261 replies to this topic

[HighlandCoo]

Mahws, on 14 January 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

Here you go:
http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

Thanks.

Erm this has been up for months. Is there any reason we are having ANOTHER massive thread about MG's and Flamers now?

[De La Fresniere]

HighlandCoo, on 14 January 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:

Thanks.

Erm this has been up for months. Is there any reason we are having ANOTHER massive thread about MG's and Flamers now?

The thread has existed for months, yes. That's how the Command Chair works, there's a thread about an issue and all news about that issue gets posted in the relevant thread.

Look at the last post in the thread.

[HighlandCoo]

Ah I see! Thanks for taking the time to edumacate my ***

[MustrumRidcully]

Jade Kitsune, on 14 January 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

Personally I feel you're completely underestimating the ability's this will bring to the table in the form of teamwork.

Or maybe you're right, maybe what we need is for this game to once again, devlove into PPC-Gauss- poptart warrior: online.

I think people completely overestimate the power of criticals in MW:O. And that includes PGI. The main weapons that are affected by crits are weapons like the AC/10, LB10-X, AC20 and Gauss Rifle. Everything else has enough hit points and such a low hit probability per crit that you are more likely to destroy the entire section before you destroy an item.

How often have you really lost a Medium Laser or a Large Laser to a crit?

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Mechwarrior Online : Where sad people debate why filler weapons of no importance ....need more importance.

[Vassago Rain]

DV McKenna, on 15 January 2013 - 02:05 AM, said:

Mechwarrior Online : Where sad people debate why filler weapons of no importance ....need more importance.

Dear livejournal.

Today, a dev posted a fix for a virtually useless weapon, that would make it not so useless. Of course, he got TOLD.

We don't like your kind around here, stranger. Now let me make another another ANOTHER thread on how useless flamers and machineguns are.

PS: anti-infantry weapons should remain useless forever. In fact, take them out of the game.
PPS: flamers and machineguns suck.

[Radbane]

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.

....with a range of 90m? Oooh scary. Those 4xballistic mechs would be stuipid to just mount MG's

[Abrahms]

You expect PGI to make a logical balance decision? Have you been under a rock for the last 6 months?

Yup, the MG will still be useless. Components already die extremely fast once the armor is off. Im not going to give up a heatsink or ton of ammo on my main weapons so that -IF- I am in a brawl I may strip a weapon 1 - 2 seconds faster. I mean, sure its better than it is now... but still, it isnt worth the weight. But, then again, neither are 3/4 of the weapons implemented.

[Abrahms]

Vassago Rain, on 15 January 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

Dear livejournal.

Today, a dev posted a fix for a virtually useless weapon, that would make it not so useless. Of course, he got TOLD.

We don't like your kind around here, stranger. Now let me make another another ANOTHER thread on how useless flamers and machineguns are.

PS: anti-infantry weapons should remain useless forever. In fact, take them out of the game.
PPS: flamers and machineguns suck.

Who devolved heavy machine guns to infantry only?

Even today heavy machine guns can shred through armor. Even see what a 50 cal does to a jeep? OR WHAT the A-10 warthogs Gau Avenger cannon does to a tank?

Bullet size, weight, velocity, and rate of fire dictate a lot. Machine guns are characterized with smaller rounds but a very high rate of fire to compensate (compared to regular cannons).

I always pictured battletech machine guns as large caliber, fast firing guns (still smaller than the AC2) that could rapidly shave off thin layers of armor and penetrate thinner areas. Even thicker areas could eventually be pulverized in. Just picture a mech mounted with 20 haevy machine guns literally spraying you with thousands of high impact rounds... its gonna do damage.

The dmg of course would be related to its TONNAGE, range, heat, etc. The AC20, for example, would still be 15x more useful, roughly, as it weighs 15 more tons...

But that doesnt mean the MG has to be useless. In fact, it would sort of be a short range AC2.... low dmg, high rate of fire. The AC2 weighs more because of its long range... the MG is very short range, therefore it weighs a lot less.

Edited by Abrahms, 15 January 2013 - 03:18 AM.

