251 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Terror Teddy, on 21 March 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

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

I'm fairly certain (at least I hope) that he's asking for an MG buff and is accusing the anti-MG crowd of being too TT-focused. His error is that the anti-MG folks aren't basing their opinion on TT, but rather on an assumption that the term "Machine Gun" instantly makes something into an M-16 Assault Rifle.

Edited by FupDup, 21 March 2013 - 08:10 AM.

[stjobe]

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

Have you ever fired an MG?

Yes. MGs, SMGs, Assault Rifles, 20mm autocannons, 86mm anti-tank weapons, 120mm mortars, 150mm anti-tank guided missiles. Among other things.

Neither of those are a 1000-years-in-the-future, 500kg, anti-'mech weapon designed to do damage to 1000-years-in-the-future ablative armour.

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

especially akin to the ones in game like an M60?

So you're saying a M60 weighs in at 500kg then? Because that's what the MWO MG weighs.

Stop with the silly man-portable MG arguments, the BT and MWO MG is a 'mech-scale weapon, not a piddly man-sized one.

Edited by stjobe, 21 March 2013 - 08:12 AM.

[Esplodin]

I've fired MG up to the 50 cal. There is a concept called the beaten zone, and is one of the things that the Devs got very right with the MG design. It also acts as a HUGE nerf, because the cone of fire at 90m is way larger then the mech you are aiming at - similar to the complaints about the LBX spread. Spray and pray indeed, and one of the reasons if you upped the weapon system even to 4DPS, you are looking in reality at a 1DPS per hitbox weapon if that. If you want to pinpoint sections, you gotta facehug which comes with it's own set of problems.

Edited by Esplodin, 21 March 2013 - 08:20 AM.

[rgreat]

There is nothing wrong with MG's!

Working as intended.

[Schrottfrosch]

I am saying, that PGI is free to change anything they want - which allows them to make the MGs useful (improve their damage for example).

Some of you might misunderstand me.

And I am aware, that the rules are based on the TT-rules. But I am strictly against the idea to take over the TT-rules 1 to 1 into this FPS!

And regarding MGs I would like to see their damage buffed, just to make that point clear.

Edited by Schrottfrosch, 21 March 2013 - 08:15 AM.

[FupDup]

Schrottfrosch, on 21 March 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

I am saying, that PGI is free to change anything they want - which allows them to make the MGs useful (improve their damage for example).

Some of you might misunderstand me.

And I am aware, that the rules are based on the TT-rules. But I am strictly against the idea to take over the TT-rules 1 to 1 into this FPS!

And regarding MGs I would like to see their damage buffed, just to make that pint clear.

Buffing their damage would make them closer to TT actually.

[stjobe]

Schrottfrosch, on 21 March 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

And I am aware, that the rules are based on the TT-rules. But I am strictly against the idea to take over the TT-rules 1 to 1 into this FPS!

...which absolutely nobody's asking for.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Terror Teddy, on 21 March 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

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.

So you're aware (despite what movies would lead you to believe) that constant fire from an M60 (still a 7.76 mm bullet) will not tear down a wall within a few seconds. That while a .50 cal bullet can go thru an engine block it still can't go thru the side of a Abrams without long term constant fire (standing still). It's simply not effective without long term time on target, damage buff or no.. There may be points on a modern tank that a .50 cal bullet can go thru with 1 shot. But a .50 cal MG will do nothing more than annoy a modern tank...

Why should a 2 story armored mech be any different?

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 21 March 2013 - 08:23 AM.

[Vermaxx]

A battletech machine gun does two damage to a MECH target in one shot. It needs to do that here.

Machine guns look and sound cool, but are not effective. They got a crit buff to offset how ineffective they were. Even LB is better, because every pellet that connects is one full damage.

Machine guns need to be a cool down weapon with a set fire duration. Then they can do useful damage, be effective, never outshine small lasers, and not break the game when boated.

[Esplodin]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

But a .50 cal MG will do nothing more than annoy a modern tank...

http://en.wikipedia....M1_Abrams#Armor

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

Why should a 2 story armored mech be any different?

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

Please compare and contrast the differences in armor if you are unable to allow your suspension of disbelief cover space machine guns but CAN for 100 ton, 5 story tall, death machines that move because voltage is applied to bacteria juice in tubes.

Edited by Esplodin, 21 March 2013 - 08:33 AM.

