251 replies to this topic

[Ironspectre]

All this back and forth with the MG and Flamer make me think maybe they should consider either separate hardpoints for MGs and Flamers or maybe MGs and flamers should only take up 25%-50% of a ballistic or energy hardpoint may not be canon but this isn't tabletop either. Idon't know just a passing thought.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Unfortunately Iron, it's not avout the hardpoints, people want bullets to go thru armor like farts go thru open windows...

[Terror Teddy]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

Unfortunately Iron, it's not avout the hardpoints, people want bullets to go thru armor like farts go thru open windows...

Not sure if sarcastic?

I just want a viable ballistic for 20-30 tonne mechs.

[Braggart]

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

Look at the damage it does to a mech. Notice how its more than .4. Machine guns are actually useful in table top.

[Heeden]

Ironspectre, on 21 March 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

All this back and forth with the MG and Flamer make me think maybe they should consider either separate hardpoints for MGs and Flamers or maybe MGs and flamers should only take up 25%-50% of a ballistic or energy hardpoint may not be canon but this isn't tabletop either. Idon't know just a passing thought.

There are machine-gun arrays, half-ton and one crit-space allowing you to fit 2-4MGs on a single ballistic hard-point.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Terror Teddy, on 21 March 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Not sure if sarcastic?

I just want a viable ballistic for 20-30 tonne mechs.

I understand where you're coming from, just not sure if the MG proponents would find a better argument in something like a lock on guidance system that keeps them locked onto a target within a certain range.

[Gamgee]

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

It does 2 damage, it's even listed on that page.

Anti Infantry doesn't mean it is incapable of damaging mechs.

lel didn't read.

[Esplodin]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

I understand where you're coming from, just not sure if the MG proponents would find a better argument in something like a lock on guidance system that keeps them locked onto a target within a certain range.

Guidance system for bullets?

Just buff the damage - no need for complex hand waving.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Esplodin, on 21 March 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Guidance system for bullets?

Just buff the damage - no need for complex hand waving.

Guidance system for the bullets, no, but more like akin to the tracking systems on unmanned vehicles.

Gamgee, on 21 March 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

It does 2 damage, it's even listed on that page.

Anti Infantry doesn't mean it is incapable of damaging mechs.

lel didn't read.

A .22 can't do much damage against a Kevlar vest compared to a .45. Some things simply aren't worth the trouble to try and complete the job it's proponents want to.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 21 March 2013 - 07:49 AM.

[KingCobra]

even if machine gins were buffed and you get more ping ping ping they still =FAIL---->

[Terror Teddy]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

I understand where you're coming from, just not sure if the MG proponents would find a better argument in something like a lock on guidance system that keeps them locked onto a target within a certain range.

Why would it be so hard to make the AT LEAST equal to small lasers?

A weapon that is 1/14 the weight of the ERPPC and does 1/3 the damage.

That's like the MG's being compared to the AC/20. Right now it's being compared with the AC/2 as being 1/12 of that weight but does 1/10 the damage.

Look at the math
SL / ERPPC= 1/3 DPS
MG/ AC/2 = 1/10 the DPS

KingCobra, on 21 March 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

even if machine gins were buffed and you get more ping ping ping they still =FAIL---->

Does the SL fail? I've not heard anyone complain that the SL is OP but still people thinks the MG's would be OP if it did the same damage.

[Esplodin]

Terror Teddy, on 21 March 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Does the SL fail? I've not heard anyone complain that the SL is OP but still people thinks the MG's would be OP if it did the same damage.

Same damage spread over most of the mech hit boxes due to cone of fire I might add. Oooooh. Scary!

[Terror Teddy]

Esplodin, on 21 March 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

Same damage spread over most of the mech hit boxes due to cone of fire I might add. Oooooh. Scary!

Yea, but people seem to fear boating of MG's more than a Swayback with 9 energy points.

Sometimes I dont understand people.

And yea, at 1 DPS MG's wont be scary but at least they will be viable. 1,5-1,875 is better at 150 damage per tonne and 100 seconds fire.

