340 replies to this topic

[Gremlich Johns]

Vassago Rain, on 07 March 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

Except you're wrong on all accounts.

from sarna

"The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers. Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire, though they are more commonly found on Combat Vehicles and ProtoMechs. These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns. Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins."

A single machinegun (which is not an autocannon) will not do the job, a machinegun array of 4xMGs might - 1 ton, An AC2 round is the size of a 25mm, the MG a .50cal (or 12.7/14.7mm) - which, in my experience will just tick off a tank/mech pilot when you shoot his vehicle/mecha with it. And 90m range - pooh, how about 1,300m instead. A single MG really is just an anti-infantry weapon.

I still see this as a ploy of people to get low/no heat weapons on a mech which will do the job of larger examples like the AC/2 or AC/5. Unless you can mount more than 4 (again, I suggest the machinegun array of 4xMGs), it's a useless weapon against mechs , especially if the targeted mech has weapons with which to shoot back. Nothing more lame than some guy in my face face plinking away with the dakka dakka I shoot those guys with an alpha.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 10 March 2013 - 10:46 AM.

[Super Mono]

Gremlich Johns, on 09 March 2013 - 04:24 AM, said:

from sarna

"The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers. Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire, though they are more commonly found on Combat Vehicles and ProtoMechs. These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns. Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins."

A single machinegun (which is not an autocannon) will not do the job, a machinegun array of 4xMGs might - 1 ton, An AC2 round is the size of a 25mm, the MG a .50cal (or 12.7/14.7mm) - which, in my experience will just tick off a tank/mech pilot when you shoot his vehicle/mecha with it. And 90m range - pooh, how about 1,300m instead. A single MG really is just an anti-infantry weapon.

I still see this as a ploy of people to get low/no heat weapons on a mech which will do the job of larger examples like the AC/2 or AC/5. Unless you can mount more than 4 (again, I suggest the machinegun array of 4xMGs), it's a useless weapon against mechs , especially if the targeted mech has weapons with which to shoot back. Nothing more lame than some guy in my face face plinking away with the dakka dakka - that just seems lame. I shoot those guys with an alpha.

Machine Guns do 2 damage in Battletech, same as an AC/2. Why aren't you arguing to nerf the AC/2 into complete garbage since clearly 2 damage is only enough for anti-infantry work?

[Gen Kumon]

Super Mono, on 09 March 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

Machine Guns do 2 damage in Battletech, same as an AC/2. Why aren't you arguing to nerf the AC/2 into complete garbage since clearly 2 damage is only enough for anti-infantry work?

Don't forget to nerf the SRM, which had not only the same damage per missile, but overall had identical damage per ton to the MG. Obviously these weapons are all intended for anti-infantry use only and can't actually damage a battlemech.

Edited by Gen Kumon, 09 March 2013 - 04:32 AM.

[Siliconwolf]

Interesting to see people throwing around ELO like it's some kind of ranking. It's not. It just means you drop with a team that wins more. You could be an absolute terrible player who has amazing teammates who keep you around as the team's mascot and you'd have a high ELO. Does having a higher ELO mean good ole Gauss Magnet Gus is in any way superior in skill than a random solo player with a not so great ELO? Certainly not.

[Terror Teddy]

Gremlich Johns, on 09 March 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:

from sarna

"The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers. Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire, though they are more commonly found on Combat Vehicles and ProtoMechs. These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns. Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins."

A single machinegun (which is not an autocannon) will not do the job, a machinegun array of 4xMGs might - 1 ton, An AC2 round is the size of a 25mm, the MG a .50cal (or 12.7/14.7mm) - which, in my experience will just tick off a tank/mech pilot when you shoot his vehicle/mecha with it. And 90m range - pooh, how about 1,300m instead. A single MG really is just an anti-infantry weapon.

I bolded a few parts here.

Find me a .50 caliber weighting HALF A TONNE. Mech mounted "machine guns" are not man portable and a .50 caliber machine gun IS.

20mm machine guns are mounted on ships today and are used as anti-air weapons and the US military has 40mm grenade machine guns weighting under 50 kilograms.

So it's not a pair of M60's we are talking about and the bloody ammo weights half a kilo per bullet.

[Sifright]

Siliconwolf, on 09 March 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

Interesting to see people throwing around ELO like it's some kind of ranking. It's not. It just means you drop with a team that wins more. You could be an absolute terrible player who has amazing teammates who keep you around as the team's mascot and you'd have a high ELO. Does having a higher ELO mean good ole Gauss Magnet Gus is in any way superior in skill than a random solo player with a not so great ELO? Certainly not.

