261 replies to this topic

[Bitslizer]

It means, unlike TT where when engine get damage in TT additional Heat is generated and or suffer movement slow down (ie lower max speed),

vs in MWO engine damage have no effect/penalty, until when the Engine suffer a total of 15HP worth of total critical hit damage from ANY torso critical hits that land on the engine, then the engine and mech go kaboom.

Budor, on 14 January 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

"Critical damage to the side torso hit boxes of XL engines deals damage to the engine as a whole. However, it should be noted that, currently, critical damage to your engine will not disable it, but simply add to your repair bill. This is likely to change when we do the pass on the health values."

From: http://mwomercs.com/...get-back-to-us/ Post #19

Does critical dmg lower engine hp to 1 but not disable it? I dont really get what this means...

its also why Gauss/AC20 are so effective, if they manage to land a critical hit on an engine at all, they WILL destroy the engine/mech in 1 hit

Edited by Bitslizer, 14 January 2013 - 03:05 PM.

[De La Fresniere]

It'll still do awful damage, at ultra-short range, with significant spread. Basically it'll be useless 2/3 of the match and only situationally useful later.

I'd have just tripled its base damage... it'd still be pretty weak crit-wise, but it'd at least be useful.

Sad that the game's lightest viable Ballistic weapon weighs 8+ tons.

[Tennex]

only thing paul is doing is adding a multiplier.

So if it used to pour damage into internals. it will still do it, but better


no matter how you look at it its an upgrade.

[AC]

Last I checked I have only gotten "Component Destroyed" XP from completely taking out an arm, torso, etc. So MG are still worthless......

[Bitslizer]

AC, on 14 January 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

Last I checked I have only gotten "Component Destroyed" XP from completely taking out an arm, torso, etc. So MG are still worthless......

lol they should rename that body part destroyed instead

[stjobe]

Tennex, on 14 January 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

only thing paul is doing is adding a multiplier.

So if it used to pour damage into internals. it will still do it, but better


no matter how you look at it its an upgrade.

Yes, it's an upgrade. Just like a Pyrrhic victory is still a victory.

Unless that multiplier is insane (and therefore makes taking more than one MG an instant-kill on an exposed hit location), the MG is still going to be useless.

I just don't see the point to it. The MG should be a viable weapon in its own right, not just as a finisher weapon. Any weapon is a finisher weapon; why is it that the MG should *only* be a finisher weapon?

With those 1.5 tons (or two tons for two MGs + ammo) I can instead mount three Small Lasers and do nine damage, or two medium lasers and do ten damage, both of which will destroy components outright on any type of crit, whereas the MG probably won't.

Not to mention that the SL/ML is also useful for the first three-quarters of the match, not just at the end.

[Bitslizer]

stjobe, on 14 January 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

With those 1.5 tons (or two tons for two MGs + ammo) I can instead mount three Small Lasers and do nine damage, or two medium lasers and do ten damage, both of which will destroy components outright on any type of crit, whereas the MG probably won't.

Not to mention that the SL/ML is also useful for the first three-quarters of the match, not just at the end.

assuming you still have any left over hardpoints? I can see it MAYBE being useful on mech like the hunchback 4G or the Raven 4x

Edited by Bitslizer, 14 January 2013 - 03:29 PM.

[Lucian Arkright]

But... They don't go DAKKA!

[DrxAbstract]

stjobe, on 14 January 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Yes, it's an upgrade. Just like a Pyrrhic victory is still a victory.

Unless that multiplier is insane (and therefore makes taking more than one MG an instant-kill on an exposed hit location), the MG is still going to be useless.

I just don't see the point to it. The MG should be a viable weapon in its own right, not just as a finisher weapon. Any weapon is a finisher weapon; why is it that the MG should *only* be a finisher weapon?

With those 1.5 tons (or two tons for two MGs + ammo) I can instead mount three Small Lasers and do nine damage, or two medium lasers and do ten damage, both of which will destroy components outright on any type of crit, whereas the MG probably won't.

Not to mention that the SL/ML is also useful for the first three-quarters of the match, not just at the end.

