251 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Vermaxx, on 18 March 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

Of course they're going to have a lot of problems coming up with three unique variants, based off existing models, at this point in the timeline, that are not simply inferior or MC mechs.

FLE-4: Large laser, two small, flamer.

FLE-14: Won't happen since it was a 15 ton prototype.

FLE-15: Two medium, two small, two machine guns, flamer. This one could actually show up. It would also baaa-low.

FLE-19: Eight light machine guns, two machine gun arrays, flamer, Rocket Launcher 10. 3068, cannot happen.

FLE-20: Two ER Medium, Light PPC. Stealth Armor and Guardian. GORRAMN IT, this one will probably show up some, making YET ANOTHER LIGHT with ECM. The fastest yet too. The Light PPC is YEARS AWAY, so they would have to sub in three tons of weapon instead. Also, the ER Mediums are a problem.

Fire Ant: Six machine guns, 3 flamers. It didn't show up until 3058/

So, there are two solid builds INCLUDING THE BASE, and one iffy third if they're willing to modify the Light PPC to something else.

Well, it could mean that they will advance the timeline and not stay with the 1:1 ratio. Or they invent their own variant...

[Squigles]

Tincan Nightmare, on 18 March 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

Ok I don't care if they buff or don't buff the MG, but lets think about this. The Marauder has an AC/5 that shoots a 3 round burst of 120mm rounds. So your talking about 3 M1A1's firing their main guns at a target and hitting the same general location and doing the equivalent of 5 points of damage. The Hetzer has an AC/20 that shoots a 10 round burst of 120mm rounds, now almost the same as a full company of M1's firing together at the same target and hitting the same location. Thats a damn good indicator of the toughness of BT armor, especially as it is usually described as being depleted uranium AP rounds. All the people bringing up a real life GAU-8 30mm should also remember that it is mounted on an aircraft attacking ground armor hitting them where they have the least protection, their roofs. Its why M1's and modern MBT's carry main guns in the 120mm range instead of a GAU-8, they are hitting much thicker armor facing toward the front or sides. And mechs don't have roofs (well maybe their backs).

http://www.sarna.net...echnology#Armor

Think this is actually the 3rd or 4th time I've posted this. Go read that, it's an excerpt from the Tech Manual for those without. Battletech armor is not "tough" in the sense that modern armor is. Modern armor is designed to deflect, it's measured in inches. Battletech armor is NOT meant to deflect, it's meant to essentially shatter to bits under impact, and is measured in millimeters and centimeters (inches across the surface area of a battlemech would bring it to it's knees).

A battlemech bumping into a building effectively shatters it's armor into fragments much like a pane of glass...it's why moving through buildings and falling is so painfully damaging in Table Top.

Tincan Nightmare, on 18 March 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

Also the concept that the MG is the light AC equivalent of the Sm. laser is wrong. It is the ballistic equivalent of the flamer, which falls in the energy class (at least the mech carried version). Look at their TT stats. The MG does 2 points of damage, range of 3 hexes(90 meters), 0 heat, weighs .5 ton and requires ammo (either .5 ton or 1 ton) The flamer does 2 points of damage, range of 3 hexes(90 meters), 3 points of heat, weighs 1 ton and might require more heat sinks be mounted but has infinite uses. The flamer and the MG are the energy and ballistic equivalents of each other, not the MG and the Sm laser.

I can only assume you've never played Table Top, or you'd know why that comparison is so incredibly off base. When looking at weapon performance you also need to factor in the weight of the heat sinks you need to mount to use the weapon properly...after this calculation is performed the machine gun is effectively the ballistic small laser.

As an example, in the original game, 4 small lasers did 12 damage and used 6 tons (2 for the lasers + 4 single heatsinks). 6 Machine guns did 12 damage and used a much smaller 4 tons (3 tons for the machine guns + 1 ton for ammo), although with the risk of ammo boom. Double heatsinks would bring it to 12 damage for 4 tons on both weapons. The machine gun had a slightly smaller chance of getting into internals on any given hit, but generally a higher chance of a through armor critical when considering equal total damage output. Compare this to 24 tons to get the same damage with flamers (6 flamers + 18 single heatsinks), or 15 tons with doubles. All of these weapons have identical range brackets.

