340 replies to this topic

[Vermaxx]

Let me also say this - a Battletech infantry unit generally had 'hit points' equal to the squad size.

An MWO machine gun would take a full second of concentrated fire - on one fire team member - to kill a human being. No, we're not adding in bonus human damage or anything else.

I cannot think of a single automatic fire weapon that cannot kill a human being with less than one full second of projectiles. Most vehicular mounted automatic weapons kill human beings with one or two hits due to the massive trauma from large projectiles.

MWO machine guns do not excel at any role. Their mathematical superiority at critting components has not been demonstrated IN GAME as being superior to the raw hit location destruction potential of other weapons.

Sorry, math was all wrong. It would take an MWO machine gun about 2.8 seconds of concentrated fire to kill a human being.

Edited by Vermaxx, 08 March 2013 - 06:40 AM.

[Mr 144]

coolnames, on 07 March 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

If you do not see that value in that, then I guess there is nothing more I can say or show you to help you understand the viability of MGs.

And if you don't see the problem in having a build taking a team slot that absolutely requires everyone else to do the heavy lifting, nothing said will convince you otherwise. As engines can't be kill-critted, the inability to actually KILL something is what makes your point rediculous///much less, the inneffeciency to even strip the armor to accomplish YOUR goal of stripping weapons on pre-weakend opponents.

/facepalm

Now, I'll feed the trolls further with the JM6-DD...6 ballistics + 2 energy....in other words room for 4xMG and actual weapons. Before ya get all giggly however, at 65 tons, builds are tight, and the MGs are still not worth the wieght.

Mr 144

[Esplodin]

I'm the one that started the Terror of Machine Guns thread that started another *** vs. tat on MG. Sigh. Rather than rehash the same old schmidt, I give you a video from another thread:

http://mwomercs.com/...8v8-looks-like/

Watch the video and answer the following questions:

1) How many machine guns are in use?
2) How long does the entire battle last once rounds start firing
3) What weapons are heavily used in the match and why?

In truth MG are only useful when the following conditions present themselves:
1) Someone else opened up armor
2) Junk to crit in said section
3) You can maneuver within 90m without getting blown to the next existence
4) Someone else is there to actually kill the mech, since you have to completely destroy the center torso.

In short: weapon useful for 5% of the match or 100%? That answer is an easy one.

[Roland]

Prosperity Park, on 07 March 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

It's a good thing the authors of the video stated very specifically that the machine gun should not be used as a primary weapon, then. Yay for everybody agreeing!

And yet his build is running them as a primary weapon system.

[Tipsy3000]

If what you say is true in the video, could machineguns instantly explode ammuntion to instant kill most mechs as most dont carry CASE? If that is true the only tricky problem is finding ammuntion and it would only work on missile/ballistic mechs

[Roadbuster]

Team Leader, on 07 March 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

They just want them to work like in TT, which is 2 damage per round, which is ACTUAL ARMOR damage.

2 damage per round?!
At 10 rounds per second that would be 20dps... 4 times the dps of an AC20 for 1,5t?

Never going to get this.

PGI might increase damage a bit at some point...maybe.
But people have to let go of a 1:1 conversion of TT rules for this game. It would never work for a FPS game with direct control.
You don't roll dice everytime you press your fire button either. Right?

[Esplodin]

Roadbuster, on 08 March 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

2 damage per round?!
At 10 rounds per second that would be 20dps... 4 times the dps of an AC20 for 1,5t?

Those 10 shots would be in the round, so each bullet would do .2 damage. Look at this site:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...eapon_ballistic

Notice most of the ballistic weapons are right around 4dps. Now look at the machine gun DPS.

[FrostCollar]

Also, is anyone really "harassed" by MGs? I feel the same way about MG rounds hitting my mech as I do about rain hitting my car. I'm aware it's hitting me but I really don't care. They're just too weak.

[Terror Teddy]

Roadbuster, on 08 March 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

2 damage per round?!

That's 2 damage over a 10 second tabletop round.

That is then 0,2 DPS compared to the AC 20 DPS of 5 with it's cycle rate of 4 seconds - and that is if we dont BOOST the fire rate of MG's like EVERY OTHER WEAPON has been given instead of firing once per 10 seconds.

Now, the gun HAS been given a higher DPS but the problem is that the "Time to Damage" is far longer since my shots are spread at 0,04 every 0,1 seconds at another moving target.

Mg's have a great damage potential if given time but it takes simply too long to be efficient.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 08 March 2013 - 09:18 AM.

[Mavairo]

coolnames, on 07 March 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

What a BM response, but that's ok, I won't hold it against you.