Solo pugging all the time bawse.

I kick *** alone.

Gremlich Johns, on 09 March 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:

from sarna

"The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers. Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire, though they are more commonly found on Combat Vehicles and ProtoMechs. These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns. Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins."

A single machinegun (which is not an autocannon) will not do the job, a machinegun array of 4xMGs might - 1 ton, An AC2 round is the size of a 25mm, the MG a .50cal (or 12.7/14.7mm) - which, in my experience will just tick off a tank/mech pilot when you shoot his vehicle/mecha with it. And 90m range - pooh, how about 1,300m instead. A single MG really is just an anti-infantry weapon.

I still see this as a ploy of people to get low/no heat weapons on a mech which will do the job of larger examples like the AC/2 or AC/5. Unless you can mount more than 4 (again, I suggest the machinegun array of 4xMGs), it's a useless weapon against mechs , especially if the targeted mech has weapons with which to shoot back. Nothing more lame than some guy in my face face plinking away with the dakka dakka - that just seems lame. I shoot those guys with an alpha.

I loled that you didn't even bother to finish reading that page you linked.

the MG is a 20MM auto cannon.

Quote

Models

The Machine Gun is manufactured on the following planets: Brand Planet Company
Gatling Gun 20mm Ares Quikscell Company
Gatling Gun 20mm Layover Quikscell Company
Gatling Gun 20mm Kalidasa Quikscell Company
Gatling Gun 20mm Gallery Quikscell Company
Armstrong MiniGun Ramora United Outworlders Corporation
Blackwell B75 Outreach Blackwell Heavy Industries
Bulldog Minigun Ingersoll Bulldog Enterprises
Bulldog Minigun Proserpina Bulldog Enterprises
Double-Gun New Avalon Achernar BattleMechs
Coventry Light Autogun Coventry Coventry Metal Works
GM MiniGun Salem General Motors
Johnston MiniGun New Syrtis Johnston Industries
Kicker Skye Cyclops Incorporated
LFN Linblad Grand Base Earthwerks Incorporated
LFN Linblad Tematagi Nimakachi Fusion Products Limited
LFN Linblad Wallis Ronin Incorporated
LFN Linblad Illiushin Vandenberg Mechanized Industries
MainFire MiniGun Belladonna Cal-Boeing of Dorwinion
Maxi Mini Menke Ceres Metals Industries
Mydron Mini-Gun Bithinia Bithinian Ballistics
ScatterGun Light New Earth New Earth Trading Company
SperryBrowning Hun Ho LexaTech Industries
SperryBrowning Canopus IV Majesty Metals and Manufacturing
SperryBrowning Indicass Ceres Metals Industries
SperryBrowning MacLeod's Land Pinard Protectorates Limited
SureFire MiniGun Coventry Coventry Metal Works
SureFire MiniGun Pandora Red Devil Industries
Voelkers 200 Stewart Corean Enterprises
Voelkers 200 Pinard Vandenberg Mechanized Industries

[Terror Teddy]

This is a nice comparison.



The third one from the bottom right is the .50 caliber used in HEAVY Machine Guns - the one to the right of that is the general caliber of Battletech machine guns.

One also has to factor in that when battletech speaks about infantry they dont talk about a SINGULAR SOLDIER but rather PLATOONS that are wiped out in a few passes.

Any soldiers here with the experience of wiping out an entire platoon of heavy futuristic infantry with a .50 caliber?

And no - JOHN RAMBO is not allowed to answer.

I think to many hang up directly at the "Anti-Infantry" part and dont stop and think about:

-What KIND of infantry
-How MANY are they
-What do they need to stop infantry in a 1000 years

Edited by Terror Teddy, 09 March 2013 - 05:08 AM.

[aptest]

the OP's ponts are valid.

however, if you are counting on a team mate's weapons to do the armor-stripping you have several problems.

first, the section he's stripping may not actually have any equipment in it. for instance, taking out right torso armor on cent, while the cent may have gun on right hand, right torso may be devoid of components worth critting.

secondly, you deprive yourself of the ability to strip armor by yourself since you are sacrificing a minimum of 1.5 tons to crit. yes taking out the component without critting the items first is a lesser solution but you get to execute it much more consistently.

as a utility item, a tag/flamer is probably more effective. flamers with respect to dueling will rob (some) opponents of weapons regardless of critting while tag will considerabely improve missile hits on the target.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

They're still mostly trash and will only be used as filler. They needed a flat out damage boost, not crit chance vs internals. Now they hit for something on dying targets when they need to hit for something on ALL targets. Once again, the Piranha design makes no sense.

