550 replies to this topic

[General Taskeen]

Xando Parapasu, on 17 March 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

21st century Auto Cannon!

Some BT Manufacturer's list Mech MG's as Rotary Cannon's. A Rotary Cannon is still not a 'Machine Gun.' A Gau-8 is a Rotary Cannon. Their sustained rate of fire far exceeds that of a typical single-barreled Machine Gun and even Auto-Cannon's of larger caliber, and they punch through armor.

Moot point, I figured people would move past this by now, but apparently not. It still doesn't matter what comparisons people want to draw, the BT MG did damage to Mech Armor and the MWO MG is worthless, and poorly featured.

Edited by General Taskeen, 17 March 2013 - 08:06 AM.

[Xando Parapasu]

General Taskeen, on 17 March 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

Some BT Manufacturer's list Mech MG's as Rotary Cannon's. A Rotary Cannon is still not a 'Machine Gun.' A Gau-8 is a Rotary Cannon.

Moot point, I figured people would move past this by now, but apparently not. It still doesn't matter what comparisons people want to draw, the BT MG did damage to Mech Armor and the MWO MG is worthless, and poorly featured.

All 20mm or less as I have read them. So something smaller like this

Is what you are looking at! Even then the Vulcan was classed as a Cannon. The devs of TT took liberties with facts.

Understand I am not saying MGs couldn't use a damage buff. Just that the GAU-8 is a Cannon.

Edited by Xando Parapasu, 17 March 2013 - 08:15 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Xando Parapasu, on 17 March 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

All 20mm or less as I have read them. So something smaller like this

Is what you are looking at! Even then the Vulcan was classed as a Cannon. The devs of TT took liberties with facts.

Still punches through armor. Its called a Rotary Cannon. They took liberty with no facts, of which you lack as well.

BT Machine Gun Weighs 1,000 pounds. Its called a 'Machine Gun' in BT as simplistic classification. It is not a hand-held gun.

BT MG = 2 Damage Vs. Mechs + (2 or 12 Bonus Damage Vs. Infantry). End of Story.

The exit to the thread is that way -> Call of Duty

[FupDup]

General Taskeen, on 17 March 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

BT Machine Gun Weighs 1,000 pounds.

To be OCD, it's 1102.31 pounds because Battletech uses metric tons, not English tons (we know this because BT measures distances in metric [meters, kilometers], so why wouldn't they use it for mass as well?).

Edited by FupDup, 17 March 2013 - 08:25 AM.

[Xando Parapasu]

General Taskeen, on 17 March 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Still punches through armor. Its called a Rotary Cannon. They took liberty with no facts, of which you lack as well.

BT Machine Gun Weighs 1,000 pounds. Its called a 'Machine Gun' in BT as simplistic classification. It is not a hand-held gun.

BT MG = 2 Damage Vs. Mechs + (2 or 12 Bonus Damage Vs. Infantry). End of Story.

The exit to the thread is that way -> Call of Duty

It is called a Machine gun cause it uses bullets & is 20mm. The 20mm I posted a pic of is not hand held either. A rotary Cannon and a Machine gun have a fine line between them but the line is there. And as I have read more than once. This is not TT. SO the DEVs will do as they see fit. When the TT game was introduced 0.5 tons was as small as anything got. The Clans changed that. Their MGs weighed 0.25 tons and do the same damage as a IS MG. remember the final line between Cannon and MG is the Ammo. MGs fire bullets (only). ACs fire shells and bullets.

I am glad you know the way to CoD. You should go.

A 0.5 ton ballistic weapon should not do the same damage as one that is 6.0 tons. The MG IS under powered. It just should not be equal to a MWO AC.

Edited by Xando Parapasu, 17 March 2013 - 08:31 AM.

[moneyBURNER]

Sifright, on 17 March 2013 - 01:04 AM, said:

Okay I have a problem with the middle portion of your post because it's patently not true.

Lets give the example of say the SRM4

It does 2.67 damage per second with 3.75 seconds between shots.