I watched your video. What were you trying to show? That MGs are not good for straight up damage when playing a Dragon? lol...

Maybe educate yourself with other's arguments before throwing out your own? <3

I think you should read the commentary in the vid.

It states itself quite plainly.
By the time the MG will destroy a weapon, another hit from an LL, or AC10 will pop off the entire internal structure anyway. Crit Seeking weapons are a myth, and don't actually work due to several mechanics, not the least of which is that critical hits, use Damage in the first place. Look at the Catapult and Cataphract targets, specifically.

MGs are no better than a Real Weapon system when it comes to removing weapons from play in the current state of the game.

MGs don't remove weapons etc in a timely fashion when compared against big boy weapons. They aren't a suitable ''alternative'' to use while your ''big bores'' are on CD.

MGs also don't do Damage either.

So other than looking and sounding cool what do they do for you? Eat up precious ammunition tonnage, or cooling tonnage.

I know what the argument is. That is why I made that video. The argument is ''they are more efficient for weapon system removal!'' than just straight up blowing a limb, or ST to pieces. Which as my video proves, just isn't the case.

Now apply movement, focus fire, torso twisting and ranged shooting. What do you think has the better chance at committing surgery? The Big Burst Weapon, or the DOT ludicrously short range weapon? That vid was the most ideal circumstance imaginable for the MGs. And they didn't measure up in the slightest.

What needs to happen, is the MG needs to be dealing 4 DPS. Even if it has to be in a 4 gun configuration to do so. (Same as an AC2 just like the TT. Blah blah ''that's a crap ton of damage per ton of ammo blah blah" yeah and you have to be in Knife Fighting range to use it in the first place, and its' still a DOT weapon over the full second, where as an AC2 is more bursty, has vastly superior range, and **** pit shake. This is one thing TT got right and it's a complete joke that PGI didn't use the TT value)

Edited by Mavairo, 08 March 2013 - 09:24 AM.

[Xyroc]

I love 4x Machine guns on my SDR-5K and have taken out many gauss and ac 20's from hittin the Atlai in the back ... wish some people wouldnt feel the need to comment on everything....

[Roadbuster]

Esplodin, on 08 March 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

Those 10 shots would be in the round, so each bullet would do .2 damage.

Ok, my fault.
I thought he meant round=bullet.

[FrostCollar]

Beliall, on 08 March 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

I love 4x Machine guns on my SDR-5K and have taken out many gauss and ac 20's from hittin the Atlai in the back ... wish some people wouldnt feel the need to comment on everything....

One of the reasons I feel the need to comment is that the existence of MGs is supposed to, at least in part, justify the use of mech variants like the RVN-4X. Given their current state they do the opposite and mean that those designs are notably less effective than other variants of the chassis regardless of what you equip them with. That's not good game design.

[Terror Teddy]

Beliall, on 08 March 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

I love 4x Machine guns on my SDR-5K and have taken out many gauss and ac 20's from hittin the Atlai in the back ... wish some people wouldnt feel the need to comment on everything....

I'm sorry, just because of what you wrote.

Yes, I loved it - but unless someone else strips enemy armor off I need 50 seconds against an enemy with continous fire from my 4 MG's to emty my magazine and MAYBE do the promised 80 damage of 1 tonne of ammunition.

A potential 80 damage that takes 50 seconds of always hitting in optimal range until dry.

1 Small Laser does 0,3DPS in the TT game and now has 1DPS. as compared to the MGs TT dps of 0,2 increased to 0,4

+100% DPS to MG's and +200% to small lasers

Edited by Terror Teddy, 08 March 2013 - 09:31 AM.

[Xyroc]

well it does have a ER LL on it as well so it helps withe stripping the armor ;D

[Skydrive]

I find that the minimum amount of machine guns should be 2, more would of course quicken the result, but 2 is enough. NEVER TAKE JUST 1... unless you have full armour, BAP, AMS, ECM (if capable), and have only 2 crit slots available.

Machine guns main lethal point right now is when it comes to a mech using an XL engine, and gauss weapons, or any ammo stored in the torso's.

I have been screwed over by MG's before, going against a mech where I had more fire power then him... he stripped my armour, his 2 MG's chewed into my internals, and disabled all of my weapons except the LRM 15... which was useless at that range.

I have also screwed other mechs with MG's before, killing the AC 20 and ECM on a D-DC that had 3 LRM's, opening him up to much easier LRM volleys with a payload of payback.

[General Taskeen]

Roadbuster, on 08 March 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

You don't roll dice everytime you press your fire button either. Right?

When you fire an Ultra, you roll the dice.

When you press Launch, you roll the dice.

