15 replies to this topic

[HammerSwarm]

As you know currently between the machine gun and the A/C 2 there are no ballistic weapons. This creates a situation where if you have a ballistic hard point and you want to use it to do damage you need 7 free tons for an A/C 2 and ammo. I have a solution.

Tuning:
The damage done per second by a machine gun and a small laser need to be normalized at 1.0 DPS. This is will make the regular machine gun a viable weapon instead of a joke on the battle field. It will be at least as viable as the small laser.

Additions:
To address the gap between .5(1.5) and 6(7) tons We need to add three weapons(see above). These weapons would be additional machine guns you could include per ballistic hard point to increase the damage. The reload times were changed to keep the damage per bullet the same and to increase the number of bullets exiting the weapons array. HPS and DPS were normalized to the A/C 2.

Summary:
Without adding any new technology to the game I've solved the problem of what to do with ballistic hard points for low tonnage mechs. This would allow a spider to do 4DPS with machine guns as if it had lasers in those same slots. Dropping the ammo from 2000 per ton to 1000 per ton would also cause the damage per ton of ammo to be more inline with auto cannons but this too could be tuned. These aren't meant to be final numbers as is but rather as a jumping off to solve what I perceive as a major shortcoming of smaller mechs with ballistics hard points.

[Ordellus]

Finally someone that realizes there should be more than 4 weapons in use.

[HammerSwarm]

*bump*

I was hoping for more feedback? is this not a problem for other light medium and 60 ton heavy pilots?

[Corvus Antaka]

I too dislike the flexibility and disparity between only a 0.5 ton gun or a 6 ton gun. MAchine gun arrays where 4 machine guns can go in for 2 tons into 1 ballistic spot is an interesting idea that seems to stay true to btech.

I've looked around but there seems to be nothing inbetween, some 2-4/5 ton ballistic optional weapons would be fantastic if they do indeed exist.

Also MG's are getting buffed, and will be good crit seekers in the future, so this is something to consider..something i personally agree with as the MG is not supposed to be worth using vs armour in btech.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 14 February 2013 - 11:01 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Eventually (circa in-game year 3068), the tonnage gap is at least partially addressed by the introduction of the Heavy Machine Gun (1 ton, plus ammunition), Light AC/2 (4 tons, plus ammo), and the Light AC/5 (5 tons, plus ammo).

Also, if MWO gets to 3072, there is the option of the Magshot (a MG-sized/weighted Gauss Rifle with the range of a Medium Laser).
Moreover, the IS version of the LB 2-X AC (6 tons, plus ammo) is introduced in 3058, and it is supposed to be one of the longest-ranged weapons available to any 'Mech.

Additionally, the Machine Gun Array ("MGA") isn't canonically introduced until 3068, and still requires each separate Machine Gun (for the array is not a single unit unto itself) to be mounted on the 'Mech independently of the others - meaning that any 'Mech that wanted to link its MGs into an array would still need as many ballistic hardpoints as it wanted MGs in the array.
(See TechManual (pg 228) and Total Warfare (pg. 137))

Given that, what advantage is there to a MGA that wouldn't be provided by simply putting all of the MGs in the same weapon group and using the chain- or group-fire settings as desired?

As for the "tuning" suggestion: why not just make each bullet (at the current fire rate of ~10 bullets per second, IIRC) deal 0.1 units of damage?

[blinkin]

Strum Wealh, on 14 February 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

Given that, what advantage is there to a MGA that wouldn't be provided by simply putting all of the MGs in the same weapon group and using the chain- or group-fire settings as desired?

did you just seriously suggest chain firing machine guns?

i have seen triple machine guns chain fired. it is just like a single machine gun except it takes up an extra ton on your mech.

just say no to chainfired machine guns.

[Strum Wealh]

The point was that MGAs (in addition to not existing yet, from an in-universe standpoint) don't do anything that we can't already do with weapon groups...

[HammerSwarm]

Strum Wealh, on 14 February 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

Eventually (circa in-game year 3068), the tonnage gap is at least partially addressed by the introduction of the Heavy Machine Gun (1 ton, plus ammunition), Light AC/2 (4 tons, plus ammo), and the Light AC/5 (5 tons, plus ammo).

Additionally, the Machine Gun Array ("MGA") isn't canonically introduced until 3068, and still requires each separate Machine Gun (for the array is not a single unit unto itself) to be mounted on the 'Mech independently of the others - meaning that any 'Mech that wanted to link its MGs into an array would still need as many ballistic hardpoints as it wanted MGs in the array.
(See TechManual (pg 228) and Total Warfare (pg. 137))

Given that, what advantage is there to a MGA that wouldn't be provided by simply putting all of the MGs in the same weapon group and using the chain- or group-fire settings as desired?

