251 replies to this topic

[Ground Pounder]

You guys keep bringing up examples of dedicated anti-infantry/anti-light vehicle mechs as stated in thier rules for the TT and MW rpg....and again, noone said that MGS can't hurt...you need to re-read...but they do not need a buff and definately don't need to be on par with Small Lasers as they were never intended to be

Squigles, on 17 March 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Again, stop quoting sarna...the quote I just gave you is hand typed from the book, not some gobbledegook that someone threw together because it sounds good.

Its the EXACT same wording from the TT mini game and RPG that I am looking at right in front of me

[Team Leader]

Ground Pounder, on 17 March 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

*shakes head*

Can someone name one battlemech whose primary anti-mech weapon is the MG?

can someone name one battlemech that carries predominately machine guns that is not classed as an anti-infantry or infantry support mech?

Your purpose here is pretty obvious and ludicrous...you want to take a mech, strap it with as many mgs as possible and run of blasting the enemy with it...its a power gaming ploy, a gimmick attempt and sad.

Spider 5k, piranha.
OP, you are a terrible troll. If you're not trolling, you are just really dumb.

Edited by Team Leader, 17 March 2013 - 01:57 PM.

[shabowie]

Did the OP happen to read that the MG did 2 pts of damage? 2/3 the strength of a small laser for no heat but requiring ammo sounds about right.

[Ground Pounder]

Team Leader, on 17 March 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

Spider 5k, piranha.
OP, you are a terrible troll. If you're not trolling, you are just really dumb.

As stated Team Leader BOTH anti-infantry mechs

[Tickdoff Tank]

Ground Pounder, on 17 March 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

Now you want to make the MGs damage potential higher than the SLs damage potential? In the TT, the SL does 3 pts of damage at the same ranges...so, whats the justification?

Did you actually READ what I posted? Apparently not, so I will repeat it.

The SL has a beam duration with a cooldown between shots. The beam duration is 0.75 seconds, with a cooldown of 2.25 seconds. That means you need to hold your beam on your target for 3/4 of a second to do 3 damage, and then you have 2.25 seconds in which you can do anything else you want.

If the MG is buffed to do a base 1.2 damage it will need to be on target for the full second to do it's damage. And it needs to remain on it's target to continue to do damage. In a perfect situation the MG would be doing more damage than the SL, but I think that it would actually be doing around .8 dps. Mechs move around a lot more fluidly in MWO than in TT. If they buffed the MG to do 1.2 damage and it turned out to be too powerful then I would be one of the people asking for them to reduce the damage.

The MG is supposed to be a useful ballistic alternative to the SL, with it's own set of advantages and disadvantages. In MWO the MG is all disadvantage and no advantage, and that needs to change.

[wolf74]

there are many ways to look at M.G. Damage.
CBT: 2damage in 10sec or 0.2dps and getting 400 max damage out of 1 ton of ammo.

S7: 2 damage in 2.5sec or 0.8 dps and getting 400 max damage out of 1 ton of ammo.

Aero-tech: 2damage in 60sec or 0.033dps and getting 400 max damage out of 1 ton of ammo.

I not sure of the rof fire the M.G. is right now but 2000x0.04=80 max range per ton of ammo. If they keep the damage where it is I request ammo count be take up to 20,000 per ton of m.g. Ammo.

My personal though here is that the amount of ammo should equal 800/(weapon damage). edited from 400 to 800 to count for the double armor values.

Edited by wolf74, 17 March 2013 - 02:44 PM.

[Team Leader]

Ground Pounder, on 17 March 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

As stated Team Leader BOTH anti-infantry mechs

Just because they do BONUS damage to infantry does NOT mean they are ONLY for infantry. You need help buddy. It does the same damage as an AC2 in the sourcebooks, just because they decided a weapon should have bonuses to infantry which don't even EXIST in this game does not mean it should not be able to damage mechs in any effective form.

