251 replies to this topic

[Team Leader]

Hey, OP, learn to read buddy

[malibu43]

PS - Can someone tell me what exactly "Sarna" is? Is it just like a Battle Tech Wiki? Where anyone can type something in?

[Tickdoff Tank]

malibu43, on 17 March 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

PS - Can someone tell me what exactly "Sarna" is? Is it just like a Battle Tech Wiki? Where anyone can type something in?

Yes, it is the battle tech wiki.

Lots of good information and tech read outs. You can also just google "battletech machine gun" and the first link will most likely be to the sarna site where you could spend some time browsing.

Sarna is pretty accurate if you have the ability to understand what you are reading, unlike the OP that does not even realize that his link harms his position instead of helping it.

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

Edited by Tickdoff Tank, 17 March 2013 - 01:35 PM.

[Ground Pounder]

Tickdoff Tank, on 17 March 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

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.

NO ONE said that MGS shouldn't do any damage against Mechs (at least I have not)...the fact is that 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

[Squigles]

malibu43, on 17 March 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

PS - Can someone tell me what exactly "Sarna" is? Is it just like a Battle Tech Wiki? Where anyone can type something in?

Exactly that, and the article being referenced contains direct quotes from the Tech Manual, only with important chunks of the text removed, namely the bit referencing weapons of the 19th century.

[Fenris Krinkovich]

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)....

Show anywhere in Battletech or Mechwarrior sources that a mech-mounted weapon with a damage value of 2 CAN NOT be used against other mechs. If it's not intended to be used against mechs, then WHY does it have a damage value vs mechs?

Edited by Fenris Krinkovich, 17 March 2013 - 01:38 PM.

[Squigles]

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

NO ONE said that MGS shouldn't do any damage against Mechs (at least I have not)...the fact is that 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

Except that you're wrong, 4 machine guns should be whipping out as much damage as paired SSRM2's, only at a 3rd of the range if aimed well. That's what they have "always done", not the piddly performance they put out now.

[Ground Pounder]

*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.

Edited by Ground Pounder, 17 March 2013 - 01:41 PM.

[RedDragon]

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

It does 2 points of damage against mechs and heavy vehicles, the same as an AC/2 or a single SRM. What further proof do you need?
The MG is no anti-mech weapon but it is still useful against mechs. Trying to argue about semantics makes no sense here.

[Tickdoff Tank]

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

NO ONE said that MGS shouldn't do any damage against Mechs (at least I have not)...the fact is that 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

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. All of us asking for a buff to the MG are NOT asking for it to be the best anti-mech weapon in the game. We just want it to be as useful (in it's own way) as the small laser.

In MWO, right now, the MG does .4 DPS. The SL does 1 dps. Is it really too much to ask for the MG to do 1.2-1.4 dps? Remember that the SL does it's damage in a short burst while the MG would need to stay on target for a full second to do it's damage. In the MWO version of combat it is a "non-trivial" task to hold your weapon on a target for multiple seconds at a range of less than 90m. So a 1.2 dps on the MG would probably be more like 0.8-1.0 dps in the live game.

edit: more on point: The reason we are asking for a "BUFF" is because every weapon in MWO has received a substantial buff (to compensate with the doubled armor) EXCEPT THE MG. What we are really asking for is not to buff the MG above what it should be, but rather a correction of the NERF that it has retroactively received.

Edited by Tickdoff Tank, 17 March 2013 - 01:46 PM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

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.

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

The Piranha's main threat is its twelve Series XII Rotary Machine Guns. These are a serious threat on such a speedy 'Mech to any foe, especially if a Star of Piranhas operate in a pack. They are most deadly, however, to unarmored infantry, capable of wiping out an entire company in seconds. For work against hardened targets, the Piranha mounts a pair of Mk. 3 ER Medium Lasers and a single Series 1 ER Small Laser. Since the design only uses ten single heat sinks, the MechWarrior must still manage heat levels. The ammunition dependency of the Machine Guns ensure that Piranhas must stay close to supply lines, so most have been relegated to solahma or garrison roles.

12 MGs doe 24 damage per turn, more than an AC20. While you will most likely miss with some of them, and the damage will be spread all over the place, it is very effective against a mech. And it is absolutely murderous to infantry, no one is discounting that. But 24 damage is 24 damage. and TT mechs have 1/2 the armor we do. 24 is nothing to laugh at.

[zipzopzoopidybop]

Has this guy never heard of the Spider 5K? Its in the game ya know.....

Maybe it was just a joke mech we weren't supposed to use.

