96 replies to this topic

[Solis Obscuri]

If I read the patch notes correctly, the MG has a 25% chance to hit per shot, with a a 14% increased chance to crit once, an 8% increased chance to crit twice, and a 3% increased chance to crit 3 times, and respective damage of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 per shot. Given that the MG does damage, what, 10 times per second? that equates to an average of 2.5 crits per second, with an average damage of 0.78 per crit, or roughly 1.95 damage to internal components per second. From one 0.5 ton weapon.

By contrast, even a currently "good" crit seeking weapon like an AC/10 fires once every 2.3 seconds for 10 damage, or 4.35 damage per second if it hit an internal - from a 12 ton weapon. 4 MGs would do 7.8 critical damage to component each second, while weighing in at just two tons. That's a huge boost for knocking out ammo bins, weapons, and engines in damaged sections.

[Lonestar1771]

Pyrrho, on 19 February 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

You may be, but not everyone is situationally aware of what is going on. When the LRM boat in the backfield starts taking rear damage, and they don't realize from what or why, they **may stop shooting LRMs. This is harrasment. It is done by MGs sometimes. It isn't that they do it any better or worse, it is that they do it. If you love lasers then use them. There should be no need to hem and haw about something that someone else chose that you wouldn't have.

No hemming and hawing here. I am just stating that the MGs need/should be better. I sprayed a hunchback who had no CT armor for a full 5 secs at least with my 2x MGs (UAC5 were jammed of course) and he was able to run away and die by some one else's hand. I want the MGs to be better and it wouldn't hurt a single person if they were.

[General Taskeen]

Ok, let's take a step back.

Looking at the weapon values for this game, the MG and Flamer are the ONLY weapons that have regressed damage values. This is the fundamental concern. Everything else is a more or less correct or even progressed damage (I.E., Missiles). This makes for a very nonlinear practice when balancing. Its nonsensical to have out of 26 weapons, only 24 of them do more damage in less time. That makes for 92.3% of the weapons in the game are more effective than an MG and a Flamer for supposedly being "harasser" weapons when the closest example to them is a Small Laser from TT, which is a "harrasser" weapon itself.

How are Mechs, introduced into this game, in default format relying heavily on MG's or Flamers, supposed to be effective? They can't, is the correct answer. And to anyone saying otherwise, use a Spider-5K in its default build. "But, but... you can customize it!" If PGI is going to include a variant based on record sheets, then every weapon and piece of equipment on it better be feasible vs. Mechs that are customized. The idea of making these weapons "crit seekers" is counter-productive.

I often cite MW3 for being persistent in a linear weapon balancing model. They included MG's and Flamers in the game, and balanced them accordingly, knowing they would have to be effective vs. other Mechs in Multplayer whether used as a primary or secondary weapon.

Edited by General Taskeen, 19 February 2013 - 03:33 PM.

[Pyrrho]

My apologies for insinuating that you were the hem and/or hawer! I should really start using the words 'in general' when that is what I am referring to.

[Bhael Fire]

Lonestar1771, on 19 February 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

How do MGs distract any one any better than say, a ML or MPL?

Not sure...Maybe ask one of the hundreds of players I've killed with SRMs and lasers while hosing them down with MGs the entire time. So, I say again; MGs are not meant to be superior to any other weapon. They are only meant to be a WEIGHT-EFFICIENT support weapon used to harass the enemy with a CONSTANT stream of damage that doesn't generate heat.

Lonestar1771, on 19 February 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

Not to mention you have to get with in 90m to "distract and harrass". Nobody is looking for them to be primary weapons, they just want them to be USEFUL.

Their usefulness largely depends on play style and skill. As I've mentioned, I use MGs on several of my mechs and get excellent results with them. At the very least, I find them to be just as effective as any of my other builds.

[FupDup]

General Taskeen, on 19 February 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Ok, let's take a step back.

Looking at the weapon values for this game, the MG and Flamer are the ONLY weapons that have regressed damage values. This is the fundamental concern. Everything else is a more or less correct or even progressed damage (I.E., Missiles). This makes for a very nonlinear practice when balancing. Its nonsensical to have out of 26 weapons, only 24 of them do more damage in less time. That makes for 92.3% of the weapons in the game are more effective than an MG and a Flamer for supposedly being "harasser" weapons when the closest example to them is a Small Laser from TT.