[Abrahms]

Also, the change makes no sense... why would an MG do more than a 200mm cannon to internals?

best change would simply be to buff the MGs dmg, and its extra crit chance is merely associated with a high rate of fire (meaning, a large weapon is still likely to crit, its just that with fewer shots, youre less likely to see the effect of crit).

Edited by Abrahms, 15 January 2013 - 03:17 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Abrahms, on 15 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

Who devolved heavy machine guns to infantry only?

Even today heavy machine guns can shred through armor. Even see what a 50 cal does to a jeep? OR WHAT the A-10 warthogs Gau Avenger canon does to a tank?

Bullet size, weight, velocity, and rate of fire dictate a lot. Machine guns are characterized with smaller rounds but a very high rate of fire to compensate (compared to regular canons).

I always pictured battletech machine guns as large caliber, fast firing guns (still smaller than the AC2) that could rapidly shave off thin layers of armor and penetrate thinner areas. Even thicker areas could eventually be pulverized in. Just picture a mech mounted with 20 haevy machine guns literally spraying you with thousands of high impact rounds... its gonna do damage.

The dmg of course would be related to its TONNAGE, range, heat, etc. The AC20, for example, would still be 15x more useful, roughly, as it weighs 15 more tons...

But that doesnt mean the MG has to be useless. In fact, it would sort of be a short range AC2.... low dmg, high rate of fire. The AC2 weighs more because of its long range... the MG is very short range, therefore it weighs a lot less.

Battletech told us they were anti infantry....at least untill the clans make better ones.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Guns

[Taiji]

The machine guns idea seems pretty OK to me.

But with the flamer I'd like to see it given a chance to set internal fires when armor is gone.

Because it would look cool.

Edited by Taiji, 15 January 2013 - 03:22 AM.

[Zero Neutral]

Paul's idea works for me.

It doesn't make much sense for a MG or Flamer to damage armor any way... structure would be far more vulnerable to heat or small caliber fire.

Abrahms, on 15 January 2013 - 03:17 AM, said:

Also, the change makes no sense... why would an MG do more than a 200mm cannon to internals?

best change would simply be to buff the MGs dmg, and its extra crit chance is merely associated with a high rate of fire (meaning, a large weapon is still likely to crit, its just that with fewer shots, youre less likely to see the effect of crit).

MG will never do more damage than a 200mm cannon shell... however, with the proposed changes it will be mildly worthwhile to stick a MG or Flamer on a brawler build.

This might benefit light mechs the most actually.

Edited by Zero Neutral, 15 January 2013 - 03:40 AM.

[Radbane]

DV McKenna, on 15 January 2013 - 03:17 AM, said:

Battletech told us they were anti infantry....at least untill the clans make better ones.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Guns

The same page states a damage of 2, not 0.4 *shrugs*

GIve the MG's a dmg of 2 (with that ridiculs short range it ain't that dangerous anyway) and describe it as a anti-infantry weapon in game. Everybody's happy, right? =)

[Vininator]

*sigh* I guess you can't please everyone.

Paul's idea seemed fine to me. I plan to dust off my 4xMG/LL cicada one this rolls out. How about we see what this does before we bash it? You know, the whole "try it and you might like it" mindset?

[Biruke]

I will find a place for MG or flamer just to burn down Stalkers. Their internals are too strong.

[KerenskyClone]

For all those that think that this is a good fix I have got only one question:
In the last 10 matches, how many times have you actually shot at an unarmored section of an enemy mech before it blew up?

Truthfully whenever I encountered a mech with its armor blown out it was already 3/4 dead anyway, basically if you looked at it "harshly" it would fall over dead....

So explain to me how this fix is going to improve the viability of MG or Flamers in the game....since they are STILL USELESS against armored mechs....and unarmored mechs are basically 'dead-men-walking' anyway.....

Edited by KerenskyClone, 15 January 2013 - 04:46 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

This is how this thread makes me feel, and it's not because of something PGI did.

[Kaijin]

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.

