298 replies to this topic

[Gaan Cathal]

Jack Corvus, on 05 February 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:

We don't need machine guns that do more than they are supposed to.

No, we need MGs that do as much as they are supposed to.

[Lefty Lucy]

Heeden, on 05 February 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

Quickly dividing the DPS of ballistics by their tonnage gives us;

AC/2 - 0.67
AC/5 - 0.37
AC/10 - 0.33
AC/20 - 0.36
GR - 0.25
MG - 0.8

So unless you think range is important or you don't have lots of spare ballistic slots, the MG is pound for pound the best ballistic weapon available.

Well... range *is* important. Also the MG sprays that damage all over the target, and you have to maintain constant aim. 0.8 might be its theoretical DPS/ton, but it is not indicative of relative effectiveness compared to the other ballistic weapons. Going entirely by DPS/ton numbers AC2s should be dominating the game, and yet they aren't.

[Blaze32]

FupDup, on 05 February 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

So far we haven't been informed of how big the crit multiplier will be. With a base damage of 0.04, the multiplier would have to be monstrously huge for them to be viable. For instance, if their multiplier was 3x damage on crits, they would take 25 shots (0.12 damage each) to destroy a component that has 3 health (i.e. Gauss Rifle or ECM). Hardly viable, especially when you factor in components that have 10 health (which would take 84 shots assuming a 3x multiplier).

I thought it was going to be added as a 10 times modifier. I read it on a dev post somewhere..

Stupid future i want it now!

Edited by Blaze32, 05 February 2013 - 08:18 PM.

[Enervation]

Eldagore, on 05 February 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

I did notice one thing though, there is a type of use: any time I opened up with both MG on a target, I was instantly the target for retaliation, even if there were much more ominous threats in the same area. if MG do one thing well, it's grab attention.

lmao tanking weapons in mwo
BOOMrattarattaCRASHrattarattaBOOMBOOMrattarattaratta
"gah! infuriating background noise, must smash machinegunner!"

that line is funnier if you envision the hulk squeezed into a mech's cockpit, shaking his fist over the tiny controls

[Brilig]

I'd be all for giving it the same range as an medium laser.

[Gaan Cathal]

Brilig, on 05 February 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

I'd be all for giving it the same range as an medium laser.

As it stands you could give it the range of a Long Tom and it'd still be worse than leaving the hardpoint empty.

[One Medic Army]

Maverick01, on 05 February 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

Machine gun range should be changed to 750 meters. This would make the MG great for suppressive fire tactics (although an ammo consumption monster). Furthermore, I would argue the DPS needs to be "slightly" increased to make this weapon viable on the battlefield (yes, all weapons need to be viable in MWO). The developers are taking the wrong approach in balancing this weapon: http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

For comparison purposes, the light machine gun employed by the U.S. Military is as follows:

M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW)
Effective Range: 800 meters (point target)

For comparison purposes, the MWO MGs are 20mm.

[DocBach]

Vassago Rain, on 05 February 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

Machineguns are great for killing mechs.
That's why the piranha exists, and so many macross mechs boat them...

Please stop talking about this subject, as not a single one of you knows what you're saying.

I'm going to take this as sarcasm...



If not, here's a picture I took from behind my M2 in downtown Mosul. Pretty familiar with the weapon system.



Here I am with an M249 when I was a SAW gunner a couple years back - pretty familiar with that weapon system, too.

And to back my claim for the machine gun being mainly used for anti-infantry purposes and to rebuff your comment about the Piranha:

"The Piranha was developed by Clan Diamond Shark shortly before the Battle of Tukayyid to combat Inner Sphere conventional infantry and light vehicles."

[Tincan Nightmare]

So if we give more range to the MG for real world realism, what about the other weapons? Pretty much everything else would have unlimited range for the size maps we have, so what would be the point of range?

[Novawrecker]

[Merata Crunt]

That is a grand idea about increasing the range. Without at least a 750 meter range, the realism just isn't there. And machine guns definitely need a substantial damage increase.

[Novawrecker]

Not going to happen, at least the damage increase. Mechwarrior MG was never meant as a stand alone weapon that can destroy a mech. It was always intended as a tool for two scenarios: 1) Infantry mop up 2) crit getter.

Don't expect a MG to do damage in par with other weapons in game, it's asking way too much from an item that has .1 cooldown and 0 heat.

