550 replies to this topic

[Dr Killinger]

Squigles, on 14 March 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

http://www.sarna.net...Mech_Technology

This should be mandatory reading before talking about battlemech "anything". These are basically direct pulls from the Tech Manual for those without.

Battlemech armor isn't inches thick, it's centimeters and millimeters thick. It's designed to ablate on impact. It fragments pretty much any ammunition hitting it, but shatters to bits in the process.



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.

Excerpt from that gives us..... "enough firepower to be a threat to heavily-armored vehicles." The excerpt you posted is essentially fluff for a machine gun that does something like .17 damage per trooper and has an entire platoon of men doing basically jack squat to a battlemech.

The machine gun page I linked is the damage profile from CBT. The support machine gun is an entirely different weapon, ie. not the one we see on Spiders and Cicadas.

EDIT: I'd support seeing the support machine gun added to the game, though. We need a light ballistic weapon to rival medium lasers and the like.

Edited by Dr Killinger, 14 March 2013 - 08:20 AM.

[Squigles]

Harmin, on 14 March 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Sounds more that you are biased towards a weapon system to make your preferred choice of mech more viable. I strive to be adequate in all chassis types, I more or less successfully play lights, medium, heavies and assaults. I think that giving a weapon which is extremely light and produces no heat a damage buff would be a very bad idea.

I would support giving the MG more damage if

tonnage would be increased to 4t
or
it would create much more heat, 2 heat sounds fine.
or
it will chew through ammo at 10x the rate

Or any combination of above with slightly lower values.

So I'm not wholly against the idea of some MG tweaks, but not wholesale upping it without rebalancing.

-Armin

It already chews through ammo at an idiotic relative rate, perhaps you didn't know this, but while EVERY OTHER ammo based gun in mechwarrior got an ammo boost, the machine gun got ammo gimped. LRM's are supposed to be 120 damage per ton, AC 5-20 is supposed to be 100 per ton, AC/2 is supposed to be 90. Machine gun is supposed to be 400 but only gets 80!

Dr Killinger, on 14 March 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

The machine gun page I linked is the damage profile from CBT. The support machine gun is an entirely different weapon, ie. not the one we see on Spiders and Cicadas.

EDIT: I'd support seeing the support machine gun added to the game, though. We need a light ballistic weapon to rival medium lasers and the like.

I'm aware that it links to the CBT damage profile, but the "fluff" is essentially pulled from the infantry carried machine gun. That's why you also need the books in addition to sarna. Hence why a vehicle/battlemech machine gun when used by infantry is called a support machine gun...the support machine gun is the one ALREADY on a battlemech.

Edited by Squigles, 14 March 2013 - 08:24 AM.

[Noobzorz]

Harmin, on 14 March 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Sounds more that you are biased towards a weapon system to make your preferred choice of mech more viable. I strive to be adequate in all chassis types, I more or less successfully play lights, medium, heavies and assaults. I think that giving a weapon which is extremely light and produces no heat a damage buff would be a very bad idea.

I would support giving the MG more damage if

tonnage would be increased to 4t
or
it would create much more heat, 2 heat sounds fine.
or
it will chew through ammo at 10x the rate

Or any combination of above with slightly lower values.

So I'm not wholly against the idea of some MG tweaks, but not wholesale upping it without rebalancing.

-Armin

Fine. Then give it some heat. But the weapon is in need of a colossal buff right now, because it suuuuuucks.

[Joseph Mallan]

Noobzorz, on 14 March 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

Let me try again.

Mechwarrior Online is not a tabletop game. It is not turn based. It is a real time first person mech combat simulator.

If you are talking in turns, you are thinking of another game with firing cones and D6s.

It is really dumb.

Stop it.

I am using this as my guideline. So I guess that is dumb also? Please understand what you are saying is more dumb than what I am saying. I am providing a positive upgrade to a weapon system that is a POS. While all you have provided is, "Stop it!" I am using MWO, TT and if necessary I am willing to sacrifice some CatGirls lives to make my point.

MWO has turns, they are 10 seconds long. that comes from TT and therefore can be used for comparison. 16 damage from a machine gun is more than fair when compared to the AC2 which does 40 damage in the same suggested amount of time(10 seconds). So please take your own advice and just stop it.

[General Taskeen]

AdamBaines, on 14 March 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

I see that....but you did not give it its context:

From Sarna:

"The Piranha was developed by Clan Diamond Shark shortly before the Battle of Tukayyid to combat Inner Sphere conventional infantry and light vehicles. The sheer speed that the BattleMech is capable of has also made it something of a scout, though it lacks sophisticated electronic equipment."

I still don't get why everyone wants the MG to be some sort of primary weapon and expect it to do heavy damage? I must be missing the point so Ill leave the debate to you guys.