[Ground Pounder]

Team Leader, on 17 March 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Just because they do BONUS damage to infantry does NOT mean they are ONLY for infantry. You need help buddy. It does the same damage as an AC2 in the sourcebooks, just because they decided a weapon should have bonuses to infantry which don't even EXIST in this game does not mean it should not be able to damage mechs in any effective form.

Team Leader...do me a favor...quote somewhere that I said MGs couldn't and shouldn't hurt mechs

Edited by Ground Pounder, 17 March 2013 - 02:03 PM.

[Squigles]

Ground Pounder, on 17 March 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

You guys keep bringing up examples of dedicated anti-infantry/anti-light vehicle mechs as stated in thier rules for the TT and MW rpg....and again, noone said that MGS can't hurt...you need to re-read...but they do not need a buff and definately don't need to be on par with Small Lasers as they were never intended to be




Its the EXACT same wording from the TT mini game and RPG that I am looking at right in front of me

I don't really care what book you're looking at, the quote is from the TRO 3058 that introduced the mech. At this point you're just trolling as you out of hand dismiss anything that contradict's your viewpoint even when it's an official piece of print from the company that made the game.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Really? The MG around before infantry, all the definition of infantry needs is a group of armed people with a leader to direct them as to who, when and where to fight.

The MG was before infantry and OBVIOUSLY there before the creation of gunpowder.

Pfft, how dare MG's be so presumptuous as to stating they don't need gunpowder to be effective....

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 17 March 2013 - 02:06 PM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Ground Pounder, on 17 March 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

As stated Team Leader BOTH anti-infantry mechs

Get this through your head: Just because a mech/vehicle/weapon is BETTER against infantry does not mean that it is NOT effective against a battlemech. If the MG was not supposed to damage a mech then the rules would say that very clearly.

How do you justify the MG doing .3 damage in the same amount of time that the SL does 3.0 damage? The MG is doing 1/10 the damage of the SL in the first .75 seconds of fire. And it is not easy to maintain a constant stream of MG rounds on a target while running at speed, turning and dodging incoming fire.

[Ground Pounder]

Tickdoff Tank, on 17 March 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

Did you actually READ what I posted? Apparently not, so I will repeat it.

The SL has a beam duration with a cooldown between shots. The beam duration is 0.75 seconds, with a cooldown of 2.25 seconds. That means you need to hold your beam on your target for 3/4 of a second to do 3 damage, and then you have 2.25 seconds in which you can do anything else you want.

If the MG is buffed to do a base 1.2 damage it will need to be on target for the full second to do it's damage. And it needs to remain on it's target to continue to do damage. In a perfect situation the MG would be doing more damage than the SL, but I think that it would actually be doing around .8 dps. Mechs move around a lot more fluidly in MWO than in TT. If they buffed the MG to do 1.2 damage and it turned out to be too powerful then I would be one of the people asking for them to reduce the damage.

The MG is supposed to be a useful ballistic alternative to the SL, with it's own set of advantages and disadvantages. In MWO the MG is all disadvantage and no advantage, and that needs to change.

So Tankd...your assertion here is that the MG needs to be held on target but the Small Laser doesn't? Its the same basic mechanic...because the laser is a cutting tool, you have to hold it on or strafe it across the surface of the enemy which is basically the same thing the MG is doing (you actually have to hold on for a shorter time for the MG to be effective as you have asserted)....so your ratio is off because they both have the same basic mechanic...also, since the MG can basically fire continuosly, its damage potential will be a great deal more than the SL until the ammo runs out


The benefit for the MG over the SL has always been no heat as well and also its an easier tech to replace and cheaper to purchase

[Tickdoff Tank]

I have said my piece. I think the vast majority of people in this thread agree with me (or I with them, however you want to look at it). I am done.

Edit: to respond to the OPs post above mine:

My point is that the SL does it's damage much faster than the MG, which changes the damage profile significantly. In TT all weapons were effectively "hit scan", meaning that they all did their damage at the instant that they fired. There was no "damage over time" effect on regular weapons. In MWO lasers are DOT weapons, just with a very short window in which they apply damage.

