251 replies to this topic

[Scratx]

*sigh* Battlemech scale Machineguns do as much damage as a small laser, IIRC. Therefore, they are anti-battlemech weapons.

Some small weapons like small pulse lasers also get bonuses against infantry.

Can we stop the "MGs shouldn't be able to do squat against battlemechs" theory? A battlemech-scale "machinegun" is more like a GAU-8, not an MG42...

[Tickdoff Tank]

Scratx, on 18 March 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

*sigh* Battlemech scale Machineguns do as much damage as a small laser, IIRC. Therefore, they are anti-battlemech weapons.

While it does not invalidate your point, in TT MGs do 2 damage and the SL does 3.

I agree with you completely, just making sure your numbers are correct.

[Terror Teddy]

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

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

Ah, so the autocannon 2 damage is negligable since it does the SAME damage as the MG in Battletech?

Your logic Sir, fails.

[Zen Hachetaki]

Ok, gotta weigh in for sh*ts and giggles...

First of all - to those quoting sarna... it is like quoting the christian bible, depending on what verses you choose to use you can make a case for anything you want to do and someone else will simply pick a different section to prefer - not to mention the whole "interpretation" piece that shoots it all to heck. The source material is the basis for the start of the game but as they have said - they are not going to be slaves to historical canon so let's move past this please. And please do not mention "real life" equipment here - we are talking about 10 meter tall walking/running/jumping robots being tougher/more resilient to kill than tanks... this is no place for "real life" examples to support your arguments.

Instead let's look at how to evaluate this piece of equipment as it will relate to a MMO and attempting to find a "home" for it. It was in original BT, it served a purpose there, it can serve one here beyond this "crit seeking" bullsh*t (I say bull sh*t because most of the crits are out of the game making it substantially less valuable ie, leg actuators, engine, gyro). Much of the issue in my interpretation is finding a comfortable space where it is effective but not OP right? I can see the potential issues of constant fire weapons having too high DPS, but right now it is virtually useless (and believe me I have used them).

I would propose to test alternate means of firing these items to be in line with other ballistic type weapons, namely the AC 2 which I see as it's closest counterpart. Rather than chain firing, why not have a similar CD and projectile speed, but just insanely cr@ppy range? I see them as the same weapon but with varying range. Both are low heat, ammo dependent weapons, but the AC 2 has emerged as a very effective weapon. If MGs are to be viable they need more than a gimmick - can we agree on this? If they are not to be viable as choices, why the heck even have them in the game (and I am looking at you too Mr BAP...).

Last thought; if the gimmick remains as crit seeking... PLEASE PUT ALL THE CRITS BACK IN! I want to be able to slow things down by eating actuators! I want to mess up targeting by killing shoulders! Why is it that all the structural components evaporated? Let me kill an XL engine without destroying the whole torso. THAT would at least make crit seeking interesting (and maybe make salvage more valuable for mechs destroyed this way), as you could kill mechs without needing the damage dealing capacity. It does me no good to only be able to blow up weapons and heat sinks cuz the mech is still functioning when I run out of ammo...

[HammerSwarm]

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

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.

Boom. That's the heart of my feelings. I want the gun to deal enough damage that it is a viable alternative to a cheese build with an A/C2 on a spider, or 3 of them in the arm of a dragon 5n. I don't want them to be great, but I want them to do something. Until and unless they fix machine guns then I can't believe leveling small ballistic mechs is anything other than cheesy or painful.

Edited by HammerSwarm, 18 March 2013 - 12:14 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

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

You started the thread with the condescending *sigh*, post information that doesn't actually buttress your point and then are somewhat confused as to why you're being clowned for it. Sigh, indeed.

MWO isn't just trying to be the RT version of a TT game (and for which the sarna link, as many posters have already shown you, supports the use of MG's versus Mechs), but also the spiritual successor to the spirit of the franchise.

Read ANY of the first four novels and you'll see MG's used routinely against Mechs to decent effect, and there are plenty more instances of MG's being utilized outside of those four. I just use those an example of how old the concept of heavier, anti-Mech MG is in the intellectual property of BT/MW.

Now....I personally not a big fan of overdoing it with the MG's or even making them that much of a threat, but the fact remains, OP is way off base canonically/historically and frankly mathematically in terms of the TT rules. Next time maybe don't patronize the fanbase the books-lawyers that inhabit these forums with your initial comments and you'll get better results in debate.

[Kylere]

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

Then why did machine guns predate infantry....

/sigh.

Muzzle Loaders predated the M16A1, but no one with a choice uses them.

[MustrumRidcully]

Heeden, on 18 March 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

The damage boost the AC/2 received in the transition from TT rules is not typical and I don't think it is a good base of comparison for the MG. If every weapon received a similar buff AC/20s would do 40 dps and even the humble small laser would have 6.



From Sarna:-








I find a -5K with 1 ERLLas + 4MG performs much better than a -5V with 2 x MPLas or MLas (although both are inferior to the -5D which in turn struggles against Jenners and the ECM + Streak combos). Spiders are trashy, but the MGs don't make the -5K the trashiest.

The bolded part I agree with, although I find the idea of MGs being boosted to 4 dps to equal the AC/2 a bit ridiculous.