How are Mechs, introduced into this game, in default format relying heavily on MG's or Flamers, supposed to be effective? They can't, is the correct answer. And to anyone saying otherwise, use a Spider-5K in its default build. "But, but... you can customize it!" If PGI is going to include a variant based on record sheets, then every weapon and piece of equipment on it better be feasible vs. Mechs that are customized.

I agree with the MG's damage being a concern, although for Flamers I personally would prefer them to be focused more around heating up your enemies (like what they were invented to do) instead of damage or the dev's chosen path of being a crit-seeker.

I think the big issue with Flamers is that they heat up the user more than the target...which is strange for a weapon that's supposed to heat up your enemies. If they generated less heat for the user they could fulfill their intended role much better.

Edited by FupDup, 19 February 2013 - 03:28 PM.

[Captain Stiffy]

MG is complete trash on lights in TT. I think MWO should be the same way. Ammo explosion waiting to happen.

[Quinton]

so, yet another reason to HIDE YOUR AMMO, what happens when my MG's make it go boom eh? bad things, very bad things

PS this post was made right after a match where my cicada 3C lost its erppc in the beginning, and ended up shredding 2 mechs with 4 machine guns to eeck out a win. machine guns are awesome now =p

[General Taskeen]

Bhael Fire, on 19 February 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

They are only meant to be a WEIGHT-EFFICIENT support weapon used to harass the enemy with a CONSTANT stream of damage that doesn't generate heat.

The problem Bhael, is that you are saying that an MG is a support-harasser weapon. Not even the game description of the MG says that. Not even the "TT" definition says that, it says "anti-infantry," or one could define that as "support" for Infantry troops.

By your definition a Small Laser fits in the same category, it has the same range after all, yet its actually closest to its TT counter-part, while the MG/Flamer are not. People even put LRMs in that same category of "Support."



MW3 MG's > MWO MG's. Fact™.

[Monky]

In tabletop, MG's where just as good against armor as they where against internals. The 'crit seeker' factor came from boating them and just firing tons of bullets per round. MG's need to be effective against armor as well, or they will never be an effective system, meaning there will be no practical light weight ballistic.

[LogicSol]

De La Fresniere, on 19 February 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

I know that's what they said, but I can only guess at what inspired that particular choice. The crit thing is from BT, the "bad against armor"... invented?

How about "how they want the game balanced"?
Look, the MG is a peashooter compared to the larger guns. However it offers high sustained fire rates and no heat, plus a low weight.
It makes sense for it to do little damage vs armor, yet be effective against exposed components. It's a nice mechanic to have and it's the only weapon that fills it. Yes the LBX10 crit seeks too, but it takes 10+ tons. 4 of them on a spider means any components in an exposed section will be mince meat before you even notice it.

They are also great for harassment. The enemy will either panic at the incoming fire, turn to chase you, or ignore you once they figure out it's MG fire, at which point it becomes hilarious when your lance-mate blows them away with something a bit heavier.

[Oppresor]

Huntsman, on 19 February 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

While the devs intended solution for the machine gun has been known for some time...well, its finally upon us. It makes the weapon viable only as a tonnage-cheap add-on to already effective brawlers, while mechs that were pure garbage because they are light and the lionshare of their hardpoints are ballistic, such as the Cicada 3C and the Spider 5K, are still trash.

Not to mention how terribly unhelpful is it to have a weapon only become useful when the target is already half dead.

Why this convoluted crit system? Some misguided attempt to stick to TT rules in a spot where it's not workable to do so? Just ditch this crit garbage and buff the damage of the machine gun for crying out loud?

It's true that I use the MG Array as a tonnage cheap add-in on my Atlas, but I use it for a specific reason, it supplements the fire from my LBX10 Scattershot in close quarter situations. I use it as a sort of manual CIWS system against light units that plague me. I can just keep the firing button down and each time the light circles me, I know its going to take some damage.

[De La Fresniere]

LogicSol, on 19 February 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

How about "how they want the game balanced"?

Lights can't use ballistics because they're all super heavy... except one, and they just made that one a super-niche weapon.

Doesn't look like a good choice to me.

[Znail]

Pihb, on 19 February 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

seems like a hardpoint problem and not a weapon problem I agree, balistic slots are dumb on lights, and most mediums.

MGs work on the TT, the problem is that they don't work in MWO. All they had to was to buff the DPS to be in line with other weapons and things would be fine. MGs aren't great in the TT, but for some reason or another they felt that they had to make them worse here in MWO.

