30 replies to this topic

[Sephlock]

darkfall13, on 17 March 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

When the threads come up about "hey I should be able to use my MGs and shoot down missiles like AMS" I *face palm* and think well 1) MGs suck compared to AMS 2) Why are you even using MGs? and 3) WHY ARE YOU EVEN USING MGs?!

Because you can have multiple ballistics slots and only 1 ams slot ;P?

Also, because MGs are so useless, at least being able to shoot down missiles would give them some sort of reason to exist.



http://en.wikipedia....ki/Phalanx_CIWS

[Major Derps]

Team Leader, on 17 March 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

Not every mech has all it's weapons in one section. If someone has stripped an Alta's of its arm, laying into it with MGs will deprive it with a whole 1 medium laser. It would take you another 50 seconds with 4 MGs to break the arm off and get a chance to pick at his side torso. Not every component will have the armor stripped. Any weapon that relies entirely on a competent team to be effective and barely contributes in literally ideal conditions has no place in a competitive environment.

Sorry, but that was a stupid argument...By that definition, LRMS have no place in the game. And you are saying that if a weapon requires team work in a team game, it's useless? And an Atlas' arm is usually the last thing to be targeted.

Anyway... if you recall, I said that they are best suited for lights/harassers. If you have the capability of destroying an atlas' arm, and surviving, then you don't need MGs, but for a small mech without that kind of firepower they are very helpful. Look, I don't care if you don't want to use them, but they don't need a buff, because for someone who knows how to use them, they are very effective. As an Atlas pilot, I always try to keep a tab on (or kill first) any mechs carrying MGs, because I know how quickly they can knock me out of contention.

[Team Leader]

Mokey Mot, on 17 March 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Sorry, but that was a stupid argument...By that definition, LRMS have no place in the game.

Actually, I dunno if you noticed but you can spot your own targets for LRMs, and even mount tag to get past ECM. A LRM boat can fight for itself and deal massive amounts of damage if its driven by a competent pilot. A competent team will only improve the damage of LRMs, while a competent team will never have machine guns on their light mechs, or even the ballistic light mechs at all. There is no skill involved with MGs that can make them a good weapon on their own.

Quote

As an Atlas pilot, I always try to keep a tab on (or kill first) any mechs carrying MGs,

If that's the truth (in conjunction with your other quoted statement) you are just a bad player

[PaintedWolf]

Deathlike, on 17 March 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

AMS > MG

Therefore, AMS is OP.

That means AMS needs a nerf.

Amirite?

No because in TT MG was used against infantry. There are none of these in MWO but Infinite and Pirhana can't change it too much without diverging from the battletech rules completely and basically ruining the entire game. Part of the thing that makes MWO so great is how closely it sticks to Battletech. Since battletech rules are abstracted anyways they can change things like double the armor while increasing firing rates, but making the machine gun equal to a medium laser would just throw the whole system out of whack.

[Davers]

The simple fact is that MGs translated very poorly in MWO. They didn't get the increased range every other weapon got. While their damage is doubled from TT, every other weapon got their damage increased 3-4x by ROF (if not much more in the case of AC/2 and UAC/5). Not to mention it is harder to deal that damage compared to the weapons due to needing to keep firing continuously at your target, exposing your CT the whole time.

Barring TACs (Through Armor Crits) or the possibility to destroy engine components, the only way they would be viable currently is if they instantly destroyed all components in a section with one bullet. It's a shame, since they were useful in TT, even with the threat of ammo explosion.

[Davers]

PaintedWolf, on 17 March 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

No because in TT MG was used against infantry. There are none of these in MWO but Infinite and Pirhana can't change it too much without diverging from the battletech rules completely and basically ruining the entire game. Part of the thing that makes MWO so great is how closely it sticks to Battletech. Since battletech rules are abstracted anyways they can change things like double the armor while increasing firing rates, but making the machine gun equal to a medium laser would just throw the whole system out of whack.