From playing my -5K I think a boost to 1dps per MG would make it much more dangerous - probably equal to or better than the -5D (not counting ECM). Note this doesn't take in to account competitive play where all Spiders suffer from not being 3Ls.

Personally I still prefer the idea of MG-arrays because technically that brings more dakka.

Stop with the 4 DPS thingy. That is not what people are saying. The AC/2 to MG comparison is primarily to point out that the source material does not support the notion the MG is useless against mechs.
That is where the comparison already ends.

MAybe there are some that think 4 DPS are also necessariy for the MG, but I doubt many would agree. Espeically if you consider that for the theoretical 4 DPS of the AC/2, you also need to deal with 2 HPS, e.g. 10 True Double Heat Sinks 20 Standard Heat Sinks to compensate. That's obviously not something the MG would have to deal with. (But let me point out is why I find the AC/2 stats in MW:O ridicilous and inane.)

[Terror Teddy]

The only thing that the MG needs is to be a viable weapon equivalent of other weapons in it's weight class AND amongst ballistics.

150 damage per tonne would be 0,75 DPS with the current 200 second rate of fire. Since this is 4 times slower than ANY other ballistic weapon it would not be a stretch of the imagination to only make it TWICE as slow.

100 seconds would give us 1,5 DPS to deliver 150 damage per tonne.

Or, we lower it to 1,25 DPS but keep the crit bonus to internals.

There, a viable light weapon that goes through ammunition like a kid on a sugar high in a candy store.

[CrashieJ]

Narcisoldier, on 18 March 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

That is the build of a lunatic. I don't think I'd be comfortable with you being around small children. You could mount a single ac/2 and get almost four times the DPS of your ridiculous 4mg/1SL build. Holy crap that's a bad robot.

Lunacy is the best policy... besides, those 26 people I killed by Machineguns are probably having that 50 second long death loop in their head every time they go to sleep...

... death by 1000 cuts, works every time

[Esplodin]

gavilatius, on 18 March 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Lunacy is the best policy... besides, those 26 people I killed by Machineguns are probably having that 50 second long death loop in their head every time they go to sleep...

... death by 1000 cuts, works every time

And I'd bet that your sm laser was what killed them AND did most of the work. That or the pilot in the enemy mech had a stroke or was in the loo.

[Scratx]

Tickdoff Tank, on 18 March 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

While it does not invalidate your point, in TT MGs do 2 damage and the SL does 3.

I agree with you completely, just making sure your numbers are correct.

You, sir, are correct. I misremembered the numbers and didn't check before posting.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Scratx, on 18 March 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

You, sir, are correct. I misremembered the numbers and didn't check before posting.

Happens to all of us

[CrashieJ]

Esplodin, on 18 March 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

And I'd bet that your sm laser was what killed them AND did most of the work. That or the pilot in the enemy mech had a stroke or was in the loo.

no it was the constant dakka of the machineguns

MG 3045 dmg (139,406 rounds)
Sl 1410 dmg

Edited by gavilatius, 18 March 2013 - 03:24 PM.

[Lt Shortcut]

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

lol

Did you even read the article you posted? It says the MG's are effective at damaging battlemechs. It also says that several models are 20mm. Have you ever seen a 20mm round? Have you ever seen a 20mm MG? lol.

Here's a 20mm Machinegun.

[kragmoor]

do you see infantry anywhere in this game GP? what's that, no? then shut the hell up.

[Sifright]

gavilatius, on 18 March 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

no it was the constant dakka of the machineguns

MG 3045 dmg (139,406 rounds)
Sl 1410 dmg

How many matches were played to get that figure.

because i'm kind of boggling right now. just like bwuuuh.

[Esplodin]

gavilatius, on 18 March 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

no it was the constant dakka of the machineguns

MG 3045 dmg (139,406 rounds)
Sl 1410 dmg

3.87 hours MG fire, or slightly less than one solid hour of machine gun fire when "boating" 4. 26 kills. lolwut? 1410 SL damage is more then enough to kill 26 mechs.

And dude, don't let that evil day star see you or it might burn your pristine translucent skin.

[CrashieJ]

Sifright, on 18 March 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

How many matches were played to get that figure.

because i'm kind of boggling right now. just like bwuuuh.

96 matches, with 7 hours of playtime.

the thing is I don't play "to win", I do it for the lulz. because when you think about it; stats will be wiped and there is no "main goal" (like conquest) so yeah, I'm using a sucky mech because I want to do better, if I can get a kill against "CHEESE" with the most bottom of the barrel scum... then I think I proved how lethal a pilot with craptastic equiptment (ie. me) can be.
now, Where do I sign up for my 6SRM-A1?

[Sifright]

gavilatius, on 18 March 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

96 matches, with 7 hours of playtime.

the thing is I don't play "to win", I do it for the lulz. because when you think about it; stats will be wiped and there is no "main goal" (like conquest) so yeah, I'm using a sucky mech because I want to do better, if I can get a kill against "CHEESE" with the most bottom of the barrel scum... then I think I proved how lethal a pilot with craptastic equiptment (ie. me) can be.
now, Where do I sign up for my 6SRM-A1?

I semi get what you are saying but that would feel like so much masochism to me.. just ouch.