As for the "tuning" suggestion: why not just make each bullet (at the current fire rate of ~10 bullets per second, IIRC) deal 0.1 units of damage?

I am a proponent of increasing the damage of the single machine gun. The last line of your post is where I would start for machine gun DPS to normalize it with the small laser. I am also of the belief that a civilization that could invent a 100 ton assault mech could tie a string around the triggers of 2 machine guns, or even 4 machine guns.

I have looked at the cannon materials to see what is available. If the timeline is 1:1 and we're currently in 3050 I am not sticking around for 8 years to get a weapon that I can use in lighter mechs with balistic points to do something more than .4 dps.

My suggestions were a compromise between throwing cannon out the window, and sticking right to the cannon. Currently machine guns are useless. I get that they are crit seeking machines, but a spider with 4 machine guns does 1.6dps? for 2 tons + ammo, while another spider with fewer hard points can do 2 dps with 2 light lasers for 1 ton and no ammo?

I'd like to see that damage normalized to a small laser, and something added to fill the gap so that with 1-6 tons and a ballistic point I can do something other than put a machine gun in and hope some one else strips the armor.

[focuspark]

HammerSwarm, on 14 February 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

I have looked at the cannon materials to see what is available. If the timeline is 1:1 and we're currently in 3050 I am not sticking around for 8 years to get a weapon that I can use in lighter mechs with balistic points to do something more than .4 dps.

If it makes you feel better, once the MG gets its crit seeker bonus, it'll likely do closer to 4.0 DPS vs unarmored sections.

[Stringburka]

Machine guns will get a boost to critical damage. As noted here I think a critical damage increase of *5 is both thematically fitting and a good way to balance the machine gun - compared to a small laser, it would have 40% dps vs armor/structure and 200% dps vs internal components. Since you usually use a weapon where it's optimal to do so, I feel this is balanced. If they get a bonus of around *5 (from *4 to *7 I think would be fine, lower and they still won't be used, higher and they might be a bit too strong)

However, I agree that there is a large gap in ballistics weaponry. Now, I'm no expert on BT (in fact, I've never played the actual game, though I like reading about the lore on the wiki), but these weapons have been developed by the clans, so they might be introduced next year after clan invasion (tons in clan/IC):
LB 2-X AC (5/6 tons), LB 5-X AC (7/8 tons), UAC-2 (5/7 tons).

focuspark, on 14 February 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

If it makes you feel better, once the MG gets its crit seeker bonus, it'll likely do closer to 4.0 DPS vs unarmored sections.

Has it been stated to be that large? For that to be the case the critical multiplier would have to be about x14.5 of what it is (.4 dps to structure + .4*.62 (crit frequency)*14=3.996 dps)

[focuspark]

Stringburka, on 14 February 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

Has it been stated to be that large? For that to be the case the critical multiplier would have to be about x14.5 of what it is (.4 dps to structure + .4*.62 (crit frequency)*14=3.996 dps)

I understood the bonus to be vs internal structure and components. So the chance of a damage increase would be 100% when used against an armored section.

[Stringburka]

focuspark, on 14 February 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

I understood the bonus to be vs internal structure and components. So the chance of a damage increase would be 100% when used against an armored section.

I thought the bonus was just on crits? Crits don't damage structure I think.

[focuspark]

Stringburka, on 14 February 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

I thought the bonus was just on crits? Crits don't damage structure I think.

I could be wrong but I thought "crit" was in reference to non-armor damage being applied.

[Stringburka]

focuspark, on 14 February 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

I could be wrong but I thought "crit" was in reference to non-armor damage being applied.

From what I've understood it, it's like this:
When you hit a target, if it has armor, you deal damage to that armor equal to your "damage" stat.
If it has no armor, you deal damage to it's structure equal to your "damage" stat, and in addition roll for crits.
There's a 25% chance of a single crit, 14% of two crits and 3% of 3 crits. In total, this means for every hit you do you do .62 crits.
A crit deals your damage stat to the component located in a random critical in that part of the 'mech.

Basically, in addition to dealing regular structure damage, a 'mech deals about 62% damage to internals. It's this damage that's supposed to be increased AFAIK. So if they've said after-increase DPS should be around 4, it's the .4 regular structure damage and 3.6 crit damage - which means each critical should deal about .6 damage (for each bullet). That's an increase by 15 times the damage, and seems a LOT (the calculations I made in the other thread showed an increase of 5 times would make it a weapon of (in my opinion of course) comparable effectiveness to small lasers which have the same weight).

[DesertRat]

This is a great idea. Seems decently well thought out too. Having to jump from .5 ton uselessness to an AC/2 when I want to add a lil more firepower, or round out a build, sucks.

[HammerSwarm]

thanks for resurrecting my idea