139 replies to this topic

[shintakie]

PropagandaWar, on 21 February 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

exactly they should be next to useless. Sounds like peeps want to run around with 4 MG spiders and crit kill everything in 5 seconds.

Why should MGs and Flamers be the only weapons relegated to that level? Why not small lasers as well?

Carrioncrows, on 21 February 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

So at the end of the day here is the buff that MG's Need:

DMG: 0.2 dmg a shot - 0.1 dmg from 90m to 200m
ROF: 10 rounds a sec
Ammo: 200 rounds a ton.

At 2 DPS a sec and 20 secs of fire the MG fills it's purpose of being a inefficient raw dps dump.

Exactly 1/2 the DPS of the AC2 but for a lighter weight. The inefficient comes in when you factor only 20 secs of firing time per gun the hard point limitations and the range of 90m - 200m

Do that and the game is fixed, machineguns are useful and potato chips rain down from the sky making everyone happy.

Then we can move on to fixing pulse lasers, flamers and the LB10-X which takes another 3 minutes 22 secs.

And yet you still end up with a fairly useless Cicada 3C, Spider 5K and the ballistic Flea.

I really really don't get why people think the MG needs MORE downsides in order to justify buffin it. It is tied for the lowest effective range of any weapon. It need to be held on target the entire time its fired, which in regards to the MG is the time your target takes to die or for you to run for cover. It has ridiculous bullet spread. What possible reason could there be to tack on even more disadvantages to it in order to justify a buff?

Edited by shintakie, 21 February 2013 - 03:42 PM.

[PropagandaWar]

How long does it take for a machine gun to blow up a tank in the real world?

shintakie, on 21 February 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

Why should MGs and Flamers be the only weapons relegated to that level? Why not small lasers as well?

Oh Small lasers too.

[Orzorn]

PropagandaWar, on 21 February 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

How long does it take for a machine gun to blow up a tank in the real world?

As long as it takes an A-10 Warthog to squeeze off a burst.


The machine gun could AT LEAST do 6.67 damage per 10 seconds, or 0.667 damage per second. That is as closely as you can match the ratio between it and the small laser as it was in the TT (2 damage compared to 3).

I mean, isn't that fair? A 1.5 ton system (at minimum) doing 0.667 dps and having better critical hits, compared to a .5 ton system doing 1 dps? You have to hold the machine gun on target for 10 full seconds to do 6.667 damage, whereas a small laser only needs to be held on target for 6.75 or so to do its 10 damage. The machine gun also spreads, whereas the laser has a burn time.

Doesn't it at least deserve a fair treatment, returning to at minimum its TT damage ratios?

Edited by Orzorn, 21 February 2013 - 03:51 PM.

[FupDup]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 21 February 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

the fact the you said skill and streaks in the same post means you could need to "re-think" how great you are.

I never said I was good. I was just saying that any experienced MG-user (as opposed to new players who don't know what the weapon is) is probably so good that they could kill an Atlas with a paperclip. Doesn't make paperclips an effective weapon. If someone can do good with MGs, they would do exponentially better with just about anything else.

Also, since MG-users use "it generates no heat" as a defense of MGs, the Streaks were merely brought up as one example of a heat-neutral weapon that is much more powerful than MGs.

Edited by FupDup, 21 February 2013 - 04:07 PM.

[Znail]

PropagandaWar, on 21 February 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

How long does it take for a machine gun to blow up a tank in the real world?


Oh Small lasers too.

A 0.5 ton machinegun? Fractions of a second.



Note that a 0.5 ton machine gun is most likely 20-30mm and would in current military lingo be called an autocannon.

[Davers]

PropagandaWar, on 21 February 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

How long does it take for a machine gun to blow up a tank in the real world?


Oh Small lasers too.

In BT it would take 5x as long for a machine gun to kill a tank than a PPC. It would be more like 10x in MWO.

[PropagandaWar]

Orzorn, on 21 February 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

As long as it takes an A-10 Warthog to squeeze off a burst.

ok here's the weight of that gun unless i'm missing something (Not uncommon) Its closer to 2 tons: The GAU-8 itself weighs 620 pounds (280 kg), but the complete weapon, with feed system and drum, weighs 4,029 pounds

Edited by PropagandaWar, 21 February 2013 - 03:57 PM.

[Rippthrough]

The feed system would be part of the ammo supply, no? That great big couple of tons lump you've had to put in to feed it?