Edit: Formatting. Dang cut and paste from Sarna :-)

Because you cherry-pick. Simple.

Peruse through Sarna and you'll find the Small Laser being equipped and sometimes described to fend off infantry as well. Therefore, with this tired logic, I don't get why everyone wants the SL to be some sort of primary weapon and expect it to do heavy damage? I must be missing the point so I'll leave the debate to you guys.

Small Laser needs to be 0.06 Damage and become a crit seeker, just becuz guys.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_gun (2 damage, feel free to quote the "infantry" part, becuz guys its a M249 BRUH LAWL, but it doesn't change the damage values and what they do to a mech at short range)

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC/2 (2 damage)

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Small_laser (3 damage)

http://www.sarna.net.../AP_Gauss_Rifle (3 damage)

http://www.sarna.net.../ER_Micro_Laser (2 damage)

[Hou]

MGs produce no heat, which does not incentivize spending dimestore MC on coolant flushes. Expect no MG buffs. Fear for your Gauss Rifles.

[Culler]

For sure it needs damage and not crit boost. Crit weapons are marginally useful at best, since they only work when that section is a couple good volleys from dying entirely. It's generally much better to just take out the section unless you can reliably explode ammo, which you can't (don't know where it is, it's already used, etc.)

I am wholly behind MGs having small laser dps. They have the same range, the laser does its damage in a nice burst but causes heat while the MG spreads it out and causes no heat and weighs more and has ammo requirements. No one is gonna say the MG is OP with those kinds of numbers, but on the other hand it'd actually be useful and worth taking for the heat properties. Ballistics in general are cooler but heavier weapon systems and this fits that theme perfectly.

This works out to a 2.5x damage increase for machine guns for all the mighty dps of a small laser with much less usability and much greater tonnage. Sounds totally reasonable and seems like a decent tertiary weapon system, but no one is gonna be able to boat them and just annihilate. 4 MGs is less dangerous than 4 small lasers in a brawl, and taking MGs is gonna prevent someone from taking extra heat sinks to run their other weaponry, so its a reasonable tradeoff. Crit properties would need to be rolled back though.

[Mavairo]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 March 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

I am using this as my guideline. So I guess that is dumb also? Please understand what you are saying is more dumb than what I am saying. I am providing a positive upgrade to a weapon system that is a POS. While all you have provided is, "Stop it!" I am using MWO, TT and if necessary I am willing to sacrifice some CatGirls lives to make my point.

MWO has turns, they are 10 seconds long. that comes from TT and therefore can be used for comparison. 16 damage from a machine gun is more than fair when compared to the AC2 which does 40 damage in the same suggested amount of time(10 seconds). So please take your own advice and just stop it.

Except that it's not fair. Because you aren't capable apparently of noting the difference between Burst and sustained damage.
An AC2 will do 40.

Asking an MG to do 20 is not a stretch in this game by any means. Look at the out put of a ML vs an LL. Less than 1/2 the tonnage, (infact it's 1/5 the tonnage!) and 1/2 the heat. And there's an even smaller difference in the range of ML vs LL than there is between MG and AC2.

For an MG to do a full 20 damage (with a 2 DPS total per gun) it would require you, to hit the exact same point of armor with every single bullet. An AC to do 40 damage means hitting with 10 shells. Now let me ask you, which is more difficult, hitting the same point of armor from 2100 meters away and lesser 10 times. Or blowing 100 rounds, on the same target, in the middle of a furball, while ducking and weaving enemy fire?

If you're at all being honest about it, you'll say the AC2 is easier.

But since you're a Steiner, and thus predisposed to hate anything smaller and faster than your big worthless Fat Self, we all know what you're gonna say

You can't use 10 seconds of time to really gauge a weapon's effectiveness in this game. This is a real time game where things change second to second. Which is why The DPS Stat matters more than what it will theoretically do over 10 seconds.

Edited by Mavairo, 14 March 2013 - 08:49 AM.

[Damocles69]

I hate MGs and am glad they are useless. As they should be

[General Taskeen]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 March 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

the GAU-8 is an Auto Cannon. The military even classifies it as such. it is also a 30mm cannon not 20mm. though your size is correct for a Clan Weapon cause the GAU-8 weighs in around .25 tons sans ammo and feed equipment.

An Auto-Cannon the size of a Mech Battle Tech Machine Gun that even looks like a Gau-8, because the artist, thought "Hmm, is there a 'Machine Gun' in real-life that weighs close to .25 or .5 tons, oh look at this real-life Gau-8, too bad they named the BT one a 'Machine Gun,' people probably think its an MG-42 lawl." The Clan version still does the same damage as an IS one, it just weighs less like everything the Clan has.