You're not taking into account that Light mechs will most likely be using them, and they're sneaky little buggers - One pop from my dual SRM4's usually opens up the rear torso, and while MLs and SLs are good, you usually have to go through the entirety of their Internals HP to take down your target, whereas if MGs and Flamers turn out to be effective Internals ravagers, they would become much more useful than either an extra ML or SL... Especially if your target is another light with an exposed side torso. That's speaking under current game/lag conditions for me though... It's entirely possible they fix the netcode and when i aim for a side torso in the future those two MLs will likely be a kill as opposed to MGs.

At the same time, not every chassis has multiple Energy hardpoints.

[Adrienne Vorton]

i for my part - as one of those people who are still against MG´s being mech armor effective - i like the idea of them being more dangerous for unarmored components... makes them viable w/o giving them abilities they were not designed for in the first place...

machine gun arrays would be another story though...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 14 January 2013 - 03:37 PM.

[SpiralRazor]

DrxAbstract, on 14 January 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

You're not taking into account that Light mechs will most likely be using them, and they're sneaky little buggers - One pop from my dual SRM4's usually opens up the rear torso, and while MLs and SLs are good, you usually have to go through the entirety of their Internals HP to take down your target, whereas if MGs and Flamers turn out to be effective Internals ravagers, they would become much more useful than either an extra ML or SL... Especially if your target is another light with an exposed side torso. That's speaking under current game/lag conditions for me though... It's entirely possible they fix the netcode and when i aim for a side torso in the future those two MLs will likely be a kill as opposed to MGs.

At the same time, not every chassis has multiple Energy hardpoints.

Light mechs dont need any more buffs because essentially thats what youre stating here.

Adrienne Vorton, on 14 January 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

i for my part - as one of those people who are still against MG´s being mech armor effective - i like the idea of them being dangerous for unarmored components... makes them viable w/o giving them abilities they were not designed for in the first place...

machine gun arrays would be another story though...

Because 25mm chain guns arent effective against tank armor right?

[Jetfire]

Thanks but I like PGI's idea much better.

The MG does 0.04 damage per round, 10 rounds per second, for a total of 0.4 DPS.

NOW lets look at this closer. 10 rounds per second is 10 crit chances per second. Now if the average crit chance is say 30%, that is to say roughly 30% of any particular part of a mech is likely to house an internal component, that leaves 3 crits per second. If the multiplier is 25 for MG crit damage that is 1 DMG per round or 3 DPS in crits alone. Now consider this is in addition to the 1x, 2x, 3x dmg to the component.

Basically, there is no where near enough info to judge if this will work at this point, but suffice it to say if I can run around in a raven 4x targeting open spots with just MG's and they go down in a few seconds... that will be a good balance. I like the idea that MG's and flames inside your armor should make you nervous, about as nervous as an AC/20.

Armor on, all's well, armor off... oh crap.

[AC]

Adrienne Vorton, on 14 January 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

i for my part - as one of those people who are still against MG´s being mech armor effective - i like the idea of them being more dangerous for unarmored components... makes them viable w/o giving them abilities they were not designed for in the first place...

machine gun arrays would be another story though...

Are you even familiar with battletech? Machine Guns do the same damage as a small laser. They were basically a no heat, ammo dependant small laser.

Edited by AC, 14 January 2013 - 03:45 PM.

[DrxAbstract]

SpiralRazor, on 14 January 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

Light mechs dont need any more buffs because essentially thats what youre stating here.

That's not what i said... at all. Stating the potential benefit of use and respective mech types associated is not a declaration of 'buffs needed ZOMG'.

[stjobe]

Jetfire, on 14 January 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

Thanks but I like PGI's idea much better.

The MG does 0.04 damage per round, 10 rounds per second, for a total of 0.4 DPS.

NOW lets look at this closer. 10 rounds per second is 10 crit chances per second. Now if the average crit chance is say 30%, that is to say roughly 30% of any particular part of a mech is likely to house an internal component, that leaves 3 crits per second. If the multiplier is 25 for MG crit damage that is 1 DMG per round or 3 DPS in crits alone. Now consider this is in addition to the 1x, 2x, 3x dmg to the component.

There's a 58% chance of not critting with any hit, a 25% chance of doing a single crit, 14% chance of doing a double crit, and a 3% chance of doing a triple crit.

I did the math in another post up-thread, that second of firing with 25x crit damage works out to just 4.96 damage, spread over the components in the location. Let's say an arm with a Medium laser in; that has five components to be crit (four actuators and the laser). Basically you'd need to fire for ten seconds to destroy all the components in that arm.