*sigh*

The MG did equal damage as an AC/2, but at close range. Is the AC/2 an anti-infantry weapon? Just because it did extra damage vs infantry doesn't mean it was not of use vs mechs. By that logic pulse weapons are actually anti-infantry weapons as well. I don't want to see anyone quoting sarna.net either! I've seen the article every time this comes up. The fact is that game mechanics say it does 2 damage out to a range of 90m. One less than a small laser. It trades one damage for the fact that it does not generate heat, and must use ammo.

[Major Derps]

Team Leader, on 17 March 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

Actually, I dunno if you noticed but you can spot your own targets for LRMs, and even mount tag to get past ECM. A LRM boat can fight for itself and deal massive amounts of damage if its driven by a competent pilot. A competent team will only improve the damage of LRMs, while a competent team will never have machine guns on their light mechs, or even the ballistic light mechs at all. There is no skill involved with MGs that can make them a good weapon on their own.

Exactly, by a competent pilot. And to be able to do all you spoke of solo in an LRM boat, needs to be ideal circumstances. And if there's a pilot knocking weapons out in a fast moving mech, I consider that to be fighting for itself...it was your definition of a useless weapon, get angry at yourself, not me...

MGs do require skill and thought, you just dont have them, nor do I for that matter. Yes, there are things wrong with the MG, but no, the damage isn't one.

Team Leader, on 17 March 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

If that's the truth (in conjunction with your other quoted statement) you are just a bad player

Are not, you are!!! But seriously, all else aside...grow up, if that's the best you can come up with, we are done. I don't argue with children.

[Cpt Beefheart]

Team Leader, on 17 March 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Because they're under appreciated and need a buff.

3x chained AC2s + Fast Fire + 3x AC 2 ammo = There's your machine gun old sport.


Seriously though, MGs deserve/need a buff. I'd much rather add 1.5 tons of armor than waste it on an MG that doesn't do anything but make a lot of noise.

[Deamhan]

Last I heard a dev talk about it, AMS did 1 dmg per second.

LRMs have 1 hp each and SRMs have 2 hp each. Narc has 3 hp.

[Deathlike]

PaintedWolf, on 17 March 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

No because in TT MG was used against infantry. There are none of these in MWO but Infinite and Pirhana can't change it too much without diverging from the battletech rules completely and basically ruining the entire game. Part of the thing that makes MWO so great is how closely it sticks to Battletech. Since battletech rules are abstracted anyways they can change things like double the armor while increasing firing rates, but making the machine gun equal to a medium laser would just throw the whole system out of whack.

You missed the joke.

[stjobe]

PaintedWolf, on 17 March 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

No because in TT MG was used against infantry. There are none of these in MWO but Infinite and Pirhana can't change it too much without diverging from the battletech rules completely and basically ruining the entire game. Part of the thing that makes MWO so great is how closely it sticks to Battletech. Since battletech rules are abstracted anyways they can change things like double the armor while increasing firing rates, but making the machine gun equal to a medium laser would just throw the whole system out of whack.

This is an interesting post, it misses the target so wide it almost hits it again.

As I posted earlier, the only reason the MG sucks in MWO is that the devs have NOT followed the same recipe for the MG as for every other weapon system when converting from BattleTech to MWO. For some reason they decided to nerf the MG severely.

In BattleTech, the MG was a regular anti-'mech weapon that did as much damage as an AC/2, but with a much more limited range. It also had a huge bonus to killing infantry, but first and foremost it did 2 damage to 'mechs.

The BT rules have gone through several revisions, but in none of them have the authors and game designers lowered the MG anti-'mech damage from 2 to 1 or even 0 damage, even though there are several weapons in the BattleTech Universe that are simply unable to damage 'mechs - e.g. the light rifle, which does 3 damage to vehicles but has a -3 damage penalty when used against 'mechs, effectively doing 0 damage. The light rifle is also basically the main guns on today's tanks.

But no, the MG has stayed at 2 damage against 'mech armour throughout the 28 years the BT rules have been around.

This simple fact invalidates any argument along the lines of "MGs shouldn't damage 'mechs" or "MGs are anti-infantry only".