Thanks to it bursting and putting all the damage up front i can now duck behind cover and the enemy wont even know where i was. Come out again a second or two later and smash my missiles into him again.

With the MG i have to sit pretty allowing any one to come up behind me and just blast me away whilst i focus on a component.

1.2DPS still makes the small laser more effective in every way basically.

MGs need ammo and risk ammo explosions. MG have a horrible cone of fire meaning your shots scatter all over the mech where as the SL is pinpoint precision.

I'm not downplaying the critical value of burst damage, but it seems that many are only comparing weapons in a best-case usage to balance against, as if infinite lasers could put out their damage at their maximum ROF indefinitely, where in reality they couldn't sustain their maximum ROF over 2-3 minutes like a powerful MG could when battles devolve into furballs.

There are many situations when continuous/no-heat streaming damage is actually advantageous, so it doesn't make sense to solely consider that as a disadvantage that needs to be additionally balanced or compensated for. There are different weapons for different roles and situations.

It's not always best to duck behind cover between shots, or take a shot and twist away. Many times in battle there are opportunities to stay on target and apply damage up until the point of destruction, where having to cool down or wait a crucial few seconds for the next shot would be detrimental or even fatal.

A viable streaming weapon would be ideal in such situations, but a 2DPS/1.5ton MG would be a bit too effective at exploiting enemy cooldown/heat/positioning when boated on fast mechs, IMO.

[Yokaiko]

Xando Parapasu, on 17 March 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

A 0.5 ton ballistic weapon should not do the same damage as one that is 6.0 tons. The MG IS under powered. It just should not be equal to a MWO AC.

No one said it should be.

[Xando Parapasu]

Burner you bring up a good point. Machine Guns should not be able to fire continuous. No other weapon does that. It should use a burst as well as any other weapon. I read else where that the need to stay on target so long is a bad feature of the MG. all other weapons allow for torso twisting to spread damage. not so with the MG.

Give the MG a small boost in damage but a short cool down. See how it works and tweak till it feels right.

Yokaiko, on 17 March 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

No one said it should be.

Sometimes it reads that way. I read some good suggestions that would make the MG balanced with the small arms of the game (small laser. SRM2) and they get scoffed at. I am looking to have the MG equal to one of these small weapons. That's all.

[Yokaiko]

Like I said previously.

2DPS would likely be rihgt, 1.8 maybe.

You have to do more damage to the enemy than an ammo explosion before it becomes viable.

[moneyBURNER]

The continuous firing of MGs is an awesome characteristic though! I'd rather have continuous fire with a lower DPS, than introducing a cooldown.

[Kaspirikay]

A lot of pointless arguement ITT

[KuruptU4Fun]

I empathize with the POV of this thread, but MG's were given a damage buff to IS only. As is pointed out in this thread continually the damage the A-10 Warthog cannon is capable of is what MG's should be doing in game. Granted it (A-10) can chew thru armor of current military armored tanks/carriers. BUT in comparison we're talking about the 2-3 tons of armor on any tank compared to the MANY tons of armor layered on any standing mech. PGI has given you the best option they can within the realm of possibilities offered under the BT franchise.

As players you need to stop trying to hunt Medium to Assault class mechs with MG's hoping that you'll fell a giant. Stick with lights, use MG's as a IS weapon only.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 17 March 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[Critical Fumble]

KuruptU4Fun, on 17 March 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

I empathize with the POV of this thread, but MG's were given a damage buff to IS only, why because as is pointed out in this thread continually the A-10 Warthog cannon. Granted it can chew thru armor of current military armored tanks/carriers. BUT in comparison we're talking about the 2-3 tons of armor on any tank compared to the MANY tons of armor layered on any standing mech. PGI has given you the best option they can within the realm of possibilities offered under the BT franchise.

As players you need to stop trying to hunt Medium to Assault class mechs with MG's hoping that you'll fell a giant. Stick with lights, use MG's as a IS weapon only.

Now its my turn to use that photo.