End result is that the machine guns are infinitely more comparable to small lasers then they are to flamers, which are a class unto themselves, essentially only having any role at all when using optional rules. (either fire on the map or +heat to mechs).

Edited by Squigles, 19 March 2013 - 12:36 AM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Squigles, on 19 March 2013 - 12:21 AM, said:

http://www.sarna.net...echnology#Armor

Think this is actually the 3rd or 4th time I've posted this. Go read that, it's an excerpt from the Tech Manual for those without. Battletech armor is not "tough" in the sense that modern armor is. Modern armor is designed to deflect, it's measured in inches. Battletech armor is NOT meant to deflect, it's meant to essentially shatter to bits under impact, and is measured in millimeters and centimeters (inches across the surface area of a battlemech would bring it to it's knees).

A battlemech bumping into a building effectively shatters it's armor into fragments much like a pane of glass...it's why moving through buildings and falling is so painfully damaging in Table Top.



I can only assume you've never played Table Top, or you'd know why that comparison is so incredibly off base. When looking at weapon performance you also need to factor in the weight of the heat sinks you need to mount to use the weapon properly...after this calculation is performed the machine gun is effectively the ballistic small laser.

As an example, in the original game, 4 small lasers did 12 damage and used 6 tons (2 for the lasers + 4 single heatsinks). 6 Machine guns did 12 damage and used a much smaller 4 tons (3 tons for the machine guns + 1 ton for ammo), although with the risk of ammo boom. Double heatsinks would bring it to 12 damage for 4 tons on both weapons. The machine gun had a slightly smaller chance of getting into internals on any given hit, but generally a higher chance of a through armor critical when considering equal total damage output. Compare this to 24 tons to get the same damage with flamers (6 flamers + 18 single heatsinks), or 15 tons with doubles. All of these weapons have identical range brackets.

End result is that the machine guns are infinitely more comparable to small lasers then they are to flamers, which are a class unto themselves, essentially only having any role at all when using optional rules. (either fire on the map or +heat to mechs).

Ok so armor that can withstand bursts of 120mm fire is not strong to you, especially when the discussion is about the effectiveness of a lower caliber 20 to 40mm gun? Its great that you quote the wiki Sarna, but the Techmanual states 'The outer layer is an extremely strong, extremely hard iron alloy... a steel. It is intended to fragment projectiles and/or-hey, have you heard anyone use "and/or" aloud before?- to fragment projectiles and/or ablate protectively in the face of energy attacks. The grains of this steel , that is, its crystals, are carefully aligned for maximum strength and radiation-treated to further hardness and strength. Though phenomenally strong and hard, the steel pays for these properties by being quite brittle.' TechManual pg 33. So yes, mech armor does shatter when hit with enough force, but it doesn't just fall to the ground as you seem to imply. If that was the case MG's would be better against mechs as their high rate of fire would allow them to strip armor rapidly and mechs would run screaming from companies of infantry with support MG's as their armor fell off. Yes mech armor shatters when hit hard enough, but it is still damn tough.

And if the flamer is a special case weapon, is not the MG the same? Again I am not against the MG getting a damage boost to make it useful for mechs like the Spider that has 4 hardpoints but not enough tonnage to mount heavier guns, though I don't want it to go to the opposite extreme either, but people keep acting like the MG is the 'light AC2' that HAS to balance out against the Sm laser when it is more of a unique weapon just like the flamer. Especially when you consider that the Clans later develop the light and heavy versions, are they balanced against the micro and med. lasers then? Honestly PGI should never had given 4 ballistic hardpoints to 2 variants of mechs that are 2 light to make use of them. The actual designs only come with 2 MG's so they should have just given them 2 ballistic and 2 energy. If PGI gives MG's a little love it wouldn't phase me one bit. I'm just tired of people trotting out the GAU-8 or the Vulcan 20mm when they should consider that an AC in BT is a rapid fire gun as well, but the rounds are the size of what MBT's toss around now.

[Tarman]

Is this thread still alive? This troll should have enough food to need to move under his own bridge by now.

[Prime2310]

How is this.... slow the fire rate down so that it can function like a 50 cal artillery gun.

that way it will still function like the MG but can do more damage at a longer distance. in essence how they have done the ultra AC5. you make the ultra AC 2 or 1. DAKKA DAKKA your way through everything.