It is very rare for any laser in MWO to do all of it's damage to the same location on the mech you are shooting. There is almost always some "scatter", and those lasers have a beam duration of 0.5-1.0 seconds (small **** laser is 0.5, small laser is 0.75) It is not that hard to keep a small laser on target for 3/4 of a second, even if you do spread that damage around a bit. And the laser damage is "front loaded" meaning that it will do its damage and then go on cooldown.

The MG is also a DOT weapon. But it has no cooldown, so to acheive maximum DPS you need to remain on target for the entire time it takes to do your dps. It is MUCH harder to keep your target under your reticule for longer periods of time. It takes an MG 3.75 seconds to do the same damage as a small laser (3). By the time the MG has fired for 3.75 seconds the SL has already fired again, doing another 3 damage. And the chances that your MG did all of it's pitiful damage to the target (not even thinking about all damage to the same location) is pretty low.

That is why I think that the MG should have a slight edge in "raw" dps compared to the SL. It is harder to do max damage with the MG with the current implementation.

Edited by Tickdoff Tank, 17 March 2013 - 02:26 PM.

[Major Derps]

This is the third MG post today, and this is the third time today that I have posted this... They are crit seekers, not damage dealers. They were useless in every game before, and PGI has cleverly made them useful by buffing their crit damage. You will take a year to drop a mechs armor, or destroying a mech outright with MGs, but, you can and will (if stacked) take out internal components and weapons very quickly.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Tickdoff Tank, on 17 March 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Get this through your head: Just because a mech/vehicle/weapon is BETTER against infantry does not mean that it is NOT effective against a battlemech. If the MG was not supposed to damage a mech then the rules would say that very clearly.

How do you justify the MG doing .3 damage in the same amount of time that the SL does 3.0 damage? The MG is doing 1/10 the damage of the SL in the first .75 seconds of fire. And it is not easy to maintain a constant stream of MG rounds on a target while running at speed, turning and dodging incoming fire.

Let alone that pesky thing called a cone of fire....

[Jabilo]

Think this one has been done to death.

Regardless of who is right or what the cannon says - this is a game.

For it to be a good game, every weapon choice must be at least somewhat viable.

At the moment the MG is comic relief only. It needs SOMETHING.

It might be that when crits on components (actuators, engines) are introduced it is more effective.

Right now it is not balanced in game terms.

[Team Leader]

Ground Pounder, on 17 March 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

They don't need a BUFF against mechs. They do a little damage as they always have at relatively short range which is the way its supposed to be.

Stop trying to make the MG a mech killer...thats not its intent or its design capacity

Ground Pounder, on 17 March 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Team Leader...do me a favor...quote somewhere that I said MGs couldn't and shouldn't hurt mechs

[Utilyan]

Ground Pounder, on 17 March 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Team Leader...do me a favor...quote somewhere that I said MGs couldn't and shouldn't hurt mechs

That was implied in OP. at best mgs are what?

There are folks out there who got a personal beef with MGs. Last thing I want is to set those whiners off again.

I'm cool with no buff to mgs.

[Ground Pounder]

Tickdoff Tank, on 17 March 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Get this through your head: Just because a mech/vehicle/weapon is BETTER against infantry does not mean that it is NOT effective against a battlemech. If the MG was not supposed to damage a mech then the rules would say that very clearly.

WHERE DID I EVER SAY...that a MG isn't supposed to damage a mech? Someone please quote that for me...

Also, what you are trying to do is take a MG and make it effectively do more damage potentially than a small laser...in TT terms it never has and there is no justification for it..now if you want to effectively make a MG 3/4s the damage in the same amount of damage time, thats doable..but making it MORE effective than the SL just because you want a reason to use it is ridiculous

And in all honestly, if you take the continuous fire from a MG now and compare it to the small laser in duration from shot to cool down to shot....its gonna be pretty close to the proper ratio.

Edited by Ground Pounder, 17 March 2013 - 02:20 PM.

[New Breed]

I'm going to slap the biggest engine I can on the Jager and run around with 6 machine guns


and 1 small laser, just to make people mad.