298 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 11 February 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

Mech warrior 2 boated machine guns tore through enemy mechs crazy fast.

AC20s killed lights in a single salvo also... not so successful here are they. Gauss Rifles Head capped All Mechs in a single hit to the head... That does not still happen here either. So If you want this to be more like MW2... can I have Gauss that will head cap in one salvo? Can i have AC20s that ruin a Jenners day with one hit? Proportional damage for ballistics.

[Sifright]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

AC20s killed lights in a single salvo also... not so successful here are they. Gauss Rifles Head capped All Mechs in a single hit to the head... That does not still happen here either. So If you want this to be more like MW2... can I have Gauss that will head cap in one salvo? Can i have AC20s that ruin a Jenners day with one hit? Proportional damage for ballistics.

We don't have proportional damage.

The MG is much worse in MWO than it is in TT comparatively to all the other weapons.

I don't understand why you have such a desperate desire to keep the mg being ****.

Edit:

Because your concerns sure aren't rooted in the gameplay which is why you keep stretching to find examples which are so clearly not of relevance.

Edited by Sifright, 11 February 2013 - 07:28 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 11 February 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

We don't have proportional damage.

The MG is much worse in MWO than it is in TT comparatively to all the other weapons.

I don't understand why you have such a desperate desire to keep the mg being ****.

Look at Ohm's list sir. Small weapon does a little damage individually, mediums do a little more, large weapons do even more. progressionally more damage the bigger the weapon gets. So you find it acceptable for a 0.5 ton weapon to do as much damage as weapon 12 times its mass with projectiles that are 26 times smaller?

And I'm being delusional?

[Sifright]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

Look at Ohm's list sir. Small weapon does a little damage individually, mediums do a little more, large weapons do even more. progressionally more damage the bigger the weapon gets. So you find it acceptable for a 0.5 ton weapon to do as much damage as weapon 12 times its mass with projectiles that are 26 times smaller?

And I'm being delusional?

Yes, because this game isn't realistic and your desperate attempts to rationalize it as such are ridiculous in the face of that.

This is a game we play for fun

The machine gun is supposed to fill the same niche as the small laser but for ballistics.

It fails at that job. No amount of wrangling on your part is going to change that.

Your goal is contrary to what pgi would want.

Any one that prioritizes lore in the fashion you are doing is a fool.

So yes i'm being hostile. I can't stand try hards that want the lore to be picture perfect when we are playing a game that is meant to be fun.

Playing a spider with 4 mgs that do nothing isn't fun.

Edited by Sifright, 11 February 2013 - 07:45 AM.

[FupDup]

Here's something that finally hit me: designing a 500 KG weapon that is useful against infantry exclusively could not possibly be a more re-tarded move on the part of the engineers in BT. In real life, an M4 Carbine will kill infantry in just a few shots (often even one) most of the time while only weighing ~3 KG and with an astronomically longer range (500/600M). If they really want an anti-infantry-only weapon, they should just mount an M4 or two on their mechs and be done with it.

A 500KG weapon that fires 11.2-pound bullets (assuming 200 ammo per ton like TT) that is designed for combating nothing other than infantry is the epitome of human stupidity.

One would think that a 500KG future-weapon would have more utility to it than a present-day infantry-carried rifle that weighs ~3KG...

Edited by FupDup, 11 February 2013 - 08:10 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 11 February 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

Because your concerns sure aren't rooted in the gameplay which is why you keep stretching to find examples which are so clearly not of relevance.

Really? The game play of AC20s and Gauss Rifles were nerfed greatly by the doubling of armor over the old games. What I am finding funny is I have said the MG should have a doubling of its present damage(.8 per second), and all you are seeing is that I don't feel it should be equal to a gun 12 times its size. Just how powerful do you want what amounts to a ballistic pea shooter to be?

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

Really? The game play of AC20s and Gauss Rifles were nerfed greatly by the doubling of armor over the old games. What I am finding funny is I have said the MG should have a doubling of its present damage(.8 per second), and all you are seeing is that I don't feel it should be equal to a gun 12 times its size. Just how powerful do you want what amounts to a ballistic pea shooter to be?