[Carrioncrows]

Znail, on 21 February 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

Why the absurd ammo reduction? That means one ton of ammo of constant fire is insufficient to taking out the head of a mech even, much less any other locations. The ammo have already been nerfed compared with the TT, so there is no need for more. In the TT so is 1 ton of ammo emough to do a total of 2000 damage while in MWO so would 1 ton do a total of 40 damage. 100 with your suggested buffed DPS. This is hardly excessive and much less then any other weapon.

Head only has 18 armor and 9 internal structure for a total of 27, it would take a MG a total of 9 secs to strip the armor and 4.5 secs to kill the head once you strip the armor. More than enough, but....

I'm glad you asked.

It's a inefficient raw dps dump. You will still have the critical seeking ability as you do now but at least it can be functional.

Why the absurd drop in ammo? Because it makes sense.

When you are running a certain weapon as a primary you take more ammo for it. Do you see people running a AC20 with only 1 ton of ammo? Or a AC2 with only 1 ton of ammo? Nope.

So if you want to keep sustained fire you need to invest in more ammo just like everything else. For a full minute of firing time it would take 3 tons of ammo plus the gun for 3.5 tons. Exactly 1/2 of the AC2 + 1 ton of ammo. I consider that fair.

But I doubt you'll need that much ammo since the MG is limited by it's range and as the fight moves in and out of ranges you'll just stop firing the weapon.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 21 February 2013 - 04:20 PM.

[PropagandaWar]

Rippthrough, on 21 February 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

The feed system would be part of the ammo supply, no? That great big couple of tons lump you've had to put in to feed it?

I guess if motors count as feed sure, then your ammo can go up to 1.5 tons. Actually it would probably weigh more than the hogs beings people love putting ammo in there feet. That sure is a long way to travel for ammo.

Edited by PropagandaWar, 21 February 2013 - 04:23 PM.

[Znail]

PropagandaWar, on 21 February 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

ok here's the weight of that gun unless i'm missing something (Not uncommon) Its closer to 2 tons: The GAU-8 itself weighs 620 pounds (280 kg), but the complete weapon, with feed system and drum, weighs 4,029 pounds

And a BT MG with ammo weights 1.5 tons, uinless you get two tons of ammo then it's 2.5 tons of course. The GAU-8 is a perfect example of what a BT MG would look like.

[Znail]

Carrioncrows, on 21 February 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Head only has 18 armor and 9 internal structure for a total of 27, it would take a MG a total of 9 secs to strip the armor and 4.5 secs to kill the head once you strip the armor. More than enough, but....

I'm glad you asked.

It's a inefficient raw dps dump. You will still have the critical seeking ability as you do now but at least it can be functional.

Why the absurd drop in ammo? Because it makes sense.

When you are running a certain weapon as a primary you take more ammo for it. Do you see people running a AC20 with only 1 ton of ammo? Or a AC2 with only 1 ton of ammo? Nope.

So if you want to keep sustained fire you need to invest in more ammo just like everything else. For a full minute of firing time it would take 3 tons of ammo plus the gun for 3.5 tons. Exactly 1/2 of the AC2 + 1 ton of ammo. I consider that fair.

But I doubt you'll need that much ammo since the MG is limited by it's range and as the fight moves in and out of ranges you'll just stop firing the weapon.

But that AC2 with ammo do 2-4 times the DPS at several times the range. So why would you for instance ever get 2 MG instead of one AC2? This suggestion would do nothing to help the light mechs stuck with balistic slots.

[Roland]

Thontor, on 21 February 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

First.. It would take 2 seconds to destroy a single non-padded item if all mg rounds hit the exposed internals... The mg does, on average, 5.05 DPS against items

No dude, because even the machine gun doesn't generate critical hits EVERY SINGLE TIME.
The effective damage for the machine gun, when you calculate the percentage of critical hits and the "damage" multiplier, is only around 2.5.

So that means 4 full seconds of CONCENTRATED fire (meaning you are allowed to just stand there and dump every single round into the exposed section), which is not actually going to happen in the real world... In practice, since you're gonna be running around and spraying fire, it's going to take significantly longer.

Oh, and it's only the case if it's the ONLY component in that section. If there are two components? Then that means the damage is gonna be spread over both of them.. which means that on average, it'll take around twice as long before either one of them accumulates the full damage required to destroy one.

So, if that target has, say, two ammo bins in that section and nothing else...Even standing perfectly still, it'll take around 8 full seconds of concentrated fire for either one to accumulate enough damage to destroy it because the "damage" is gonna spread over them both. And, since most folks don't just let you sit there and shoot exposed sections, that's really not ever gonna happen.

Seriously, it is not useful. You are fooling yourself.

[Carrioncrows]

Znail, on 21 February 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

But that AC2 with ammo do 2-4 times the DPS at several times the range. So why would you for instance ever get 2 MG instead of one AC2? This suggestion would do nothing to help the light mechs stuck with balistic slots.

