251 replies to this topic

[Ground Pounder]

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Gun


Nuff said...regardless of what folks want Machine Guns to be, They are, have always been and always will be intended primarily for anti-infantry/anti-light vehicle purposes and at best are a nuisance against enemy battlemechs.

Gl/HF
Very Respectfully,
Ground Pounder

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Do you see infantry anywhere in this game? If the gun isn't meant to be viable, then even bother putting it in?

[Yokaiko]

Then why did machine guns predate infantry....

/sigh.

[Tickdoff Tank]

You are incorrect, and your posted link shows that you are incorrect. Why is it so hard to understand that the MG has ALWAYS been an anti-mech weapon?

Edit: Maybe you really don't understand.

The MG receives a BONUS when attacking/damaging infantry, but receiving a BONUS does not equate to a penalty to another target. The basic functionality of the MG is now, as always has been, to damage a mech. That is why all of the listed stats for the MG assume that it will be mounted on a mech in order to damage a mech. All the "special rules" are needed for when the MG is being used for something other than mec vs mech action.

And as a poster above pointed out, the MG was in the game before infantry, so that pretty conclusively shows that the MG was made to be used against mechs. It just happens to be the best anti-infantry weapon in the game.

Edited by Tickdoff Tank, 17 March 2013 - 01:09 PM.

[superteds]

ban thread gas op

[stjobe]

Don't feed it.

[Rahnu]

This argument has been trotted out time and time again, and it always falls flat in the face of the fact that the game has no infantry or light vehicles and the fact that machine guns still take up critical slots and weight and are thus comparable to other weapons that take up similar levels of crit slots and weight.

Machine guns need to be worth their weight as they are the only option for low-tonnage, ballistics-heavy mechs. They MUST have a viable option or they will never, ever see use except for players that are trolling or players that NEED to use that particular variant to attain elite mastery. This is an unacceptable situation and a complete waste of development resources (why make another variant that NO ONE EVER USES?).

[Alvor]

To summarize if using Canon BT/MW:
The Machine Gun should do 2Damage (Just like the AC/2) with 90m Range & 0.5 or 1 ton ammo lots of 100 or 200.
The Flamer (Maybe fireballs or burst of flame instead of flame thrower style) should do 2Damage with 90m Range & have burn effect on trees/buildings making lasting heat/smoke cover time.

For MWO game “balance” either give the above the same ROF as an AC/2 or have it do 1Damage and shoot 2XROF of AC/2 or any math variable thereof with ROF/Damage that equates to AC/2 overall DPS.


All this information was taken from http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Main_Page which is one of the best resources for Battletech information.

FYI TT range is 30m per 1.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Gun
Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers. Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire, though they are more commonly found on Combat Vehicles and ProtoMechs.^[3] 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.^[4] Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins.^[5]
Ammo Handling BattleMechs and vehicles (massing more than 5 tons) allot Machine Gun ammunition in half-ton (100 "round") as well as full ton (200 "round") lots. Powered Armor (of all types, including BattleArmor) and vehicles massing less than 5 tons are alloted ammo in 5 kg lots that are consumed in a single "round" or turn of fire.

Machine Gun
Production information
Type Ballistic (Anti-Infantry)
Tech Base Clan / Inner Sphere(IS)
Year Availability Pre-spaceflight
Technical specifications
Heat 0
Damage 2
Min Range 0
Short Range 1
Medium Range 2
Long Range 3
Tons
Clan = .25
IS = .5
Critical Slots 1
Ammo Per Ton 200


http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Flamer
Flamer taps into a BattleMech's reactor to produce heat in the form of a plasma release.^[3] An extremely short-ranged weapon, the Flamer is devastating against infantry, however damage done against other 'Mechs and vehicles is negligible, though it can raise the enemy unit's heat levels. The Flamer is also often used to set ambient objects such as trees aflame, making it useful for burning forests or cities in order to slow the enemy down or cover friendly movements. A clear example of such is the Firestarter BattleMech.