Anyways, most weapons in the game, namely Autocannons and Lasers do their exact TT Damage. Missile systems even have a progressed damage model due to inaccuracy, double armor, etc. That's 92% of weapons in the game that either are a 1:1 conversion or slightly better with damage values alone. Even an LB-X does 1 damage per pellet, although that's another story, since its still a bad design without a progression model.

And yes while the MG (or other types of MG's do lot's of damage from TT), it can be balanced within constraints, like slight cool downs, low ammunition, etc.

Just one MG in MW3 is upwards of 95% difference with raw damage than MWO's MG, and as such, does damage vs. armor, like every other weapon in that game which has a chance at damaging a Mech. While they don't have the exact "2" damage, it has a similar effectiveness. Meaning, if you stuck any of MWO's 2 MG variants in that game, it could dole out decent damage with its limited ammunition supply of 200 ammo (If you have 4 MG's and 4 tons of ammo, while you deal lots of damage, the ammo will go down to 2 tons in less than 4 seconds of constant fire)

200 Ammo Per Ton
.2 Damage (Fires in bursts of 4 equaling .8 damage)
0.625 Cool Down

Within the constraints of a cool down (rather than 0), an MG, like a Mini-AC cannon, is far easier to balance in order for it to have that equal chance of damaging armor like every other weapon.

If an MG did .8 or .6 Damage per bullet, with a 0.625 or 0.4 cool down, the DPS would either be 1.28 or 1.5 respectively. Chaining 2 would be 2.56 DPS or 3 DPS, thus a stock Mech equipped with 2 MG's now has a better chance at dealing near small laser damage, but within the constraints of low ammunition, low range, and being able to effectively land each shot on the same area.

As another example, the MG could be .2 damage for .2 Cooldown of 1 DPS. So you retain the "super dakka" feel, but at least can do some semblance of damage over time. However, I think balancing around .8 or .6, with slightly higer cool downs, is better by taking into account the LMG, MG, HMG, and MGA's.

Edited by General Taskeen, 08 March 2013 - 10:00 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

Beliall, on 08 March 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

well it does have a ER LL on it as well so it helps withe stripping the armor ;D

Yea, but something is wrong when 4 of 5 weapon mounts wait for armor to be removed.

[coolnames]

Beliall, on 08 March 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

well it does have a ER LL on it as well so it helps withe stripping the armor ;D

I have no idea why any of these "use better weapons" dudes don't notice that. The video clearly states that the mgs are not the primary weapon. My two scouts that rock 4 MGs have insane heat efficiency and any one of the biggest energy weapons. Anyways, stoked that you like a similar build that I like

Terror Teddy, on 08 March 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Yes, I loved it - but unless someone else strips enemy armor off I need 50 seconds against an enemy with continous fire from my 4 MG's to emty my magazine and MAYBE do the promised 80 damage of 1 tonne of ammunition.

Don't use them as a primary weapon

Terror Teddy, on 08 March 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

Yea, but something is wrong when 4 of 5 weapon mounts wait for armor to be removed.

Nothing is wrong bro. You just don't like it, and that is ok.

Mr 144, on 08 March 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

And if you don't see the problem in having a build taking a team slot that absolutely requires everyone else to do the heavy lifting, nothing said will convince you otherwise. As engines can't be kill-critted, the inability to actually KILL something is what makes your point rediculous///much less, the inneffeciency to even strip the armor to accomplish YOUR goal of stripping weapons on pre-weakend opponents.

/facepalm

You had me at 'heavy lifting.'

In case you didn't read or hear it before, "don't use the MGs as a primary weapon"

[Terror Teddy]

coolnames, on 08 March 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

I have no idea why any of these "use better weapons" dudes don't notice that. The video clearly states that the mgs are not the primary weapon. My two scouts that rock 4 MGs have insane heat efficiency and any one of the biggest energy weapons. Anyways, stoked that you like a similar build that I like

The spider with 1 center torso energy mount and 4 arm mounted ballistic mount clearly DO show that the ballistic points are the main weapons.

Why? It CAN upgrade. If the spider had had it's energy slot in one of the side torsos then one could claim a primary heavy weapon like the ERPPC.

If energy is it's primary weapon mount it is really poor design when it comes to options - Especially If you want to play a support.

Want a Tag? Sure, just remove the primary weapon.

Also, why give it lower damage than the SL? 33% less damage boost than the SL got in DPS and 2000 rounds of ammo does 80 points of damage.

2000 rounds with 1 MG takes 2,33 MINUTES to emty. to do 80 damage. 1 SL does that in 1,2 minutes

The MG's are the ballistic counterpart to SL and giving it LOWER damage AND require to punch through armor FIRST before it's utility truly begins is plain wrong.