261 replies to this topic

[Carrioncrows]

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.

That would be important if the 2 DPS wasn't spread over several locations.

Your right the AC20 does do 4 dps which is exactly how much DPS an AC2 does.

Exactly who would say the AC2 is better than a AC20? Who would say a AC2 is even comparable to a AC20?

No one.

Same with the machinegun.

We've had, played, tested bad idea's for MG's, lets try a good idea for a change.

Endorse this idea.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 26 February 2013 - 08:56 AM.

[armyof1]

While I agree the MGs should do more damage overall, 2 dps does sound too much for a ballistic that weighs that little. I think it should be something comparable to a small laser so 0,5-1 dps would seem reasonable depending on optimum range and how much heat it should generate. Because with the weight of all other ballistics being from 6 tons and up, there are some really ridiculous ballstic hardpoints on a couple of mechs right now that are useless, which in effect make that variant of the chassi close to useless too.

Edited by armyof1, 26 February 2013 - 05:00 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I tend to believe 2 DPS is too much, but 0.8 DPS is definitely the minimum required value, and even 1.2 will probably be okay.

[stjobe]

armyof1, on 26 February 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

While I agree the MGs should do more damage overall, 2 dps does sound too much

It only "sounds" too much because you keep forgetting that in order to achieve those 2 DPS it needs to be on-target 100% of the time. Slip off the target for a tenth of a second and you're down to 1.8 DPS.

No other weapon has this mechanic, so straight-up DPS comparisons to instant-hit or beam duration weapons are in essence pointless: with a beam duration weapon you only need to be on-target for the duration of the beam (which tends to be in the 25% range of the complete cycle), and with instant-hit weapons you only need to be on-target for the time it takes to pull the trigger.

[Carrioncrows]

stjobe, on 26 February 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

It only "sounds" too much because you keep forgetting that in order to achieve those 2 DPS it needs to be on-target 100% of the time. Slip off the target for a tenth of a second and you're down to 1.8 DPS.

No other weapon has this mechanic, so straight-up DPS comparisons to instant-hit or beam duration weapons are in essence pointless: with a beam duration weapon you only need to be on-target for the duration of the beam (which tends to be in the 25% range of the complete cycle), and with instant-hit weapons you only need to be on-target for the time it takes to pull the trigger.

Exactly.

Strictly speaking a Small laser actually deals 12 DPS. (HUH?)

It deals 3 dmg over the time of .75 secs which is 12 dps, But it had a 3 sec cooldown.

Out of 3.75 secs you only have to be on target .75 secs to deal 3 damage.

To deal 3 damage with a MG you have to be on target 1.50 secs, and to deal that 3 damage to the same spot you have to stay on location for that 1.5 secs.

But the small laser only weighs 0.5 tons, and the MG weighs 1.5 tons.

It's no were near overpowered and if your thinking it comes close that's where the 200 rounds of ammo comes in. (Once again a suggestion, not a set in stone deal breaker)

Edited by Carrioncrows, 26 February 2013 - 06:27 AM.

[Yokaiko]

stjobe, on 26 February 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

It only "sounds" too much because you keep forgetting that in order to achieve those 2 DPS it needs to be on-target 100% of the time. Slip off the target for a tenth of a second and you're down to 1.8 DPS.

+1

The exact reason that every Phract you see isn't quad AC2, afterall the paper dps is better than twice that of a AC20pult.

.....yet we call one a trollaphract, and the other a whackapult. Which do you see more of.

[Terror Teddy]

One problem with the MG's is that in order for them as the ONLY weapon to be viable they need to be fired in a group. The Spider with X4 of them is a good example and with 2 tonnes of ammo we are talking 4 Tonnes for (literally) pitiful DPS.

I do think that since an MG CAN run out of ammo it should at least have 1 DPS like the SL because unlike the SL you cant really group them as efficiently as the SL because you simply have no hulls with the appropriate ballistic slots.

Unless they release something like the Piranha with X12 MG's or pack the Jagermech with 4 or more per arm (which I would love and make the Machinegun King)

[HRR Insanity]

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.

At a range of 90m? You have to have some incentive for limiting your range so profoundly...

[Alvor]

To summarize if using Canon BT/MW:
The Machine Gun should do 2Damage (Just like the AC/2) with 90m Range & 0.5 ton ammo lots.
The Flamer (Maybe fireballs instead of flame thrower) should do 2Damage with 90m Range & have burn effect on trees/buildings making lasting heat/smoke cover time.


All this information was taken from http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Main_Page which is one of the best resources for Battletech information.

FYI TT range is 30m per 1.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Gun
Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers. Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire, though they are more commonly found on Combat Vehicles and ProtoMechs.^[3] These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns.^[4] Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins.^[5]
Ammo Handling BattleMechs and vehicles (massing more than 5 tons) allot Machine Gun ammunition in half-ton (100 "round") as well as full ton (200 "round") lots. Powered Armor (of all types, including BattleArmor) and vehicles massing less than 5 tons are alloted ammo in 5 kg lots that are consumed in a single "round" or turn of fire.

