443 replies to this topic

[Thirdstar]

Daiichidoku, on 19 February 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

flamer is broken?

The Flamer does nothing, nada, zilch. You'd think a hardcore like you would know that.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Daiichidoku, on 19 February 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

flamer is broken?

geez, you shoulda been here last summer LMAO

[Yokaiko]

Daiichidoku, on 19 February 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

where is the rule that a mech must utilize all of its hardpoints to be effective or worthwhile?

So you are saying that Spider isn't a joke?

What about the Raven -4x or Cicada -3C, people call them troll mechs.

[Joseph Mallan]

4X MG 0.8 DpS/ 0.5 cool down/ 16 damage per turn possible per MG.
4*16=64 damage possible.
Respectable or not?

Yokaiko, on 19 February 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

So you are saying that Spider isn't a joke?

What about the Raven -4x or Cicada -3C, people call them troll mechs.

The Spider has been a joke since 3025 TRO first print!

[Daiichidoku]

Thirdstar, on 19 February 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

The Flamer does nothing, nada, zilch. You'd think a hardcore like you would know that.

you grossly overestimate my intelligence sir

havent used them since you could put 9 (11, previously!) on them on a HBK for a superlative troll build, toast enemy in 12 seconds and still only max ur heat at 21% constant flame output LMAO


mind you, still still have some redeeming value in flamers for confusing your tgt with sound and obscured vision

[Daiichidoku]

Yokaiko, on 19 February 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

So you are saying that Spider isn't a joke?

What about the Raven -4x or Cicada -3C, people call them troll mechs.

no, what i am saying is a mech does not necessarily need all of its hardpoints used to be effective or worthwhile



the whole MG issue is a tempest in a teacup

[v4skunk]

Machine guns should do zero damage to armoured pieces of a mech. MG should however cause major damage to internal components un protected by armour.

[Yokaiko]

Daiichidoku, on 19 February 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

no, what i am saying is a mech does not necessarily need all of its hardpoints used to be effective or worthwhile



the whole MG issue is a tempest in a teacup

However, there are a fair few mechs that are really really bad because they can't use their ballistic hardpoints.
...and they can't use them because MGs suck and AC2s are bloody heavy for what you get in a game with double armor.


To be fair PGI brought it up.

[KyBr2K]

How about this:

MG is buffed to 2 damage, same as the AC2. However, this damage is done over 1 second, like a laser ( longer duration duh ).
MG ammo is 2000 rounds, yes? Okay, so the MG shoots 200 shots over the duration of 1 second. That makes 10 one second bursts per ton. Same cooldown as the AC2 as well. MG would still keep the 90m maximum range.

Everything could be tweaked obviously in case I missed anything.

You can thank me later.

[stjobe]

Daiichidoku, on 19 February 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

no, what i am saying is a mech does not necessarily need all of its hardpoints used to be effective or worthwhile

the whole MG issue is a tempest in a teacup

So, what combination of weapons would you put on a SDR-5K to make it "effective or worthwhile"?

Stock, it has 6 tons free for weapons and equipment, not enough even to mount a single AC/2 and ammo.

[Sifright]

with current refire mechanic the mg needs to do about 1.2-1.4 dps to be effective per machine gun.

If the gun was to have a beam duration of some sort like a laser 1 dps with 0.75 duration on target would be fine.

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 February 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

You want Machine guns removed from the game







Sorry. couldn't resist!

I could live with even that, since this would force the DEvs to come up with an idea what to do with canon MG wielding mechs and how to balance those correctly. THough if they could do that, they could also fix the MG, right?

[Thirdstar]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 February 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

I could live with even that, since this would force the DEvs to come up with an idea what to do with canon MG wielding mechs and how to balance those correctly. THough if they could do that, they could also fix the MG, right?

A drastic solution is to remove the mech chassis that make the MGs such an issue. Buuuuuuuut that's not going to happen (because there aren't enough variants to make up the shortfall, except maybe the Cicada) so we're back to square one.