[Wintersdark]

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

NO ONE said that MGS shouldn't do any damage against Mechs (at least I have not)...the fact is that 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

As the Sarna article you quoted said, the MG is specifically designed to do the same damage against mechs as an AC/2. That is how they are SUPPOSED to be. That is their intent, and design capacity.

[Ground Pounder]

Tickdoff Tank, on 17 March 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. All of us asking for a buff to the MG are NOT asking for it to be the best anti-mech weapon in the game. We just want it to be as useful (in it's own way) as the small laser.

In MWO, right now, the MG does .4 DPS. The SL does 1 dps. Is it really too much to ask for the MG to do 1.2-1.4 dps? Remember that the SL does it's damage in a short burst while the MG would need to stay on target for a full second to do it's damage. In the MWO version of combat it is a "non-trivial" task to hold your weapon on a target for multiple seconds at a range of less than 90m. So a 1.2 dps on the MG would probably be more like 0.8-1.0 dps in the live game.

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?

[Squigles]

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.

I'm going to hand type this out from the TRO since sarna, as usual, is utter rubbish outside of statistical numbers...the fluff being truncated to bits.

The mech you're looking for is the Pirahna.

A large XL engine and powerful legs give the Piranha an astounding running speed, allowing it to close quickly with the enemy and bring its twelve heavy machine guns to bear. Such a large array of machine guns can be deadly to units twice the Piranha's size, especially if the small 'Mech can run behind the enemy. At short range, a Piranha can chew through any opponent's back armor almost instantly. The machine guns are also extremely potent antipersonnel weapons.

Direct quote from TRO 3058, merry christmas.

[Ground Pounder]

zipzopzoopidybop, on 17 March 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

Has this guy never heard of the Spider 5K? Its in the game ya know.....

Maybe it was just a joke mech we weren't supposed to use.

SDR-5K - The -5K Spider removes one of the Medium Lasers and replaces it with two arm mounted Machine Guns for anti-infantry use. To make room for its Machine Gun ammunition the 'Mech

[Utilyan]

Cicada 3c is my main mech, I would do about 160 dam a round, few kills.

Edit: 4 mgs, flamer

Back about a month ago, when trebuchet was released, they buffed the MGs, flamer, and lbx.

I run a cicada 3c, was doing about 250 damage, one round I killed 3 people. If you lost your armor the mgs were cutting through like butter. It was finally KING vs unarmored.

Now I'm someone who runs MGS all the time. Fact that day.....I QUIT using my cicada..... It was too good, I felt dirty.

.

The next patch.....THEY NERFED MGs. They nerfed it beyond worst then it ever has been. Getting rounds like 13 damage, It shuts off weapons if armor is missing, but thats it.


You ain't gonna get 250 damage with mgs and flamers.

Theres is a good reason these weapons are nerfed, Thats cause some premie elitist got bent over a long long time ago...... since then theres a natural emnity between the two.

All I could do now is laugh.

All whats gonna happen is this weapon is going to get continuously nerfed, Those uppity elitist want any excuse to get rid of mgs and flamers completely. Cause they got thier but handed by it a long long time ago.

The only way to win is they can nerf it all they want, I love mgs and flamers.

Edited by Utilyan, 17 March 2013 - 01:51 PM.

[Ground Pounder]

Squigles, on 17 March 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

I'm going to hand type this out from the TRO since sarna, as usual, is utter rubbish outside of statistical numbers...the fluff being truncated to bits.

The mech you're looking for is the Pirahna.

A large XL engine and powerful legs give the Piranha an astounding running speed, allowing it to close quickly with the enemy and bring its twelve heavy machine guns to bear. Such a large array of machine guns can be deadly to units twice the Piranha's size, especially if the small 'Mech can run behind the enemy. At short range, a Piranha can chew through any opponent's back armor almost instantly. The machine guns are also extremely potent antipersonnel weapons.

Direct quote from TRO 3058, merry christmas.

The Piranha was developed by Clan Diamond Shark shortly before the Battle of Tukayyid to combat Inner Sphere conventional infantry and light vehicles.

[AlexEss]

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

If the gun isn't meant to be viable, then even bother putting it in?

See... this is the question i have asked my self from day 1... The flamer i can sort of get and same with the small laser.. But the MG sort of falls flat for me... But iirc they are looking in to if it needs another buff and the best way to prove either point is to mount it and provide good data on the thing.

So let's all scamper off to the testing grounds once it is ironed out and MG stuff to our hearts content.

[Squigles]

Ground Pounder, on 17 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

The Piranha was developed by Clan Diamond Shark shortly before the Battle of Tukayyid to combat Inner Sphere conventional infantry and light vehicles.

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.