Flamer
Production information
Type Energy (Heat-Inducing, Anti-Infantry)
Tech Base Clan / Inner Sphere
Year Availability 2025
Technical specifications
Heat 3
Damage 2
Min Range n/a
Short Range 1
Medium Range 2
Long Range 3
Tons
Clan = 0.5
Inner Sphere = 1
Critical Slots 1
Ammo Per Ton n/a


http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC-2
Autocannon 2 is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.
Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/2s having an extremely long range at the cost of having a very small damage output.

Autocannon/2
Production information
Type Ballistic (Direct Fire)
Tech Base Inner Sphere
Year Availability 2300 (TH)
Technical specifications
Heat 1
Damage 2
Min Range 4
Short Range 1-8
Medium Range 9-16
Long Range 17-24
Tons 6
Critical Slots 1
Ammo Per Ton 45

[Ground Pounder]

Bluten, on 17 March 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

Do you see infantry anywhere in this game? If the gun isn't meant to be viable, then even bother putting it in?

a good point...unless they plan on putting things like this in, its not really a viable anti-mech option as the table top game defines as does the other source material

Yokaiko, on 17 March 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

Then why did machine guns predate infantry.... /sigh.

It may predate basic infantry in the table top game (by about 6 months of book releases) but it did not predate light vehicle releases or battle armor

[LordBraxton]

Id like to see the flamethrower be able to start fires, even if they dont spread or cause lasting damage beyond some sort of black texture scarring, Id like to be able to put up smoke screens!

[Tickdoff Tank]

Maybe we are looking at this all wrong.

What if the problem is not with the MG, but with the small laser. Is it possible that the SL is vastly over powered from what the devs want it to be? We have all seen the numbers comparing the MG and SL. The SL weighs the same as the MG, but the MG requires ammo. They have the same range, 90m. The SL does it's damage in a short burst with a short cooldown which makes it easy to hold on a target. The MG does it's damage slowly and requires constant contact with the target to do damage. The SL does 1.0 dps, the MG does .4 dps.

If we assume that the MG is working correctly, then the conclusion is obvious: The Small Laser is preforming far above the level it should be.


(I hope you can pick up on the tongue-in-cheek nature of this post, but just in case....)

[jakucha]

They're like micro autocannons, they should be useful en masse.

[Ground Pounder]

Tickdoff Tank, on 17 March 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

You are incorrect, and your posted link shows that you are incorrect. Why is it so hard to understand that the MG has ALWAYS been an anti-mech weapon? Edit: Maybe you really don't understand. The MG receives a BONUS when attacking/damaging infantry, but receiving a BONUS does not equate to a penalty to another target. The basic functionality of the MG is now, as always has been, to damage a mech. That is why all of the listed stats for the MG assume that it will be mounted on a mech in order to damage a mech. All the "special rules" are needed for when the MG is being used for something other than mec vs mech action. And as a poster above pointed out, the MG was in the game before infantry, so that pretty conclusively shows that the MG was made to be used against mechs. It just happens to be the best anti-infantry weapon in the game.

Show anywhere in Battletech or Mechwarrior sources that the MG is designed as an anti-mech weapon even in its tertiary purpose (not your percieved idea..but actually stated in rules or text)....The link above states that it is an anti-infantry weapon and nowhere does it state that its purpose is anti-battlemech

also, machineguns predate infantry rules in BT by about 6 months of releases...they do not however predate light vehicles or battle armor which they are very effective against.

In the Battletech game, the machine gun can do damage to mech..as it can in this game...but like in the battletech game, its negligable

The point is..stop trying to make something do a job outside its designed purpose.

Edited by Ground Pounder, 17 March 2013 - 01:26 PM.

[Tennex]

This is funny on acount of machineguns were a weapon before infantry and vehicles ever made it into the board game

[Tickdoff Tank]

Ground Pounder, on 17 March 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

a good point...unless they plan on putting things like this in, its not really a viable anti-mech option as the table top game defines as does the other source material



It may predate basic infantry in the table top game (by about 6 months of book releases) but it did not predate light vehicle releases or battle armor

Simple question: Is the AC2 designed to damage a mech? If so (and the answer is *yes*) then the MG is also designed to damage a mech.