[Joseph Mallan]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 February 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

I could live with even that, since this would force the DEvs to come up with an idea what to do with canon MG wielding mechs and how to balance those correctly. THough if they could do that, they could also fix the MG, right?

I'm sorry, you have to stop making good sense Sir.

I ad mit I have played the games for going on 30 years without using MGs more than 10 times. So i know the game can function without MGs. Do I want them gone? no, that would create a bunch of headaches. I just want them to stay a weak small weapon on par with a small laser or SRM2.

[Trauglodyte]

Yokaiko, on 19 February 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

Yes it is.

By definition any fully automatic ballistic weapon is a machine gun, thus rotary vulcan cannons a la the Warthog's 30mm the Phalanax's 20mm as well as other heavy automatics fall under that umbrella.

Even when you get into ships main batteries they are still rifles, from the 16" all the way down to the lowly 76mm on frigates.

In fact most of our fleet carry 25mm crew served machine guns for small boat threats.

NO. Jeez, people, pay attention. Autocannons are considered to be any ballistic weapon that makes use of a specialed shell and can fire said shells at a high rate of fire. Machine guns are smaller caliber weapons capable of a high rate of fire that shoot standardized munitions with the design intent of harming personnel.

This is not a hard discussion.

[Trauglodyte]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 February 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

4X MG 0.8 DpS/ 0.5 cool down/ 16 damage per turn possible per MG.
4*16=64 damage possible.
Respectable or not?


The Spider has been a joke since 3025 TRO first print!

I'm actually ok with that. Or, just throwing out another idea, you could add a damage multiplier for each MG you have. In other words:

1MG 0.4 DPS
2MG 0.525 DPS
3MG 0.65 DPS
4MG 0.775 DPS

The power of the Machine Gun is that it takes the semi-automatic weapon and increases its killing power by way of rate of fire. In other words, it creates a force multiplier through its design. So, taking that into account, why not just add that into the weapon. The more you have, the greater the force multiplication.

And yes, the Spider is a joke but you've got to admit that it looks kind of sexy. Much better than the 'Mando and not as buttfugly as the Raven.

[Galenit]

1 dps, 0,5 tons, 900 ammo per ton, 0 heat
Other ballistics get around 150 damage from a ton, mg get 90 but with 0 heat (900 ammo is 90 seconds of nonstop firing)

I think for a zero heat 1 dps 0,5 ton weapon its balanced this way.

Edited by Galenit, 19 February 2013 - 09:20 AM.

[Thirdstar]

Trauglodyte, on 19 February 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

And yes, the Spider is a joke but you've got to admit that it looks kind of sexy. Much better than the 'Mando and not as buttfugly as the Raven.

You take that back right now and apologize to my Metal Babby!

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 February 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

4X MG 0.8 DpS/ 0.5 cool down/ 16 damage per turn possible per MG.
4*16=64 damage possible.
Respectable or not?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, because that's way more of a boost than the one I suggested that you were staunchly opposed to on account of it being too much damage.

You know, the one where we simply triple the current MG's damage so it does 1.2 DPS? No fiddling around with cooldowns, rates of fire, crit damages, or anything like that. Just a straight-up tripling of the damage of each bullet.

You hated that idea, as far as I could tell because it did more DPS than the current Small Laser (at 1.0 DPS).

And here you are suggesting a 1.6 DPS MG?

What's your game, old man?

[Gaan Cathal]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 February 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

I'm sorry, you have to stop making good sense Sir.

I admit I have played the games for going on 30 years without using MGs more than 10 times. So i know the game can function without MGs. Do I want them gone? no, that would create a bunch of headaches. I just want them to stay a weak small weapon on par with a small laser or SRM2.

To be honest, this would be a lot less of an issue if, like in the game you've been playing for going on 30 years, you could replace them with lasers. For better or worse though, we can't. I've not got any desire to see the MG be a particularly powerful weapon, I just want it to be a weapon.