They should have done this:
2x damage per bullet
Half the ammo per ton
PROBLEM SOLVED!
TOOK FIVE MINUTES!

But instead they took 6 months to put in a round about change that barely means anything. Show all the videos of stationary Atlases that you like... the gun still sucks in actual combat.

[Yokaiko]

Terror Teddy, on 09 March 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

This is a nice comparison.



The third one from the bottom right is the .50 caliber used in HEAVY Machine Guns - the one to the right of that is the general caliber of Battletech machine guns.

One also has to factor in that when battletech speaks about infantry they dont talk about a SINGULAR SOLDIER but rather PLATOONS that are wiped out in a few passes.

Any soldiers here with the experience of wiping out an entire platoon of heavy futuristic infantry with a .50 caliber?

And no - JOHN RAMBO is not allowed to answer.

I think to many hang up directly at the "Anti-Infantry" part and dont stop and think about:

-What KIND of infantry
-How MANY are they
-What do they need to stop infantry in a 1000 years

50 cal isn't a heavy machine gun, it weighs in around 80lbs the M2 .50cal is basically unchanged since WW2, just because it a) works and is a badmotherucker.

a Heavy machine gun would be the 20mm, 25mm, and 30mm vulcans, they have LOT of lead in the air if you are shooting it. if you have every seen a CWIS like this



THAT is a heavy machine gun, the Vulcan on that mount weighs significantly less than a 1102 pound (.5 metric tons) mech machine gun. I've carried that gun across the deck of a ship, you aren't doing that with an 1100lb gun.

If you have ever seen WHAT a 20mm machine gun can do, just say the current implementation is beyond silly.

[Terror Teddy]

Yokaiko, on 09 March 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

If you have ever seen WHAT a 20mm machine gun can do, just say the current implementation is beyond silly.

Agreed. Now, the range I can understand because they can have shorter barrels so your accuracy is ****** to fit them in a battlemech but they should have the same DPS as the AC2 or AT LEAST the SL.

Up the damage and heat as the AC2, add a little heat because those barrels will get hot and it's good.

After all, rapid firing X4 AC2 will get some heat as well.

Or halve he crit bonus and up the damage to 1 dps

Edited by Terror Teddy, 09 March 2013 - 06:17 AM.

[JohnathanSwift]

Unless the DPS is slightly greater than a small laser, then there is no reason to carry the MG.

You're talking about a weapon that has an ammo dependency, ammo that can cost you an arm and a leg.

An mg boating light should be able at the very least, strip red armor and then shut down the component.

Otherwise there is no reason not to take Small lasers instead for crit seeking.

[Mike Townsend]

coolnames, on 08 March 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

MGs are bad for direct damage. You shoot them at vulnerable areas on your target for 0.001 - 2 seconds...all the while still maintaining your normal firing of your damage dealing weapons. A quick swipe over the vulnerable area is all it takes, and you are back to business.

There are no vulnerable areas until you strip the armor off. That's the problem. You may kill a component instantly after the armor is gone, but it takes longer to strip the armor than it does to destroy the entire section outright with any other weapon.

I don't need to watch the video. I can do my own testing. The argument is that MGs should be used to strip components. It still takes longer to strip components with MGs (20 seconds for one SRM) than to destroy a section (in the case of the Commando, the CT, so all components alive or dead are now useless) with something else. I'll do a test on a Hunchback or Atlas since that seems to be the favored pro MG example, but I suspect that the component will still be dead faster with a pair of MLs than a pair of MGs.

Edited by Mike Townsend, 09 March 2013 - 11:46 AM.

[Mavairo]

Mike Townsend, on 09 March 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

There are no vulnerable areas until you strip the armor off. That's the problem. You may kill a component instantly after the armor is gone, but it takes longer to strip the armor than it does to destroy the entire section outright with any other weapon.

I don't need to watch the video. I can do my own testing. The argument is that MGs should be used to strip components. It still takes longer to strip components with MGs (20 seconds for one SRM) than to destroy a section (in the case of the Commando, the CT, so all components alive or dead are now useless) with something else. I'll do a test on a Hunchback or Atlas since that seems to be the favored pro MG example, but I suspect that the component will still be dead faster with a pair of MLs than a pair of MGs.

Mike Townsend, on 09 March 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

There are no vulnerable areas until you strip the armor off. That's the problem. You may kill a component instantly after the armor is gone, but it takes longer to strip the armor than it does to destroy the entire section outright with any other weapon.