There are some easy to see reasons why light mechs have them in the TT. They are an easy way to add some damage to a mech that you have a few tons to spare on but already have enough enegy weapons to keep their heat sinks busy. Why they can't fill that same role here in MWO is beyond me. It reeks of Developer ego, ie they want to add their own touch to the game just for the sake of doing so. Why nerf the damage of MGs and then try and find some thing else then damage to fix them? The irony is that they would actually be better crit seekers if they had the damage they should have as damaging components actually require doing damage as well. So this 'fix' is mostly a placebo thing.

[LogicSol]

They are work amazing as tracer rounds to figure out lead distance.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Captain Stiffy, on 19 February 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

MG is complete trash on lights in TT. I think MWO should be the same way. Ammo explosion waiting to happen.

MGs are an excellent weapon for lights in TT, not a primary weapon, but as a backup that generates no heat. MWO is trying to get the MG to be useful, and this patch was a step in the right direction, but I do not think it was enough. We still need a basic damage boost.

[stjobe]

Solis Obscuri, on 19 February 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

If I read the patch notes correctly, the MG has a 25% chance to hit per shot, with a a 14% increased chance to crit once, an 8% increased chance to crit twice, and a 3% increased chance to crit 3 times, and respective damage of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 per shot. Given that the MG does damage, what, 10 times per second? that equates to an average of 2.5 crits per second, with an average damage of 0.78 per crit, or roughly 1.95 damage to internal components per second. From one 0.5 ton weapon.

It's actually even more than that. It clocks in at 5.082 DPS against internal components. Nobody's saying that's bad.

Solis Obscuri, on 19 February 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

By contrast, even a currently "good" crit seeking weapon like an AC/10 fires once every 2.3 seconds for 10 damage, or 4.35 damage per second if it hit an internal - from a 12 ton weapon. 4 MGs would do 7.8 critical damage to component each second, while weighing in at just two tons. That's a huge boost for knocking out ammo bins, weapons, and engines in damaged sections.

The problem is it still only does 0.4 DPS to armour, making its value on the battlefield dubious at best. Something needs to remove that armour for the MG to do its work, and it won't be the MG itself - leaving any 'mech relying on the MG useless still.

[Lonestar1771]

Bhael Fire, on 19 February 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Not sure...Maybe ask one of the hundreds of players I've killed with SRMs and lasers while hosing them down with MGs the entire time. So, I say again; MGs are not meant to be superior to any other weapon. They are only meant to be a WEIGHT-EFFICIENT support weapon used to harass the enemy with a CONSTANT stream of damage that doesn't generate heat.



Their usefulness largely depends on play style and skill. As I've mentioned, I use MGs on several of my mechs and get excellent results with them. At the very least, I find them to be just as effective as any of my other builds.

So you didn't kill anything with machine guns, but with lasers and SRMs, and then assumed your MGs were "distracting" them. Whole lotta conjecture there with little to no proof.

[shintakie]

Lonestar1771, on 19 February 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

So you didn't kill anything with machine guns, but with lasers and SRMs, and then assumed your MGs were "distracting" them. Whole lotta conjecture there with little to no proof.

Par for the course really. Its like all the people who were so adamant that they killed mechs with MG's before and even posted videos as "proof" of this. Generally the mech either was killed and mostly damaged by another mech, or the mech actually killed itself by overridin the shutdown and their internals cooked.

Even now with this you can't actually kill a mech with MG's which is frustratin. The best you can do is make them a less viable fighter. You know what else does that? Every other weapon in the game (except Flamers). Do you know what every other weapon does as well as make your opponents less effective fighters? They actually kill mechs.

[LogicSol]

De La Fresniere, on 19 February 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

Lights can't use ballistics because they're all super heavy... except one, and they just made that one a super-niche weapon.

Doesn't look like a good choice to me.

Sounds like a fine one to me. The lithe light mechs get to use weapons that favor hit an run tactics on wounded mechs.

Want to use a 10 ton weapon? Don't pilot a light. Beside, the Raven can fit an AC/20 or a Gauss. You are hardly limited to just MG unless you are in a spider, and a 4mg spider is capable of unloading 20 points of component damage a second a maximum. Of course that's if you are lucky, but they will still do around 2 DPS per MG against components, roughly the damage a LL or 2 mlas would do.