You turn one of these things on a normal little dude on the ground, and they would be torn in half or many chunks of meat, not riddled with MG-42 boolets lawl. Turn it on an armored unit, the enourmous shells penetrate the armor.

[Terror Teddy]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 March 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

At 12 times the mass of a MG and having shells that weighs 26 lbs a piece v a 1lbs bullet for a Machine Gun. No I cannot see a reason that an MG should do as much damage as a AC2...

Ac2 has 20 times the range - thats where the ammo weight differs to propel the actual bullet.

Mg= 20mm vulcan guns
Ac2= 20-40mm machine guns

Go check the mso wiki
Compare with ac2 and mg's on sarna
Ask WHY they took ONE weapon and completely CRIPPLED it.
Look at the numbers.

Srm's = same damage per tonne of ammo
Lrm'a = same damage per tonne
Ballistics= 125-150 per tonne
Mg's= 80 per tonne and 5 times as slow

Is that truly a balanced weapon?

[General Taskeen]

Terror Teddy, on 14 March 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

Is that truly a balanced weapon?

Personally, I give up on these discussions. Being a competitive player, I'd rather see more balanced weapons where there is true variety seen in combat.

[Joseph Mallan]

Terror Teddy, on 14 March 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

Ac2 has 20 times the range - thats where the ammo weight differs to propel the actual bullet.

Mg= 20mm vulcan guns
Ac2= 20-40mm machine guns

Go check the mso wiki
Compare with ac2 and mg's on sarna
Ask WHY they took ONE weapon and completely CRIPPLED it.
Look at the numbers.

Srm's = same damage per tonne of ammo
Lrm'a = same damage per tonne
Ballistics= 125-150 per tonne
Mg's= 80 per tonne and 5 times as slow

Is that truly a balanced weapon?

They crippled it cause they want it to be the "anti-infantry" weapon it is called through out canon? I personally didn't see how an anti infantry weapon did 2 damage on TT. its also why I stripped em for armor or sinks. AC2s became PPCs. Dude a pop gun is a pop gun is a pop gun. What they've done to the AC2 is ...weird IYAM.

Now I will address THIS again:
My MG will do up to 16 damage in one turn
A Small Lase does up to 12 damage in one turn
a SRM2 does up to 14 damage in one turn

That is balanced among 0.5 ton weapons!

[Noobzorz]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 March 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

I am using this as my guideline. So I guess that is dumb also? Please understand what you are saying is more dumb than what I am saying. I am providing a positive upgrade to a weapon system that is a POS. While all you have provided is, "Stop it!" I am using MWO, TT and if necessary I am willing to sacrifice some CatGirls lives to make my point.

MWO has turns, they are 10 seconds long. that comes from TT and therefore can be used for comparison. 16 damage from a machine gun is more than fair when compared to the AC2 which does 40 damage in the same suggested amount of time(10 seconds). So please take your own advice and just stop it.

What I am saying is not more dumb than what you are saying. For this to be the case, it would need to be incredibly dumb, as opposed to not dumb at all.

MWO does not have turns. It does not have anything like turns. It has continuous time. Baldur's Gate II has turns that are six seconds long. There is a difference, and it is non-trivial. If you are using "turns" interchangeably with "10 seconds" without any further implication, then that is pointless and silly and you should stop it because it is non-standard, and if there are additional implications, that is incredibly dumb.

As for your guideline, no, it is totally sensible, but yes, your use of it is totally stupid, as it putting happy faces in a message in which you insult someone. You give no justification for your inane supposition whatsoever, because there is none to be had. You offer a bunch of TT nonsense, and you categorically offer no justification based on MWO. Don't say that you do, because you do not.

As for my advice, it is to stop being dumb. As I have yet to start, I cannot follow it, but I would if I could. You, however, still have that option well within reach. Exercise it immediately. I consider you to be a stupid person, and I will be ignoring your reply to this comment unless it contains worthy material to think on, as should everyone else, and with all of your comments on balance. Please note that what you have presently offered is not worthy, or anything close to it, if you need a baseline.

Here is my final closing statement until you un**** yourself:

At present, the machine gun is unuseable. It is slower at killing than a single small laser even though it is heavier and has a finite ammo supply. Any increase that maintains strict dominance of the (already unuseably bad) small laser is not sufficient. Your modification falls well within that description.

[Joseph Mallan]

Noobzorz, on 14 March 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

What I am saying is not more dumb than what you are saying. For this to be the case, it would need to be incredibly dumb, as opposed to not dumb at all.