When did MGs become a good weapon for fighting lights?

[Xando Parapasu]

Yokaiko, on 17 March 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

Like I said previously.

2DPS would likely be rihgt, 1.8 maybe.

You have to do more damage to the enemy than an ammo explosion before it becomes viable.

No, between 1 and 1.43. Those are the DPS for a Small laser and a SRM2. 0.5 ton weapons If a SSRM2 is OP at 1.43 DPS at 1.5 tons no smaller weapon should do more than that. and 1 DPS would be fine, with a 0.5 cool down like a AC2.

[Sifright]

moneyBURNER, on 17 March 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

The continuous firing of MGs is an awesome characteristic though! I'd rather have continuous fire with a lower DPS, than introducing a cooldown.

Sigh,

no one is suggesting to remove the continuous firing nature.

But it is a downside, A penalty, a con. It does not help.

Increasing the dps above that of the small laser is needed because of this vast downside.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Critical Fumble, on 17 March 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

Now its my turn to use that photo.

When did MGs become a good weapon for fighting lights?

Stripping the lighter mechs of armor by using other weapons THEN MG's to try and crit the internals is far easier. Otherwise you're trying to pick a kill from another mech after it's stripped off the armor and you can use your MG's appropriately.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 17 March 2013 - 08:56 AM.

[Sifright]

KuruptU4Fun, on 17 March 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

I empathize with the POV of this thread, but MG's were given a damage buff to IS only. As is pointed out in this thread continually the damage the A-10 Warthog cannon is capable of is what MG's should be doing in game. Granted it (A-10) can chew thru armor of current military armored tanks/carriers. BUT in comparison we're talking about the 2-3 tons of armor on any tank compared to the MANY tons of armor layered on any standing mech. PGI has given you the best option they can within the realm of possibilities offered under the BT franchise.

As players you need to stop trying to hunt Medium to Assault class mechs with MG's hoping that you'll fell a giant. Stick with lights, use MG's as a IS weapon only.

no they haven't and your post is a lie.

The AC/2 was buffed to 20x its table top damage over a 10 second period

the Mg was only given double it's table top damage over a 10 second period

Stop lieing you charlatan mountebank.

Edit: thanks for the correction Xando (I was writing quickly and didn't bother to check my post properly)

Edited by Sifright, 17 March 2013 - 09:00 AM.

[Xando Parapasu]

Sifright, on 17 March 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Sigh,

no one is suggesting to remove the continuous firing nature.

But it is a downside, A penalty, a con. It does not help.

Increasing the dps above that of the small laser is needed because of this vast downside.

Then equal it to a SRM2! If that is what you think. A short cool down allows for torso rotating (damage soak) But a MG should not do more damage than other 0.5 ton weapons.

[Dr Warp Effect]

If you have played this game for even a few hours and compare MGs to all other weapons systems you can see they need a damage buff. If you cannot, you should not post on this forum except to ask questions from those that understand the game better than you. Most obvious problem weapon in game.

[Gaan Cathal]

KuruptU4Fun, on 17 March 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

I empathize with the POV of this thread, but MG's were given a damage buff to IS only. As is pointed out in this thread continually the damage the A-10 Warthog cannon is capable of is what MG's should be doing in game. Granted it (A-10) can chew thru armor of current military armored tanks/carriers. BUT in comparison we're talking about the 2-3 tons of armor on any tank compared to the MANY tons of armor layered on any standing mech. PGI has given you the best option they can within the realm of possibilities offered under the BT franchise.

Er, no. It does not do more damage to Internal Structure. It does more damage to critted components. Difference.

It's also ****. The crit-seeking buff has not made them viable, and 'in the realm of possibilities offered under the BT franchise' mech-mounted machine guns can damage mech armour. Technically, we could use that to excuse them doing the same colossal 4dps as an AC/2, since they have the same damage in TT. No-one is suggesting that, however we are suggesting that, since it's a mech-damaging weapon, it be made able to damage mechs.