I don't need to watch the video. I can do my own testing. The argument is that MGs should be used to strip components. It still takes longer to strip components with MGs (20 seconds for one SRM) than to destroy a section (in the case of the Commando, the CT, so all components alive or dead are now useless) with something else. I'll do a test on a Hunchback or Atlas since that seems to be the favored pro MG example, but I suspect that the component will still be dead faster with a pair of MLs than a pair of MGs.

Mike Townsend, on 09 March 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

There are no vulnerable areas until you strip the armor off. That's the problem. You may kill a component instantly after the armor is gone, but it takes longer to strip the armor than it does to destroy the entire section outright with any other weapon.

I don't need to watch the video. I can do my own testing. The argument is that MGs should be used to strip components. It still takes longer to strip components with MGs (20 seconds for one SRM) than to destroy a section (in the case of the Commando, the CT, so all components alive or dead are now useless) with something else. I'll do a test on a Hunchback or Atlas since that seems to be the favored pro MG example, but I suspect that the component will still be dead faster with a pair of MLs than a pair of MGs.

And my vid backs this up completely.

By the time the MG has removed the weapon system, you could have blown it and the structure under it (and gotten more Cbills as a result or even Kills) with a real weapon.

[coolnames]

Super Mono, on 09 March 2013 - 03:23 AM, said:

So you agree that machine guns aren't competitive and that the 5K is 'limited' which is a nice way of saying garbage, and you're still insisting on arguing that this is fine? I'm glad Elo means I won't ever have to suffer having you on my team as you plink around with machine guns instead of just using an actual weapon.

The word "limited" as I used contained in single quotes meant I was hedging off of Teddy's opinion, not that it was my own.

and, I am glad that you are glad. I don't want to play with a BM-er, so we will both be happy

Mike Townsend, on 09 March 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

There are no vulnerable areas until you strip the armor off. That's the problem. You may kill a component instantly after the armor is gone, but it takes longer to strip the armor than it does to destroy the entire section outright with any other weapon.

I don't need to watch the video. I can do my own testing. The argument is that MGs should be used to strip components. It still takes longer to strip components with MGs (20 seconds for one SRM) than to destroy a section (in the case of the Commando, the CT, so all components alive or dead are now useless) with something else. I'll do a test on a Hunchback or Atlas since that seems to be the favored pro MG example, but I suspect that the component will still be dead faster with a pair of MLs than a pair of MGs.

Mike, you are killin me Smalls. Do not use the MGs as a primary weapon.

For a boating 5K or a 3C, you have a 10 dmg Laser as well for doing damage. You are a scout, shooting mechs in their low armor butts. How many laser shots to strip armor? 2-3? That is not hard to do solo. But a wise player in that mech will focus fire on the enemies his teammates are attacking.

For any other mech, you have a normal loadout and put 2+ tons of MGs in as well. You do your normal damage and incorporate the MG fire in it as well...so that when your weapons are on cooldown, those MGs can pop an enemy's weapons before he can get another shot off...and before you can shoot your normal weapons to destroy that area. That split second could win you the fight... It is all situational.

This is not hard to comprehend. You might not think it is as good as putting the 2+ tons elsewhere, but that is fine. I am glad you have an opinion. have fun!

[Super Mono]

coolnames, on 09 March 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

The word "limited" as I used contained in single quotes meant I was hedging off of Teddy's opinion, not that it was my own.

and, I am glad that you are glad. I don't want to play with a BM-er, so we will both be happy




Mike, you are killin me Smalls. Do not use the MGs as a primary weapon.

For a boating 5K or a 3C, you have a 10 dmg Laser as well for doing damage. You are a scout, shooting mechs in their low armor butts. How many laser shots to strip armor? 2-3? That is not hard to do solo. But a wise player in that mech will focus fire on the enemies his teammates are attacking.

For any other mech, you have a normal loadout and put 2+ tons of MGs in as well. You do your normal damage and incorporate the MG fire in it as well...so that when your weapons are on cooldown, those MGs can pop an enemy's weapons before he can get another shot off...and before you can shoot your normal weapons to destroy that area. That split second could win you the fight... It is all situational.

This is not hard to comprehend. You might not think it is as good as putting the 2+ tons elsewhere, but that is fine. I am glad you have an opinion. have fun!

Scouting of this type is pointless with these tiny maps with these limited game modes. Your description of how a fight would play out is also a complete fantasy. I could spend 20 minutes describing in detail the myriad of ways that you're wrong but you're just going to reply with a "Well that's not so because " so I'm not going to bother.