MWO does not have turns. It does not have anything like turns. It has continuous time. Baldur's Gate II has turns that are six seconds long. There is a difference, and it is non-trivial. If you are using "turns" interchangeably with "10 seconds" without any further implication, then that is pointless and silly and you should stop it because it is non-standard, and if there are additional implications, that is incredibly dumb.

As for your guideline, no, it is totally sensible, but yes, your use of it is totally stupid, as it putting happy faces in a message in which you insult someone. You give no justification for your inane supposition whatsoever, because there is none to be had. You offer a bunch of TT nonsense, and you categorically offer no justification based on MWO. Don't say that you do, because you do not.

As for my advice, it is to stop being dumb. As I have yet to start, I cannot follow it, but I would if I could. You, however, still have that option well within reach. Exercise it immediately. I consider you to be a stupid person, and I will be ignoring your reply to this comment unless it contains worthy material to think on, as should everyone else, and with all of your comments on balance. Please note that what you have presently offered is not worthy, or anything close to it, if you need a baseline.

Here is my final closing statement until you un**** yourself:

At present, the machine gun is unuseable. It is slower at killing than a single small laser even though it is heavier and has a finite ammo supply. Any increase that maintains strict dominance of the (already unuseably bad) small laser is not sufficient. Your modification falls well within that description.

Now I will address THIS again:
My MG will do up to 16 damage in one turn(10 seconds of fire)
A Small Lase does up to 12 damage in one turn(10 seconds of fire)
A SRM2 does up to 14 damage in one turn(10 seconds of fire)

That is balanced among 0.5 ton weapons!
Sorry you were saying again???
I couldn't hear you while you were being so wrong!

BTW: When I decide to insult you, I will not be using smiley faces, and the Mods will have no choice but to ban me.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 March 2013 - 08:50 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 March 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

They crippled it cause they want it to be the "anti-infantry" weapon it is called through out canon?

I think PGI needs reading comprehension.

2 damage against armored units
2+12 damage against infantry PLATOONS.

How they manage that logical leap to 1/10 of the AC2 is just insane.

[Joseph Mallan]

Terror Teddy, on 14 March 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

How they manage that logical leap to 1/10 of the AC2 is just insane.

I cannot speak for them.

Maybe they feel the Mech scale MG is to powerful on TT and tried to modify it according to their vision. For me on TT MGs were armor waiting to be added!

[Terror Teddy]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 March 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

My MG will do up to 16 damage in one turn
A Small Lase does up to 12 damage in one turn
a SRM2 does up to 14 damage in one turn

That is balanced among 0.5 ton weapons!

Uum...What are these numbers and where do you find them?

Ah, MWO wiki and take DPS X10 seconds?

SL would do 10 but benefit from DHS and have unlimited ammo so it's still damn good.

Joseph Mallan, on 14 March 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Maybe they feel the Mech scale MG is to powerful on TT and tried to modify it according to their vision. For me on TT MGs were armor waiting to be added!

Just out of sheer usefulness the MG's needs to be upgraded.

I wonder if many people fear the lagshielded light ballistic doommachines since they say "the weapon is fine learn to use it" while they boat X4 ERPPC stalkers and X6 ML Jenners and Ravens?

[Squigles]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 March 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

They crippled it cause they want it to be the "anti-infantry" weapon it is called through out canon? I personally didn't see how an anti infantry weapon did 2 damage on TT. its also why I stripped em for armor or sinks. AC2s became PPCs. Dude a pop gun is a pop gun is a pop gun. What they've done to the AC2 is ...weird IYAM.

Now I will address THIS again:
My MG will do up to 16 damage in one turn
A Small Lase does up to 12 damage in one turn
a SRM2 does up to 14 damage in one turn

That is balanced among 0.5 ton weapons!

As an aside, the battlemech machine gun is not a strictly anti-infantry weapon, it's just a very good infantry weapon in addition to being a useful anti-vehicle weapon. Many people get confused about this due to the slightly misleading sarna article on them. Due to the whole "can't copy the book entry word for word" thing, they left out the fact that the quintessential anti-infantry bit is actually in reference to machine guns dating back to the 19th century.

As I've said in other posts, talking about the machine gun being strictly anti-infantry because it's superlative against infantry is about as derp as referring to a plasma cannon as anti-infantry because it has similar performance vs infantry...that being said, I think your buff suggestion is pretty close to being on target. If they get to a ton of MWO MG ammo doing close to the same as a ton of TT MG ammo I'd be ok with 25% over a small laser in terms of sustained DPS if you stay on target.

[Jetfire]

Terror Teddy, on 14 March 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

Well, It could be made out of LEAD completely and designed for people 4 meters tall?

Maybe they got the tech backwards and they made the gun out of Depleted Uranium and it fires steel bullets.

Edited by Jetfire, 14 March 2013 - 09:00 AM.