No one is arguing that the MG should be the premiere anti-mech weapon. We just want the MG to be as useful in MWO as it was in TT. Many people did not htink the MG was useful in TT and I doubt some people will ever consider the MG useful in MWO, but there is no reason for the MG to remain in such a pitiful state. We just want the MG to be a viable light ballistic option, and right now it isn't.

And the table top specifically states that the MG damages mechs while receiving a bonus to damaging infantry. Really read the fluff/stats of the weapon. If you can show me just ONE instance where the source books say that the MG will not damage a mech then I will shut up.

[malibu43]

You can quote sarna to show that they're useless. I can quote TT to show that they should be as useful as an AC2. Someone can reference "real world" effectiveness of M249's, the GAU8, or 20mm cannons from WWII to show how effective/ineffective they should be. Others can quote MW2, MW3, MW4, etc... to support other degrees of effectiveness vs Mechs. My point is that there is no one "reality" to reference that says exactly how effective an MG should be.

Screw referencing all this other stuff. Do whatever it takes to make MWO a fun game to play.

Edited by malibu43, 17 March 2013 - 01:29 PM.

[Squigles]

Ground Pounder, on 17 March 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Gun


Nuff said...regardless of what folks want Machine Guns to be, They are, have always been and always will be intended primarily for anti-infantry/anti-light vehicle purposes and at best are a nuisance against enemy battlemechs.

Gl/HF
Very Respectfully,
Ground Pounder

For the love of god STOP quoting sarna, the "quintessential anti-infantry weapon" bit is a reference to machine guns (the hand held infantry variety) dating back to the 19th century. This article is a half *** copy pasting of the Tech Manual entry for machine guns with chunks of the text cut out. A "machine gun" in battletech is NOT the anti-infantry weapon you're thinking of...unless you're talking about the man portable machine gun that battletech infantry still use.

The ones that vehicles and battlemechs use can be used by infantry...in which case they're a dedicated anti-vehicle/mech weapon and called a "support machine gun"...those are the ones battlemechs use.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Ground Pounder, on 17 March 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

Show anywhere in Battletech or Mechwarrior sources that the MG is designed as an anti-mech weapon even in its tertiary purpose (not your percieved idea..but actually stated in rules or text)....The link above states that it is an anti-infantry weapon and nowhere does it state that its purpose is anti-battlemech

also, machineguns predate infantry rules in BT by about 6 months of releases...they do not however predate light vehicles or battle armor which they are very effective against.

In the Battletech game, the machine gun can do damage to mech..as it can in this game...but like in the battletech game, its negligable

The point is..stop trying to make something do a job outside its designed purpose.

Seriously?

Look at ANY listing of the stats for an MG. Even the sarna page you linked.

Quote

Technical specifications Heat 0 Damage 2 Minimum Range 0 Short Range 1 Medium Range
2 Long Range 3 Tons Clan = .25
IS = .5 Critical Slots 1

Those are the stats for the weapon. all values ASSUME THAT YOUR TARGET IS A BATTLEMECH.

edit: the copy paste from the sarna link did not travel well, but the information is there.

Edited by Tickdoff Tank, 17 March 2013 - 01:29 PM.

[Felbombling]

I'm all for a damage buff IF they give machine guns burst fire instead of this insane, unrealistic continuous fire they have them on now. Barrels overheat, even if the weapon has multiple barrels like a minigun. Burst damage and 200 rounds in the ammo bin.

[Rippthrough]

Ground Pounder, on 17 March 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Gun


Nuff said...regardless of what folks want Machine Guns to be, They are, have always been and always will be intended primarily for anti-infantry/anti-light vehicle purposes and at best are a nuisance against enemy battlemechs.

Gl/HF
Very Respectfully,
Ground Pounder

Worst troll for weeks, get out.

Poor prose, no baiting, very little effort or aforethought, 2/10.

Edited by Rippthrough, 17 March 2013 - 01:33 PM.