Oh yes. I'm sure this 4-8 DPS threat at 90-120m will ruin the game. How many mechs carry 4 ballistic slots anyway? A Cataphract, and a Cicada - Oh my!

[MustrumRidcully]

Vininator, on 15 January 2013 - 04:20 AM, said:

*sigh* I guess you can't please everyone.

Paul's idea seemed fine to me. I plan to dust off my 4xMG/LL cicada one this rolls out. How about we see what this does before we bash it? You know, the whole "try it and you might like it" mindset?

It isn't simply about pleasing. It's about a question of how the game rules work and how probabilities work.

If Paul told you that to buff PPCs, he decided to increase their damage to 20 per shot, would you say this is a good idea and just give it a try? Or would you be able to predict that this is probably a bad idea and give feedback accordingly?
Your intuitive grasp of the game is probably good enough to give you a bad expectation about this.

And a similar grasp of the game - not necessarily just intuitive, but actually also based on doing a few math exercises, can tell others that buffing MG crits won't make them worth it either.


These factors influence the importance and effect of crits:
How much armour does a mech carry? As long as you have armour on a hit location, you don't take criticals.
How much internal armour does a mech, especially compared to actual armour?
How much hit points does a component have?
How likely is it, that for any given critical hit, a component takes damage?
How much damage does a component take from a critical hit?

A Catapult for example has 10 points of internal armour in one arm. It can carry 4 times this amount in regular armour.
That means you may need to deal up to 40 points of damage to its ear before you can damage any internal component.
Now, it has 10 points of internal armour there. That already tells you - unless you have a significant crit modifier, you will take out the entire hit location before you take out just one component.

But that's not all - each component has 10 hit points right now. You have 12 crit slots in each arm. So there 's only an 8.33 % chance per crit slot that a single component is hit. One could say that on average, each item takes only 8.33 % per crit slot from critical hits. So an Artemis LRM 20 installed in a Catapult would take about 50 % of all critical damage.
It has 10 hit points, so you would need an effective total crit modifier of 2 to destroy the LRM20 before you destroy the entire hit location.

Of course, if the Catapult really has only one Artemis LRM20 in its ear, the chances are better- only crit slots that actually are filled can be target of a critical, so you only have to deal with 1 or 2 arm actuators where you could waste your damage. So it's more a 75 % of crit damage that will got to the LRM, so an effective total crit multiplier of 1.25 would be sufficient.

Now, this is the caclulation that describes the MG reasonable well. Other Ballistics deal a lot more damage per shot, so just relying on the average will probably give us off results - a single AC/20 that lands a critical hit has a good chance to taking out any component it hits, as long as it does hit.

Note that in the above calculations the effective total crit modifier is dependent on the chance to have a 1-hit, 2-hit or 3-hit critical, and the damage multiplier Paul talks about. So if you have a 50 % chance to score a crit a 1-hit critlca (and no chance for a 2-hit or 3-hit crit for simplicity's sake), a damage multipler of 2 for the MG would basically give it a total crit modifier of 100 % (dealing its full damage on average as crit damage).

Now, that was a Catapult. For lighter mechs, the internal armour is even lower, so it's even less likely you experience a crit before your entire location is destroyed. For heavier mechs, the chances get a bit better.
And the Artemis LRM20 is a pretty large weapon. Some ballistics get larger, but energy weapons are all much smaller. And the same is true for other types of components. Most are simply smaller than this.

So the chances of losing equipment to crits is mostly limited to heavy and assault mechs that utilize large weapons like AC/20s, AC/10s, LB10-X-ACs, LRM20s and Gauss Rifles (which have the added "benefit" of less hit points).

And unfortunately, on the mechs most likely to wield such "fragile" weaponry, you will have 4 or more times armour on a hit location than a single component has hit points. So at best you will have 1/5th of your time in destroying a mech where you can take out a component, and it happens to be the last fifth, when the enemy mech is closed to dying. The other 4/5ths he has his full firepower.

It seems wiser to equip weapons that deliver most of thei firepower also in the first 4/5ths of an engagement.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 15 January 2013 - 05:05 AM.