[Vaneshi SnowCrash]

Maverick01, on 05 February 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

Machine gun range should be changed to 750 meters. This would make the MG great for suppressive fire tactics (although an ammo consumption monster).

Suppressing what exactly? BattleMech's don't give a crap about MG fire and MWO doesn't have ground pounders running around to need suppressing.

It's been a perpetual problem with the MW games for years: no troops but includes anti-troop weapons.

[KUPOCUH]

Yes! do 800 metres fire power of mashinegun!

[Pinselborste]

mgs should get a damage increase to 0.1 per Shell and get the projectile Speed increased so they are easier to hit something with. Range is fine since ist more a weapon for smaller faster mechs.

The crit damage increase is a useless attempt to improve them, why would someone try to crit something with the mg if he can destroy the whole section way faster with a normal weapon. the weight you save from not adding an mg can be used for a heatsink or ammo for a way better weapon.

and for People who say it was in TT to fight infantry, it was in the TT game Long before infantry was added and did damage enemy mechs as effective as the ac2.

Edited by Pinselborste, 06 February 2013 - 02:38 AM.

[Mahkra DBuar]

I've played MW 1&4...I never saw the need for machine guns. After joining MW:O, I STILL don't see the need for them AS THEY ARE; as a matter of fact, no machinegun lightmech ever took me out, but I've seen a coupla dual-wielding flamethrowing lightmechs that STILL make me want to punch somebody. Just a newbie's PoV.

[Novawrecker]

Pinselborste, on 06 February 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:

and for People who say it was in TT to fight infantry, it was in the TT game Long before infantry was added and did damage enemy mechs as effective as the ac2.

.. and even in the TT it was still used as a crit seeker (pre-infantry days) instead of a damage dealer. Moot point

[MustrumRidcully]

I don't think 750m range would be all that helpful for the MG: Trying to maintain fire at a target (possibly requiring to lead) at 750m is not easy.

A practical useful range might be something like 180 to 300m.

Novawrecker, on 06 February 2013 - 03:06 AM, said:

.. and even in the TT it was still used as a crit seeker (pre-infantry days) instead of a damage dealer. Moot point

But they did _work_ as crit-seekers in the table top game. The reason is simply:
Many attacks means more chance to score a crit. How much damage the attack does didn't matter. MW:O is different. Each component has hit points, you need to deal sufficient damage to a component to destroy it. Now, many attacks is suddenly a drawback - because each attack, there is a c hance you hit a different component other than the first, and if your first attack didn't destroy the item (and a 0.04 damage attack tends to not do that), the second is likely to damage a completely different item, also failing to destroy it. The more attacks you have, the more likely it is you spread your damage evenly across all components.

In MW:O, if you want a crit-seeker weapon, you need to look at a weapon that deals 10 or more damage per hit. That means all Lasers and MGs are out, because they deliver damage in multiple, small packages, instead of one, single blow. PPCs, AC/10s, Gauss Rifles and AC/20s are the best crit-seekers. The next best might be the AC/5 and the Ultra AC/5 (as both have a chance to deal double damage per crit and thus reaching the requisite 10 damage for most components. And even if not - you only need to hit the same component twice to destroy the item, that's much better than needing to hit a component 5 times - AC/2 - or 250 times (MG) ).

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 February 2013 - 03:19 AM.

[Novawrecker]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 February 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:

But they did _work_ as crit-seekers in the table top game.............. Many attacks means more chance to score a crit. How much damage the attack does didn't matter. MW:O is different.

I agree with your post, but sadly not everythng translates well from a TT to online environment. I am not sure if you are aware, but the MG will be getting a damage boost for purposes of criting just for this very same reason. I do not recall what patch it is supposeded to release, but it is coming very soon.

[MustrumRidcully]

Novawrecker, on 06 February 2013 - 03:23 AM, said:

I agree with your post, but sadly not everythng translates well from a TT to online environment. I am not sure if you are aware, but the MG will be getting a damage boost for purposes of criting just for this very same reason. I do not recall what patch it is supposeded to release, but it is coming very soon.

I am aware, but that will basicall yonly make the MG better at destroying an AC/20, it wouldn't help much against someone using many lower crit-slot components. And it is still a buff very late in combat. (In the table top game, there were even through-armor criticals. I don't want those in MW:O, but they were also important factor why many attacks were good for crit-seeking)