550 replies to this topic

[Yokaiko]

General Taskeen, on 15 March 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

No, that is the definition of an MG that did damage to armor in Mech Warrior 3. Get used to it.

It did damage to armor in the TT, same as an AC2......

.....which does 4DPS per gun in MWO, no one is even asking that.

[SchwarzerPeter]

Yup these guns are called "cannon". A cannon is able to fire HE bullets.

In the TT its seems to be like a AC/2, therefore the same damage.

But right now in the game its just a plain simple MG. No explosive HE and stuff. Therefore the ridiculous damage.

[Yokaiko]

RG Notch, on 15 March 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

I'm just curious for all the real world weapon folks... if the MWO MG is equivalent of the GAU 8 auto cannon, why is it ok for it to have 90m range while the GAU 8 range is 1200M for effective and 3600m max? Or are we simply cherry picking what real world characteristics we want?

I've done missile engagements against targets in outerspace. What of it.

RG Notch, on 15 March 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

I think MGs need a damage buff, but please stop with the real world examples on both sides. It simply doesn't work. It just makes people look as dumb as those comparing it to a .50 cal.

A .50 cal weighs right around 80lbs. I used to carry them back and forth across a ship. The closest real world ananolgy would be the vulcan on a CWIS (I'm sure that the army has a couple heavier caliper full autos, but I wasn't army)

RG Notch, on 15 March 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

All that's needs discussing is game balance, all the rest is nonsense from both sides. If you want a useless weapon support the status quo because you think we don't need more viable systems. If you want damage buffed so MGs are a valid choice then argue that. Real world or fluff from the board game is pointless.

People keep bringing up infantry.

My entire thing is that there are three mechs that would go from a joke to at least usable and 9 more that would get more interesting loadout options.

...but the MG has to do more damage to a target expending the ammo than the ammo does to ME exploding first.....in under a minute.

[Mahws]

RG Notch, on 15 March 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

I'm just curious for all the real world weapon folks...

No one is bringing up the Real World in argument for changing them, they're bringing it up in response to those throwing out the 'hurr durr machine guns don't hurt armor they should be useless' crowd.

[Esplodin]

RG Notch, on 15 March 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

I'm just curious for all the real world weapon folks... if the MWO MG is equivalent of the GAU 8 auto cannon, why is it ok for it to have 90m range while the GAU 8 range is 1200M for effective and 3600m max? Or are we simply cherry picking what real world characteristics we want?

Because my kitchen table was only so big for a table top map. For real world ranges, I'd have had to hex off my 3 acre back yard - even for the stuff we had in the 1940s let alone hundreds of years in the future.

[MayGay]

Esplodin, on 15 March 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

And here is the crux of the issue IMHO. Hate for the 3L projecting on to all light chassis.



I would be in favor of this, since it leaves MG for the crit seeking crowd, as well as making ballistic lights and the Cicada not too bad of a joke.

http://www.sarna.net...hot_Gauss_Rifle

.5 tons
2DPS (give it a 3 sec cooldown, similar to the discharge profile of a small laser)
75 rnds/ton (150 damage per ton like all other ballistics)
600m short/1250m max

270 range 540 max range, range on a mag shot is 3/6/9 to convert hexes to meters multiply by 30, so the same range bracket as the AC/20, medium laser, and SRM

[RG Notch]

Mahws, on 15 March 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

No one is bringing up the Real World in argument for changing them, they're bringing it up in response to those throwing out the 'hurr durr machine guns don't hurt armor they should be useless' crowd.

So it's ok to respond to stupid arguments with stupid arguments? I don't get it. The mgs should be useless crowd has no argument, even addressing the stupid argument makes you look stupid. Like I said if the MWO MG is equivalent to a GAU 8 for damage, then why isn't it equivalent for range?
Game balance is all that should matter, the rest is just fluff. Ignore the nonsense and keep to game mechanics.

[Yokaiko]

RG Notch, on 15 March 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

So it's ok to respond to stupid arguments with stupid arguments? I don't get it. The mgs should be useless crowd has no argument, even addressing the stupid argument makes you look stupid. Like I said if the MWO MG is equivalent to a GAU 8 for damage, then why isn't it equivalent for range?
Game balance is all that should matter, the rest is just fluff. Ignore the nonsense and keep to game mechanics.

Yeah we did.

current range,
no heat
ammo dependant
2DPS

[MayGay]

no the GAU 8 Avenger would be the equivalent of the UAC/2 or maybe the RAC/2 the battletech machine gun would be equivalent to a Browning M2

[RG Notch]

Esplodin, on 15 March 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

Because my kitchen table was only so big for a table top map. For real world ranges, I'd have had to hex off my 3 acre back yard - even for the stuff we had in the 1940s let alone hundreds of years in the future.

That still doesn't change why a GAU 8 would only have 90M range. Why does and AC 2 have longer range? Nevermind, I forget people would rather be right than logical.

[Mahws]

RG Notch, on 15 March 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

So it's ok to respond to stupid arguments with stupid arguments? I don't get it. The mgs should be useless crowd has no argument, even addressing the stupid argument makes you look stupid. Like I said if the MWO MG is equivalent to a GAU 8 for damage, then why isn't it equivalent for range?
Game balance is all that should matter, the rest is just fluff. Ignore the nonsense and keep to game mechanics.