[Terror Teddy]

ROPh03n1x, on 19 March 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:

How is this.... slow the fire rate down so that it can function like a 50 cal artillery gun.

MORE than 200 seconds to deliver 80 damage per tonne???

[CrashieJ]

Tarman, on 19 March 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

Is this thread still alive? This troll should have enough food to need to move under his own bridge by now.

overfeed it and poison the well...

[Mister Haha]

Flamethrowers starting fires on the ground? Holy crap that would be lovely. Create smokescreens and heated areas..

[Prime2310]

Terror Teddy, on 19 March 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

MORE than 200 seconds to deliver 80 damage per tonne???

Yeah, i am not sure how balancing would take it though. need to think about this one as with the JGR-DD, having 6 MG's you could pack a mean punch if it is not balanced correctly...

[Terror Teddy]

ROPh03n1x, on 19 March 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Yeah, i am not sure how balancing would take it though. need to think about this one as with the JGR-DD, having 6 MG's you could pack a mean punch if it is not balanced correctly...

So? What boating is NOT powerful?

X9 SL Swayback - i never heard anyone call it op.

9 mg's with the same tonnage and damage would still require 9 tonnes of ammo minimum - unlike the 10 DHS a swayback would have in the engine at no extra weight.

Six small lasers do it better- and regenerate ammo.

All ballistics tend to do MORE damage than it's energy counterparts due to:
-less heat
-more weight
-ammo dependant

Now, the mg dont have heat AND have the same weight as the small laser.

Put it in line with equal damage per second but keep the damage per tonne.
Now we have an intensly ammo hungry weapon with low weight but has to compensate that with a LOT of ammo.

[SpiralRazor]

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

Do you see infantry anywhere in the very first couple of versions of Battletech?

ROPh03n1x, on 19 March 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Yeah, i am not sure how balancing would take it though. need to think about this one as with the JGR-DD, having 6 MG's you could pack a mean punch if it is not balanced correctly...

Who cares? you would have to close to the most minimal range in the game to inflict it....and ill take my load of SRMS vs your MGS any day in that JGR.

[Galathon Redd]

FML, we're arguing about THIS again. Were the last 400 times we talked about this not enough?



We even brought up the exact same points and counterpoints, with the exact same source material. I had to actually double-check and make sure this wasn't a very old post, bumped for the LOLz of a troll.

Edited by Galathon Redd, 20 March 2013 - 12:38 AM.

[KinLuu]

Double the DPS, increase range to 150m. Why not? Could this really be worse than what you did to LRMs?

[Cubivorre]

Lock this thread and throw away the key..

[ian davion]

In the first Battletech book ever printed, Decision at Thunder Rift, had a mech getting destroyed by a machine gun. It is 100% canon. The machine gun was probably set to such low damage early in closed beta before hard points were added. We used to boat about a dozen machine guns and aim them at cockpits in the older Mechwarrior games. It was stupid because they did enough damage to head shot a mech in a few seconds. Most of you haven't played the older games or read the books or played table top so, you know nothing about Mechwarrior and are just spewing garbage. The Small Laser, Machine Gun, and AC/2 are not even close in table top. The SL and MG are the energy and ballistic equivalents. That is why they have the battle values of 9 and 5 (add 1 for each ton of ammo) respectively. I've heard the argument of "the MG doesn't have heat and that's not fair". The energy weapons have way more heat to balance the fact they never run out of ammo. In TT we always were running out of ammo in extended engagements. I rarely run out of ammo in MWO because of the huge amounts of ammo you can have with the changed ammo per ton so, they need to do something about that. Anyways, You guys seem to be comparing them to the AC/2. You shouldn't. It has a battle value of 37 (5 per ton of ammo). In TT Battle Value was how the game was balanced. You might ask why it has such a huge battle value compared to the MG if they both do 2 damage. That is because the AC/2 has 8 times the range as a MG. It has a longer range than the Gauss Rifle, LRMs, or PPC. The MG could never be equal to the AC/2.

http://www.sarna.net...at_Thunder_Rift

"Grayson tries to bring Tor to Berenir's house, but they find it destroyed by the same Marauder that had killed Grayson's father. Tor decides to head for the starport and hire out as a tech, while Grayson retreats to Thunder Rift outside the city with a stolen militia hovercraft skimmer to think the situation over. He returns to Sarghad, only to be caught up in a BattleMech attack against King Jeverid's palace. By a combination of battlefield instincts and pure chance, he ends up commandeering a militia skimmer with a heavy machine gun and uses this to kill the pilot of a Wasp in battle, thereby rallying the defenders and leading them to victory over the attacking pirates. He even manages to corner an overheating Locust in a dead end and forces the pilot (Lori Kalmar) to surrender by means of an shoulder-mounted inferno launcher, thereby capturing the damaged but functional 'Mech."