Machine Gun
Production information
Type Ballistic (Anti-Infantry)
Tech Base Clan / Inner Sphere(IS)
Year Availability Pre-spaceflight
Technical specifications
Heat 0
Damage 2
Min Range 0
Short Range 1
Medium Range 2
Long Range 3
Tons
Clan = .25
IS = .5
Critical Slots 1
Ammo Per Ton 200


http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Flamer
Flamer taps into a BattleMech's reactor to produce heat in the form of a plasma release.^[3] An extremely short-ranged weapon, the Flamer is devastating against infantry, however damage done against other 'Mechs and vehicles is negligible, though it can raise the enemy unit's heat levels. The Flamer is also often used to set ambient objects such as trees aflame, making it useful for burning forests or cities in order to slow the enemy down or cover friendly movements. A clear example of such is theFirestarter BattleMech.

Flamer
Production information
Type Energy (Heat-Inducing, Anti-Infantry)
Tech Base Clan / Inner Sphere
Year Availability 2025
Technical specifications
Heat 3
Damage 2
Min Range n/a
Short Range 1
Medium Range 2
Long Range 3
Tons
Clan = 0.5
Inner Sphere = 1
Critical Slots 1
Ammo Per Ton n/a


http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC-2
Autocannon 2 is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.
Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/2s having an extremely long range at the cost of having a very small damage output.

Autocannon/2
Production information
Type Ballistic (Direct Fire)
Tech Base Inner Sphere
Year Availability 2300 (TH)
Technical specifications
Heat 1
Damage 2
Min Range 4
Short Range 1-8
Medium Range 9-16
Long Range 17-24
Tons 6
Critical Slots 1
Ammo Per Ton 45

[stjobe]

Carrioncrows, on 26 February 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Exactly.

Strictly speaking a Small laser actually deals 12 DPS. (HUH?)

It deals 3 dmg over the time of .75 secs which is 12 dps, But it had a 3 sec cooldown.

Out of 3.75 secs you only have to be on target .75 secs to deal 3 damage.

To deal 3 damage with a MG you have to be on target 1.50 secs, and to deal that 3 damage to the same spot you have to stay on location for that 1.5 secs.

But the small laser only weighs 0.5 tons, and the MG weighs 1.5 tons.

It's no were near overpowered and if your thinking it comes close that's where the 200 rounds of ammo comes in. (Once again a suggestion, not a set in stone deal breaker)

While I agree with you, I feel the need to correct your numbers a bit:

The Small Laser does 4 DPS for the 0.75 seconds the beam is burning (4 * 0.75 = 3), then it cools down for 2.25 seconds (during which time it does 0 DPS). To extrapolate those 4 DPS throughout the full cycle into 12 DPS is stretching things a bit more than I'm comfortable with

On the other hand, you're a bit optimistic about the time it'd take a Machine Gun to do 3 damage: At the current 0.4 DPS would actually take 7.5 seconds to do the same 3 damage that Small Laser does in 0.75 seconds - exactly ten times as long! - or if you want you could say the current MG has exactly a tenth of the DPS of a Small Laser.

Isn't that funny? One weapon is listed at 1 DPS, the other at 0.4 DPS, yet the 1 DPS one does ten times as much damage as the 0.4 DPS one.

Hence, why straight-up DPS comparisons are, indeed, silly, and why people that without any explanation or extrapolation just state that 2 DPS on a MG is "too much" aren't really fruitful to listen to.

My personal opinion about what to do with the MG is still to just triple the damage. Roll back the crit buff, it's useless, and just triple the damage per bullet. Instant viable light-weight ballistic option. Useful in pairs or quads, but not overpowered by any stretch of the imagination.

[Carrioncrows]

It would take 1.5 sec if the MG used my numbers above of 0.2 dmg a shot, 10 shots a sec suggestion.

Yeah at 0.04 it would take forever, hence why it's not useful.

[Yokaiko]

HRR Insanity, on 26 February 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

At a range of 90m? You have to have some incentive for limiting your range so profoundly...

Ballistic 90m.

So figure half damage at 180 and 0 at 270, basically SRM range. I said 1DPS ....as a bottom to be "usefull" at 2 DPS they couple (maybe) even be desirable.

Mainly I wan't to see the sub 50 tonners with a bunch of ballistic slots NOT be "LOL a -4x) and that would go a long way there.

As I said, you can't boat MGs, there are only three mechs (soon 4) that can even mount 4.

[stjobe]

Carrioncrows, on 26 February 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

It would take 1.5 sec if the MG used my numbers above of 0.2 dmg a shot, 10 shots a sec suggestion.

Yeah at 0.04 it would take forever, hence why it's not useful.

Ah, I see. My bad then, carry on

[ElLocoMarko]

Please ignore the DPS quotes in the beginning of the thread as those are all hypothetical pre-patch.
With the 12.5x multiplier and the higher crit chances...