Because stupid arguments are still attached to an opinion.

I've not heard a single good argument against buffing machine gun damage. It's either a lack of understanding of Real Life or a lack of understanding of game mechanics. For the prior their argument is that no matter how convincing a balance argument is it doesn't matter because Real Life so arguing from balance is as effective as throwing mud at a brick wall.

James Griffin, on 15 March 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

no the GAU 8 Avenger would be the equivalent of the UAC/2 or maybe the RAC/2 the battletech machine gun would be equivalent to a Browning M2

The GAU-8 weighs around the same as a BT Machine Gun. The browning M2 weighs 1/10th as much.

Edited by Mahws, 15 March 2013 - 06:29 AM.

[General Taskeen]

RG Notch, on 15 March 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

Like I said if the MWO MG is equivalent to a GAU 8 for damage, then why isn't it equivalent for range?
Game balance is all that should matter, the rest is just fluff. Ignore the nonsense and keep to game mechanics.

BT Magic. An MG wouldn't be balanced in TT if it could shoot 1,000m for no heat, for 2 damage, per turn. So BT magic says it is 2 Damage within 90m = OK/Balanced. The AC/2 then gets huge range with disadvantage in weight and heat, for 2 damage, per turn = OK/Balanced. Simple and to the point.

[SchwarzerPeter]

The ranges of the weapons are just for fun & game balance. I mean come one, LRM with a distance of 1km? Sure this is not realistic, its just for game balance.

So 90m are fine for me, it fits at least a role, like the AC2 does.

But the damage needs to be buffed, so it becomes somewhat usefull.

[RG Notch]

General Taskeen, on 15 March 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

BT Magic. An MG wouldn't be balanced in TT if it could shoot 1,000m for no heat, for 2 damage, per turn. So BT magic says it is 2 Damage within 90m = OK/Balanced. The AC/2 then gets huge range with disadvantage in weight and heat, for 2 damage, per turn = OK/Balanced. Simple and to the point.

What the **** does that have to do with people using real world mechanics to argue? That's why these arguments are stupid. TT mechanics or fluff are just as stupid. Never mind the stupid in this thread has overwhelmed my interest. Keep wasting time on real world or TT rules or Sarna fluff.

[Yokaiko]

James Griffin, on 15 March 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

no the GAU 8 Avenger would be the equivalent of the UAC/2 or maybe the RAC/2 the battletech machine gun would be equivalent to a Browning M2

No it would't first of all you would need ten M2 .50cals to get even close to a half ton (more like 13), second of all the TT rules actually mention 20mm gattling......as machine gun models. That would be the M61 vulcan on a CWIS, and even if you want to split hairs about ammo, it fire DU or Tungston FMJ.

This guy

http://www.youtube.c...&v=cP6GpAnmAPU#!

...and they ******* shred metal, quickly.


Oh and a .50cal CAN be loaded with high explosive rounds. .....you don't usually but they do exist.

[Esplodin]

RG Notch, on 15 March 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

What the **** does that have to do with people using real world mechanics to argue? That's why these arguments are stupid. TT mechanics or fluff are just as stupid. Never mind the stupid in this thread has overwhelmed my interest. Keep wasting time on real world or TT rules or Sarna fluff.

Because you'd be playing MWO in 3050 for real if we didn't have suspension of disbelief to make a balanced game vs. an accurate one.

[MayGay]

RG Notch, on 15 March 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

That still doesn't change why a GAU 8 would only have 90M range. Why does and AC 2 have longer range? Nevermind, I forget people would rather be right than logical.

the gau 8 IS NOT a machine gun it is a rotary autocannon class 2

the Browning M2 is a machine gun why don't you understand this

[Esplodin]

Besides, if we wanted realism - why not this in game?

http://en.wikipedia....clear_device%29

[stjobe]

James Griffin, on 15 March 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

no the GAU 8 Avenger would be the equivalent of the UAC/2 or maybe the RAC/2 the battletech machine gun would be equivalent to a Browning M2

I'm so tired of this stupidity...

Why would anyone mount a .50 BMG on a 9-18m tall walking machine of destruction? It would be like using a 0.1-0.2mm gun to shoot at a human. A human in ablative armour, to boot.

These are 'mech-scale MGs, not freaking man-sized ones.

Esplodin, on 15 March 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

Besides, if we wanted realism - why not this in game?

http://en.wikipedia....clear_device%29

It probably is - the reason we're using 'mechs at all is that nukes are banned, see the Ares Convention.

Edited by stjobe, 15 March 2013 - 06:43 AM.

[General Taskeen]

James Griffin, on 15 March 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

the gau 8 IS NOT a machine gun it is a rotary autocannon class 2

the Browning M2 is a machine gun why don't you understand this

If you don't get it, then why complain in this thread.

As I've stated MANY times. 92% of the weapons in this game are 1:1 translation of TT weapons for consistency (hence why people bring up TT as well). Some weapons have enhanced damage values as well. There are, however, things that have remained inconsistent with bad balance mechanics for some time in MWO.

The BT MG being named "Machine Gun," is just that, FLUFF(y bears). It still does damage to Mechs. End of Story.