Once again because of the weight, it weighs less.

I said it was a inefficient raw dps dump.

You could get 2 machineguns and 2 tons of ammo for 3 tons, no heat and the same DPS as a AC2.

The machine gun is meant to be a low weight option, but it should also be a "FUNCTIONAL" low weight option not just a some worthless crit seeker.

I am looking to make the machinegun functional and wothwhile, i'm not looking to make it a better option than higher weight counterparts. But it could be a better option if you have the hard points and the invest the weight in ammo.

The spider and cicada have 4 ballistic hard points and can churn out 8 dps a sec from those hard points. That's equal to 6 medium lasers. ( 6 meds x 1.25 dps = 7.5 dps)

The ammo you would have to take would be equatable to the heatsinks you would have to take if you used the lasers.

One shouldn't be better than the other but they should be comparable and almost interchangeable.

This way they are.

Medium lasers have more range, but tons of heat, and infinite ammo.
Machine guns have less range but no heat and ammo.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 21 February 2013 - 04:55 PM.

[Rippthrough]

Or, fire a couple of real weapons and just kill the mech outright.

[rgreat]

Thontor, on 21 February 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

They are a niche weapon.. very small window of usefulness, but they aren't useless.

So niche, that it is much more useful to place ANYTHING else in place of MG. Anything.

[SpiralRazor]

Broceratops, on 19 February 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

no one said mgs and flamers would be tier 1 weapons. or even useful. just better

Then there is zero reason to have wasted resources coding and animating them bro.

[rgreat]

Thontor, on 21 February 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

some mechs don't have a choice... and they aren't useless on those mechs.. a 4MG spider could destroy a component every half second on exposed internals..

You'll never by yourself get armor off to get to these internals. You will die trying.

And if someone else is peel off that armor for you - he will just kill the poor ******* himself without bothering with MG's.

That Spider is just better to install ONE Large Laser instead of 4 MG's.
Or AC5. Or extra JJ, Or ANYTHING else.
4 MG's - wasted 3+ Tons on Spider.

Edited by rgreat, 21 February 2013 - 05:49 PM.

[SpiralRazor]

Bhael Fire, on 19 February 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

One of my best mechs sports 2 machine guns and an LB 10-X...and consistently out-performs many other mechs on the field.

There's nothing wrong with MGs and LB 10-X ACs (especially now that they just got buffed) but I'd LOVE if they got a damage buff as well.




This would make an awesome MG variant. Perhaps when (if) they incorporate manufacturer variants something like this will make it into the game. However, I like the fact I can fire my MGs all day long without generating heat; they make excellent harassment weapons.

No, no it does not sir. In fact, i think you would barely score above 300 damage per round, if you are extremely lucky.

[SpiralRazor]

Bhael Fire, on 19 February 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

You're missing the point; MGs are basically freebies for people that have an open ballistic hard point but not enough tonnage to load out a real weapon on that hardpoint. Also, the fact they can fire continuously (keeping the target's HUD lit up and flashing) without generating heat makes them excellent at harassing.

As I've said, I'd LOVE it if they boosted the MGs damage (something on par with a small laser), but it doesn't bother me because I don't think of them as weapons as much as something to throw on your mech if you have the tonnage spare but not enough tonnage to put heavier weapons on.

For two crits id rather have extra sinks or more ammo for other weapons EVERY time...every.

megoblocks, on 20 February 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Wow, you've got this totally wrong. First, for the lb10x, been using 2 of them on an Atlas DC and it's a big improvement.

As for mgs, you guys really should crunch the numbers & save those mgs for when a weak spot opens, and then maybe you'll see just how amazing of a gun it is for a half ton (plus ammo). Crunch the numbers, and with the new increased crit rate, you're looking at about 3 dps for a 1/2 ton, 1 slot gun. Take 2 (like I have on my Trench) and you've got 6 dps for 1 ton (2 if you count ammo). Nothing else compares to that per slot, per ton, and 0 heat. It's not my primary weapon at all (on my Trench, for example, I use 2 MLs and 2 SRM 6s to open them up) but once there's a weak spot, mgs really shine now.

I would kick you straight off my team for using 2 LBX10s on your DDC....just sayin bro..you arent competitive enough to run with us.

Moromillas, on 20 February 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

No, it was never meant to be a long range weapon. It's essentially a shotgun like weapon, always has been.

When compared to the ac/10, you trade range in order to gain slightly higher sustained damage, and slightly less slot and tonnage use.

If you don't like that, then put a different weapon on your Mech.

You have no idea what you are talking about.