Current MG damage is 0.4 DPS (10 shots per second) versus armor and internal structure and
5.05 DPS versus items. (0.4 * 1x crit chance * 12.5 * 1 + 0.4 * 2x crit chance * 12.5 * 2 ...)

A quad MG spider could destroy 1 ton of ammunition (heath 10) in half a second. It took four ballistic hard points to do that, but the spider really can't mount much else even if they only go 1T ammo per two MG's. That still gives 100s of continuous fire.

MG's can chop items out of stripped sections quite quickly but I do doubt the current usefulness.
When engines start to have health values this will be a different discussion... I walk around with a naked front or back CT all the time thanks to all those wicked snipers out there.

I believe my all too common experience is "I'll just peak over this ridge. OW OW OW OW... Mkay.. the enemy is over there."

[Zyllos]

ElLocoMarko, on 26 February 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

Please ignore the DPS quotes in the beginning of the thread as those are all hypothetical pre-patch.
With the 12.5x multiplier and the higher crit chances...

Current MG damage is 0.4 DPS (10 shots per second) versus armor and internal structure and
5.05 DPS versus items. (0.4 * 1x crit chance * 12.5 * 1 + 0.4 * 2x crit chance * 12.5 * 2 ...)

A quad MG spider could destroy 1 ton of ammunition (heath 10) in half a second. It took four ballistic hard points to do that, but the spider really can't mount much else even if they only go 1T ammo per two MG's. That still gives 100s of continuous fire.

MG's can chop items out of stripped sections quite quickly but I do doubt the current usefulness.
When engines start to have health values this will be a different discussion... I walk around with a naked front or back CT all the time thanks to all those wicked snipers out there.

I believe my all too common experience is "I'll just peak over this ridge. OW OW OW OW... Mkay.. the enemy is over there."

Also, ammo explosions need to be removed from completely destroying a section of internal structure. If you don't get a critical hit before removing a section, then you don't get a critical hit. I think this will add value to weapons which seek critical hits, searching for ammo.

But also adding engine critical kills, actuator destruction, life support destruction, gyro hits, ect, will add more value to these types of weapons.

[HRR Insanity]

ElLocoMarko, on 26 February 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

Please ignore the DPS quotes in the beginning of the thread as those are all hypothetical pre-patch.
With the 12.5x multiplier and the higher crit chances...

Current MG damage is 0.4 DPS (10 shots per second) versus armor and internal structure and
5.05 DPS versus items. (0.4 * 1x crit chance * 12.5 * 1 + 0.4 * 2x crit chance * 12.5 * 2 ...)

MGs do not do any additional damage vs. internal structure. They are still worthless weapons.

[Sifright]

HRR Insanity, on 02 March 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

MGs do not do any additional damage vs. internal structure. They are still worthless weapons.

It's amusing to see all the people that argued with you stating pgis changes would make mgs not worthless, given that after the changes even with a massively radical boost to damage to equipment for mgs they are still terrible.

[HRR Insanity]

Sifright, on 02 March 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

It's amusing to see all the people that argued with you stating pgis changes would make mgs not worthless, given that after the changes even with a massively radical boost to damage to equipment for mgs they are still terrible.

I tried to tell Paul (and PGI). Any reasonably competent player could tell you that the weapon would remain useless because competent players can tell how game balance changes will affect the game.

PGI is pretty bad at playing the game, and, as a result, they don't have any understanding of how their changes affect the game balance. Examples abound... ECM, MGs, Flamers, SSRMs, the capture mechanics, pinpoint precision... etc etc etc.

They need to invest in some high level play-testers (ie: skilled at the game) rather than just guessing.

Edited by HRR Insanity, 02 March 2013 - 06:19 PM.

[PANZERBUNNY]

"Viable".

I hate the term.

MG's are slightly useful now and those who like to make challenge builds will excel in them.

[Sifright]

HRR Insanity, on 02 March 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

I tried to tell Paul (and PGI). Any reasonably competent player could tell you that the weapon would remain useless because competent players can tell how game balance changes will affect the game.

PGI is pretty bad at playing the game, and, as a result, they don't have any understanding of how their changes affect the game balance. Examples abound... ECM, MGs, SSRM implementation, pinpoint precision... etc etc etc.

They need to invest in some high level play-testers rather than just guessing.

I just don't understand how they aren't seeing these problems though.

Min/maxing is remarkably easy to do in any game as math heavy as this. You don't even need to break out spread sheets to see the problem examples and yet it takes a frustratingly long time for problematic weapons to be noticed as such by pgi.

Not only does the MG have the worst damage of any weapon in the game making it garbage, it also has the worst firing mechanic requiring you to hold the weapon on an enemy mech 100% of the time to achieve its damage potential which is already astonishingly poor.

I still don't get how any one thought buffing the rate at which the mg murders equipment would help it when any section stripped of armour is going to be blown to shreds in seconds by any half component pilot, even an Atlases internal structure doesn't have nearly enough HP to allow the MG to be useful in blowing out equipment.

Edited by Sifright, 02 March 2013 - 06:21 PM.