[Schrottfrosch]

Hey dudes - sarna considers MWO apocryphal , look up MWO !

This means, PGI can tweak the weapons the way they want, and make them not only fun to use, but also effective.

This will especially be necessary when the clan weapons come up - you do not want them to be canon!

Those will have to be toned down quite a bit...


So you canon dudes - get out, no one wants your crap TT-rules in an online FPS!

[KuruptU4Fun]

Terror Teddy, on 21 March 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Why would it be so hard to make the AT LEAST equal to small lasers?

A weapon that is 1/14 the weight of the ERPPC and does 1/3 the damage.

That's like the MG's being compared to the AC/20. Right now it's being compared with the AC/2 as being 1/12 of that weight but does 1/10 the damage.

Look at the math
SL / ERPPC= 1/3 DPS
MG/ AC/2 = 1/10 the DPS



Does the SL fail? I've not heard anyone complain that the SL is OP but still people thinks the MG's would be OP if it did the same damage.

Have you ever fired an MG? especially akin to the ones in game like an M60? You can't do much more than aim in a general direction and hold the weapon as best you can. MG's suffer from a "cone of fire" SL are a point of contact/damage weapon. MG proponents don't seem to understand that concept.

MG damage will always spread out according to distance, spin of the bullet and the movement of the weapon itself.

[FupDup]

Schrottfrosch, on 21 March 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

Hey dudes - sarna considers MWO apocryphal , look up MWO !

This means, PGI can tweak the weapons the way they want, and make them not only fun to use, but also effective.

This will especially be necessary when the clan weapons come up - you do not want them to be canon!

Those will have to be toned down quite a bit...


So you canon dudes - get out, no one wants your crap TT-rules in an online FPS!

The irony of your post is that making MGs better would actually suit TT's rules more than our silly "crit-seekers" do. The opponents of MG buffs don't want the game like TT, they are just misinterpreting the word "Machine Gun" to mean something the size of a Kalashnikov-47.

Edited by FupDup, 21 March 2013 - 08:02 AM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Schrottfrosch, on 21 March 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

Hey dudes - sarna considers MWO apocryphal , look up MWO !

This means, PGI can tweak the weapons the way they want, and make them not only fun to use, but also effective.

This will especially be necessary when the clan weapons come up - you do not want them to be canon!

Those will have to be toned down quite a bit...


So you canon dudes - get out, no one wants your crap TT-rules in an online FPS!

If you read canon lore, Clans are actually only around for 6 months before they retreat back into Clan space...

[Terror Teddy]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

Have you ever fired an MG? especially akin to the ones in game like an M60? You can't do much more than aim in a general direction and hold the weapon as best you can. MG's suffer from a "cone of fire" SL are a point of contact/damage weapon. MG proponents don't seem to understand that concept.

MG damage will always spread out according to distance, spin of the bullet and the movement of the weapon itself.

What, exactly had that to do with what I wrote? I'm merely discussing:
-DPS
-Damage per Tonne
-Time to deliver damage per tonne

I've never contested or argued against cone of fire of MG's but simply the abysmal underperforming damage of the weapon.

Also, no, I have never fired:
-A vehicle mounted M60 weighting 500 kilograms
-I have fired a standard SMG though so yea, bullets spread at range.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 21 March 2013 - 08:04 AM.

[stjobe]

Schrottfrosch, on 21 March 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

So you canon dudes - get out, no one wants your crap TT-rules in an online FPS!

No, who would want "crap TT-rules" in a game based on... the TT rules?

Either way, it's not about "crap TT-rules", it's about the MG being useless in this "online FPS", and us wanting a change to that.

[Terror Teddy]

Schrottfrosch, on 21 March 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

Hey dudes - sarna considers MWO apocryphal , look up MWO !

This means, PGI can tweak the weapons the way they want, and make them not only fun to use, but also effective.

So tell me, are MG's FUN to use or EFFECTIVE in your opinion.