That's with a 25x crit damage multiplier.

AC, on 14 January 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

Are you even familiar with battletech? Machine Guns do the same damage as a medium laser. They were basically a no heat, ammo dependant medium laser.

No, they don't do Medium Laser damage in BT. They do 2 damage, that's equal to an AC/2 and 2/3rds of Small Laser damage.

In MWO they do 1/10th of AC/2 damage, and a third of Small Laser damage.

Edited by stjobe, 14 January 2013 - 03:45 PM.

[Starburster]

Outside of nailing a gauss I am really only go to care about crit seeking when we get some sort of chance to screw up engines/XLs without the section being gone. Otherwise I am still going for the whole section with something that does some amount of "real" damage. Just my quick 2 cents...

[von Pilsner]

AC, on 14 January 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

Are you even familiar with battletech? Machine Guns do the same damage as a medium laser. They were basically a no heat, ammo dependant medium laser.

WHAT????!? They do the same damage as a Medium Laser???? Maybe you need to re-familiarize yourself with the BT rules before you tell someone else to...

Med Las: Heat 3 Damage 5

MG: Heat 0 Damage 2

[HRR Insanity]

Novawrecker, on 14 January 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

Terrible idea. What's to stop mechs that mount 4 ballistics to carry your version of the MG? That would mean that for 2 mere tons, you have someone shooting your for 4-8 DPS for 0 heat ....

very, VERY bad idea.

Yes, with 4, that 'Mech can do 8DPS at a range of 150m. With ammo. With a huge spread (continuous fire required).

It's roughly equivalent to the same proportional difference between a AC10 and an LL. More damage, but ammo restricted. And yes, it would be cheap, but it's a MG. So make it 1 DPS or 1.5 DPS. Who cares, just make it better.

With the current range, 4 MGs would be ammo limited, spread damage all over, and STILL be less effective than a single AC10/AC20. Yes, it would make 'Mechs with ballistic hardpoints stronger... but currently there are a bunch of light 'Mechs with ballistics that are completely worthless due to the fact that MGs are useless.

Small 'Mechs are designed to pack MGs, SLs, MLs, and SRMs and get behind people. If they don't have the ability to do damage, then their maneuverability is worthless.

Are you telling me that 8SLs are unbalanced? We have 'Mechs that currently can mount 9.

Edited by HRR Insanity, 14 January 2013 - 04:00 PM.

[AC]

von Pilsner, on 14 January 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

WHAT????!? They do the same damage as a Medium Laser???? Maybe you need to re-familiarize yourself with the BT rules before you tell someone else to...

Med Las: Heat 3 Damage 5

MG: Heat 0 Damage 2

I was editing as you were typing your response. My fingers got ahead of my brain. Regardless.... they are suppose to do damage, and against armor no less. That was my point.

Edited by AC, 14 January 2013 - 03:53 PM.

[stjobe]

AC, on 14 January 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

Regardless.... they are suppose to do damage, and against armor no less. That was my point.

Indeed.

In Battletech, the MG was no worse an anti-'mech weapon than an AC/2, and 2/3rds as good as the Small Laser.

It's only in MWO that the MG is useless against 'mechs - and we have no infantry to be good against...

BattleTech:
AC/2: 2 damage/turn (0.2 DPS)
SL: 3 damage/turn (0.3 DPS)
MG: 2 damage/turn (0.2 DPS)

MWO:
AC/2: 2 damage/round, 2 rounds/second, 4 DPS
SL: 3 damage per beam, 0.75 beam duration, 2.25 recycle, 1 DPS
MG: 0.04 damage per round, 10 rounds/second, 0.4 DPS

Why? Why does the 6-ton AC/2 get a 20x damage increase compared to BT and the MG only a 2x?
Why does the SL get a 3.33 damage increase compared to BT and the MG only a 2x?
Why can't we have a low-end ballistic weapon worth mounting?

Why, as so many others have pointed out, do all the other ballistic weapons get 140-150 damage per ton of ammo and the MG only 80?

I still believe that the easiest and most fair way of buffing the MG is to increase its damage 3x - we would instantly get a viable low-weight alternative to the Small Laser.