"Appropriately Powerful".

They are not. It isn't really any more difficult then that.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 11 February 2013 - 07:56 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 11 February 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

Playing a spider with 4 mgs that do nothing isn't fun.

i would never play a spider with 4 machine guns any more than I would play one with 2 medium lasers...

See i am not getting mad with you and your position. Why are you taking this so personal?

[Sifright]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

Really? The game play of AC20s and Gauss Rifles were nerfed greatly by the doubling of armor over the old games. What I am finding funny is I have said the MG should have a doubling of its present damage(.8 per second), and all you are seeing is that I don't feel it should be equal to a gun 12 times its size. Just how powerful do you want what amounts to a ballistic pea shooter to be?

those weapons shoot more than twice as fast in mwo as compared to TT.

That ac/2 you keep trying to use to attack the buffing of the MG.

went from doing 2 damage over ten seconds to doing 40.

the mg that did the same damage in TT as the AC2 does 4.

Shine on you crazy guy you.

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

i would never play a spider with 4 machine guns any more than I would play one with 2 medium lasers...

See i am not getting mad with you and your position. Why are you taking this so personal?

Because you are being ridiculous.

MustrumRidcully, on 11 February 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

"Appropriately Powerful".

They are not. It isn't really any more difficult then that.

This guy gets it.

Not surprising given hes pointed out where all the other weapons are flawed as well.

I'd be much happier if you were in charge of balancing MWO tbh.

[Joseph Mallan]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 February 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

"Appropriately Powerful".

They are not. It isn't really any more difficult then that.

Sorry to disagree with you Mustrum but I think that the MMOs machine gun is appropriately powerful compared to its next biggest ballistic cousin... maybe if the AC2 was 3 tons I could accept it. but it's not. and why isn't a 0.8 damage per second enough for a weapon that fires non stop?

[Sifright]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

Sorry to disagree with you Mustrum but I think that the MMOs machine gun is appropriately powerful compared to its next biggest ballistic cousin... maybe if the AC2 was 3 tons I could accept it. but it's not. and why isn't a 0.8 damage per second enough for a weapon that fires non stop?

You seem to think firing non stop is a good thing.

It's not.


You keep refusing to take into account the downsides of the MG because you think they are justified by realism.

Thats a very very bad way to balance a game like this that is meant to be played competitively.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 11 February 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

those weapons shoot more than twice as fast in mwo as compared to TT.

That ac/2 you keep trying to use to attack the buffing of the MG.

went from doing 2 damage over ten seconds to doing 40.

the mg that did the same damage in TT as the AC2 does 4.

twelve times bigger, ten times the damage of its much smaller cousin.

See the odd part is I think you are being just as ridiculous but I'm not resorting to being insulting or name calling.

[Sifright]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

twelve times bigger, ten times the damage of its much smaller cousin.

See the odd part is I think you are being just as ridiculous but I'm not resorting to being insulting or name calling.

at 8 times the range?

when mechs are hard point limited far more than they are weight limited.

You keep trying balance in isolation it's why your not getting simple and obvious things.


Edit: Mass =/ Size. To get the same performance out of mgs as ac/2 apart from being impossible in terms of range would also require 10 critical slots.

Edited by Sifright, 11 February 2013 - 08:21 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 11 February 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

at 8 times the range?

when mechs are hard point limited far more than they are weight limited.

You keep trying balance in isolation it's why your not getting simple and obvious things.

No I get it...
You want 10 pounds of mass to deliver as much kinetic damage as 53.3 pounds of mass in the same amount of time! I get it.
I just don't agree.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 February 2013 - 08:21 AM.

[Sifright]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

No I get it...
You want 10 pounds of mass to deliver as much kinetic damage as 53.3 pounds of mass in the same amount of time! I get it.
I just don't agree.

No I don't

tripling the damage of the MG doesn't make it have even close to the same DPS as the AC/2

That you think it does shows a lot.

That you are still balancing in isolation from the rest of the game using ideas that have nothing to do with the game play is silly.

