r]

what MG is good for now (and what lots of peeps forget) is crits to ammo
should you be unlucky to have destroyed armor on your ammo rack and meet mg cicada or spider you may as well catapult

[Zaptruder]

Khobai, on 26 February 2013 - 12:21 AM, said:

2 DPS for a machine gun? What?! An AC/20 only does 4 dps. And you want to give a spider the equivalent of two AC/20s worth of DPS?

No no no. A machine gun should do 0.6 dps (50% damage increase). Plus the crit damage boost.

DPS is only a single metric of viability. From the user feedback generated from millions of hours of play testing during this open beta period, alpha strike damage is also an important metric, if not as important of a metric of damage. And in that scenario, AC20s are a massive 100 times better than the proposed 2.0 DPS machine gun.


The reality is, even with a 2.0 DPS, a good deal of that damage is mitigated through misses, and spraying all over the body of the mech. It's effective DPS against a targeted area as a result is much lower.

This isn't at all too far out of line with the buff to damage that missles have recieved (because of the increase to armor... which resulted from the ability to target weapons at specific locations).

In addition, its usefulness is mitigated by its distance (most engagements occur well over 90m); and unlike SRM6s, you are not able to boat enough of them on any mech where they're considerably fearsome; at least not when the opportunity cost is an actual ballistic weapon.

Finally, when they run out of ammo (at 200 or even 300/ton they will do so in short order), they're no longer viable.

Oh we could just continue to relegate them to the weapon bins marked useless; there are a few of those in the game and no one minds *that much*.