[S3dition]

From the very link the OP tried to use to support his argument:

Quote

The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers, while still being effective at damaging BattleMechs.

[ian davion]

That is because most of these people are selective readers. They only read what they think supports their particular views and ignore the rest.

[Sifright]

S3dition, on 20 March 2013 - 02:14 AM, said:

From the very link the OP tried to use to support his argument:

Pgi response: "but 0.4dps is effective at damaging enemy mechs alongside it's CRITSEEKING"

rest of the world: "Unnghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

[Radbane]

I say we up the dmg per round from 0.04 to 0.1 and remove the crit bonus, giving it a DPS of 1, just as the OP Mechkilling small laser. Then we give it a 10x multiplyer to infantry and light vehicles, making it a superduber anti-infantry weapon.

That should make everybody happy, right?




...I'm serioust about the dmg buff though.

[Tincan Nightmare]

ian davion, on 20 March 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:

In the first Battletech book ever printed, Decision at Thunder Rift, had a mech getting destroyed by a machine gun. It is 100% canon. The machine gun was probably set to such low damage early in closed beta before hard points were added. We used to boat about a dozen machine guns and aim them at cockpits in the older Mechwarrior games. It was stupid because they did enough damage to head shot a mech in a few seconds. Most of you haven't played the older games or read the books or played table top so, you know nothing about Mechwarrior and are just spewing garbage. The Small Laser, Machine Gun, and AC/2 are not even close in table top. The SL and MG are the energy and ballistic equivalents. That is why they have the battle values of 9 and 5 (add 1 for each ton of ammo) respectively. I've heard the argument of "the MG doesn't have heat and that's not fair". The energy weapons have way more heat to balance the fact they never run out of ammo. In TT we always were running out of ammo in extended engagements. I rarely run out of ammo in MWO because of the huge amounts of ammo you can have with the changed ammo per ton so, they need to do something about that. Anyways, You guys seem to be comparing them to the AC/2. You shouldn't. It has a battle value of 37 (5 per ton of ammo). In TT Battle Value was how the game was balanced. You might ask why it has such a huge battle value compared to the MG if they both do 2 damage. That is because the AC/2 has 8 times the range as a MG. It has a longer range than the Gauss Rifle, LRMs, or PPC. The MG could never be equal to the AC/2.

http://www.sarna.net...at_Thunder_Rift

"Grayson tries to bring Tor to Berenir's house, but they find it destroyed by the same Marauder that had killed Grayson's father. Tor decides to head for the starport and hire out as a tech, while Grayson retreats to Thunder Rift outside the city with a stolen militia hovercraft skimmer to think the situation over. He returns to Sarghad, only to be caught up in a BattleMech attack against King Jeverid's palace. By a combination of battlefield instincts and pure chance, he ends up commandeering a militia skimmer with a heavy machine gun and uses this to kill the pilot of a Wasp in battle, thereby rallying the defenders and leading them to victory over the attacking pirates. He even manages to corner an overheating Locust in a dead end and forces the pilot (Lori Kalmar) to surrender by means of an shoulder-mounted inferno launcher, thereby capturing the damaged but functional 'Mech."

Well he did kill the pilot of that Wasp with an MG, but it was a Wasp that was already pretty banged up, had a pilot that had just failed his piloting roll and crashed ( ) and had lost its medium laser. Plus it took a looonnnnggg time of sustained fire to kill the pilot. A better use of Thunder Rift in this thread would be when Grayson took his captured Locust out to engage another Wasp and a Stinger (I think without pulling the book out) and used the 2 MG's mounted on the Locust effectively against them (think he got several back shots in). Just saying so you understand that some people have been drinking in BT just as long as you .