Sorry Joe.

Just because are you being stubborn doesn't mean you have a foot to stand on. The machine gun is so rubbish it doesn't get used by any one but noobs who dont know any better it's the quintessential noob trap and it shouldn't be. it is as simple as that.

Edited by Sifright, 11 February 2013 - 08:25 AM.

[Sifright]

FupDup, on 11 February 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

Here's something that finally hit me: designing a 500 KG weapon that is useful against infantry exclusively could not possibly be a more re-tarded move on the part of the engineers in BT. In real life, an M4 Carbine will kill infantry in just a few shots (often even one) most of the time while only weighing ~3 KG and with an astronomically longer range (500/600M). If they really want an anti-infantry-only weapon, they should just mount an M4 or two on their mechs and be done with it.

A 500KG weapon that fires 11.2-pound bullets (assuming 200 ammo per ton like TT) that is designed for combating nothing other than infantry is the epitome of human stupidity.

One would think that a 500KG future-weapon would have more utility to it than a present-day infantry-carried rifle that weighs ~3KG...

Thats because in TT isn't just for killing infantry. It was given a bonus against infantry because the Machine gun is actually a 20MM auto cannon. it's even listed as such in one of the tech manuals for the game.

In TT at short range the MG is supposed to be capable of the same damage as the AC/2 Joes objections aren't rooted in game play where a person would have to make interesting trades offs thinking about critical slot usage vs tonnage and ammo dangers.

it's based around la la land realism when battle tech is about as far from being realistic as you can get.

Edited by Sifright, 11 February 2013 - 08:29 AM.

[FupDup]

Sifright, on 11 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

Thats because in TT isn't just for killing infantry. It was given a bonus against infantry because the Machine gun is actually a 20MM auto cannon. it's even listed as such in one of the tech manuals for the game.

In TT at short range the MG is supposed to be capable of the same damage as the AC/2 Joes objections aren't rooted in game play where a person would have to make interesting trades offs thinking about critical slot usage vs tonnage and ammo dangers.

it's based around la la land realism when battle tech is about as far from being realistic as you can get.

My post was aimed at the "500KG MGs can't hurt mechs whatsoever" crowd to show them the impracticality and anti-realism of such a notion.

So yeah I do agree with the "MGs should be useful enough so that the 5K, 4X, and 3C actually have a role" crowd.

Edited by FupDup, 11 February 2013 - 08:33 AM.

[Noonan]

IMO the machine gun could be removed from the game and I wouldn't care. My TT group has played 100s of BT games and the MG will always be a worthless throw in weapon. There are a ton of ways to kill infantry, and the MG is a total waste of time and tonnage.

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

Sorry to disagree with you Mustrum but I think that the MMOs machine gun is appropriately powerful compared to its next biggest ballistic cousin... maybe if the AC2 was 3 tons I could accept it. but it's not. and why isn't a 0.8 damage per second enough for a weapon that fires non stop?

Non-Stop or stopped, it's still only 0.8 DPS. Even if you boat 16 of them, that's only a DPS of 12.8 for 9 tons. 3 SRM6 bring 11.25 at a weight of 9 tons, at three times the range. With an alpha potential of 45, not 1.28.
And that's only the theoretical DPS.
After 5 seconds, 16 0.8 DPS MGs will have dealt about 64 damage. 3 SRM 6 will have dealt 90 damage.
After 10 seconds, 16 0.8 DPS MGs will have dealt about 128 damage. 3 SRM6 will have dealt 135 damage.

Now imagine you would ever be put in a situation where you cannot fire 10+ seconds continuously at an enemy - which will give you more damage output? Those 16 MGs or those 3 SMR6?

[Joseph Mallan]

you never addressed the MG getting 0.8 damage per second. It keeps the gun on scale to its equally small, Small Laser.

Small laser fires 4 times per turn (12 damage) Machine gun fires for 0.8 damage per second (or 8 points per turn). that is 2/3 as much damage as a Small laser. Add a cool down if it makes it feel better. But that IS the ration of damage for those two weapons.

I don't understand why you keep missing that.