[coolnames]

Super Mono, on 09 March 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

Scouting of this type is pointless with these tiny maps with these limited game modes. Your description of how a fight would play out is also a complete fantasy. I could spend 20 minutes describing in detail the myriad of ways that you're wrong but you're just going to reply with a "Well that's not so because " so I'm not going to bother.

I am sorry, when I said the 5k is a scout, I meant it as a general term toward a fast moving, light weight mech, not the overbearing tactics it must use (scouting). The point to derive from that is a light fast mech can circle and be behind an enemy where they are vulnerable, as I said in the short example I wrote.

I have clearly said that the 4x MG loadout should not be used to run off and duel and try to do nonstop direct damage. It is for supporting an engagement your teammates are in.

[Mike Townsend]

coolnames, on 09 March 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

The word "limited" as I used contained in single quotes meant I was hedging off of Teddy's opinion, not that it was my own.

and, I am glad that you are glad. I don't want to play with a BM-er, so we will both be happy




Mike, you are killin me Smalls. Do not use the MGs as a primary weapon.

For a boating 5K or a 3C, you have a 10 dmg Laser as well for doing damage. You are a scout, shooting mechs in their low armor butts. How many laser shots to strip armor? 2-3? That is not hard to do solo. But a wise player in that mech will focus fire on the enemies his teammates are attacking.

For any other mech, you have a normal loadout and put 2+ tons of MGs in as well. You do your normal damage and incorporate the MG fire in it as well...so that when your weapons are on cooldown, those MGs can pop an enemy's weapons before he can get another shot off...and before you can shoot your normal weapons to destroy that area. That split second could win you the fight... It is all situational.

This is not hard to comprehend. You might not think it is as good as putting the 2+ tons elsewhere, but that is fine. I am glad you have an opinion. have fun!

In order to use machineguns on my light mech I would need to stop running a Jenner D as it can't mount them and a) Run a Spider 5k, with four machineguns and a single laser, which you argue is better than the four lasers and pair of SRM4's on the Jenner. Run a Raven 4X, which trades the pair of SRM 4's for a single SRM6 and the left pair of energy hardpoints for a pair of ballistics and is also a lot slower than the Jenner, but at least it allows me to ditch a pair of medium lasers for MGs. I haven't run the Spider, but I have run the Raven 4X up through all eight basics and trust me, it is definitely NOT a better mech than the Jenner D by virtue of having a pair of MGs instead of a pair of MLs.

[Solidussnake]

The Librarian: Are there any plans to add incremental Engine Damage? For example, in tabletop when you take a hit to your engine you lose some speed as well as some heatsinks.

A: It’s being discussed and could be added. No plans to do so yet.

PGI just cemented how useless MG's are going to remain as crit seekers since (they) cannot wrap there head around allowing engine critical hits. They should obviously be in the game. Its stupid that, I the player can destory ammo, and weapons. But the actual engine which is in this left torso with all the armor stripped is not only MG proof but *everything* proof. The only way for us to continue to destory mechs will be to continue to destory the entire Internal structure instead of a few good critical hits removing the engine(or Gyro) and removing the enemey mech from combat.

The same with center torsos from that matter. Having to remove all Internal structure from a mech to remove it from combat is a bad and broken mechanic.

Edited by Solidussnake, 09 March 2013 - 02:26 PM.

[coolnames]

Mike Townsend, on 09 March 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

In order to use machineguns on my light mech I would need to stop running a Jenner D as it can't mount them and a) Run a Spider 5k, with four machineguns and a single laser, which you argue is better than the four lasers and pair of SRM4's on the Jenner. Run a Raven 4X, which trades the pair of SRM 4's for a single SRM6 and the left pair of energy hardpoints for a pair of ballistics and is also a lot slower than the Jenner, but at least it allows me to ditch a pair of medium lasers for MGs. I haven't run the Spider, but I have run the Raven 4X up through all eight basics and trust me, it is definitely NOT a better mech than the Jenner D by virtue of having a pair of MGs instead of a pair of MLs.

When have I said that any build is better than anything else? I have not. I am defending a stance that playing a variant that can incorporate MGs is not useless. It can be functional, and do well for a team. Everything is situational...and if someone says that those 2+ tons are 'better off with more srm ammo', for instance, then they think that the situation where an MG would benefit would not occur as often as their SRM cycle time would allow.

It is almost like you are not comprehending what is being said in the video or in any of the pro-MG posts.

Solidussnake, on 09 March 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

PGI just cemented how useless MG's are going to remain as crit seekers since (they) cannot wrap there head around allowing engine critical hits should obviously be in the game.

No engine crits ≠ useless to me bro.