[Mawai]

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

Hmmm ... here is what that page you linked actually states:

"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."

I bolded and underlined the key phrase you seem to have actually missed reading ... "effecive at damaging Battlemechs".

The total damage from a machine gun firing at a battlemech is supposed be 2 ... the same as an AC/2 ... within 3 hexes or 90m in game terms.

Currently, in MWO, machine guns do 0.04 damage/round that hits. This requires 50 rounds to hit to get up to the 2 damage number cited above. How many seconds does it take an MWO machine gun to fire 50 rounds? 10 seconds? I don't know I haven't measured. If it IS 10 seconds then the machine gun damage has not been scaled up appropriately with the enhanced rate of fire experienced by every other weapon in MWO.

In any case, the article you cited claimed machine guns are supposed to be effective against battlemechs and should do the same amount of damage as an AC2 within 90m ... This is clearly NOT what has been implemented in MWO ... MGs are ineffective against battlemechs in general and could use a boost.

I would NOT make MGs equivalent to AC/2 .. they would end up way overpowered ... but they do need a boost in effectiveness.

[stjobe]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

Why should a 2 story armored mech be any different?

Because it has ablative armour, and because the BT/MWO MG is a damn sight larger than any .50.

Or, if you prefer, because the designers of the original game said so.

The BT rules have been updated and revised any number of times, but never have the designers lowered the MG damage from 2 to 1 or even 0, even though there are plenty of weapons in the BT universe that are simply unable to damage 'mechs.

Hence, one must conclude that the designers of BT wanted the MG to do 2 damage to 'mechs.

The designers of MWO, on the other hand, seem dead-set on not letting the MG do anything of the sort.

Hence the proliferation of MG threads.

[Sifright]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

So you're aware (despite what movies would lead you to believe) that constant fire from an M60 (still a 7.76 mm bullet) will not tear down a wall within a few seconds. That while a .50 cal bullet can go thru an engine block it still can't go thru the side of a Abrams without long term constant fire (standing still). It's simply not effective without long term time on target, damage buff or no.. There may be points on a modern tank that a .50 cal bullet can go thru with 1 shot. But a .50 cal MG will do nothing more than annoy a modern tank...

Why should a 2 story armored mech be any different?

why do you keep blithering on about 50cals?

for christ sake even sarna states they are 20MM cannons.

all of which is irrelevant.

For all i care it could fire .38 hand gun sized bullets as part of the lore

If it doesn't do damage to mechs like it should to be a worthwhile weapon to take for light mechs then it's a trash weapon that needs fixing.

END OF DISCUSSION.

[Terror Teddy]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

So you're aware (despite what movies would lead you to believe)

Why should a 2 story armored mech be any different?

Ok, i'll stay civil regardless of your infantile quip.

1. Mg's weight 500 kilograms. M60 weights 10.5 kilograms. MWO MG bullets weight about 1 pound apiece.

2. Point 1 answers your second part.

Now, we cannot understand what tech they have a millenia from now vut i assure you that a 500 kilogram MG's closest equivalent we CAN compare to are either 20mm ww2 anti-air Oerliker guns that weighted slightly under 200 kilograms with mountings.

Also, compare 7.62 ammunition with say .50 caliber and then you compare those two with a 20mm vulcan shell.

Oh, and i forgot third point.

3. Remember that MG's did equal damage to the ac2 (not something i want to see) and gave a BONUS damage against infantry PLATOONS...with power armour.

Let no3 sink in for a bit.

[rgreat]

MG - https://www.youtube....1RnHiEDNQ8#t=3s
AC/2 - https://www.youtube....BPGfCq21s#t=43s

Edited by rgreat, 21 March 2013 - 08:53 AM.

[General Taskeen]

I think an above average IQ should be required for an Battle Tech MG Discussion.

All others below the line will be sent to Gulag. General's orders.

[Metalcell]

Zyrusticae, on 17 March 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

This argument has been trotted out time and time again, and it always falls flat in the face of the fact that the game has no infantry or light vehicles and the fact that machine guns still take up critical slots and weight and are thus comparable to other weapons that take up similar levels of crit slots and weight.

Machine guns need to be worth their weight as they are the only option for low-tonnage, ballistics-heavy mechs. They MUST have a viable option or they will never, ever see use except for players that are trolling or players that NEED to use that particular variant to attain elite mastery. This is an unacceptable situation and a complete waste of development resources (why make another variant that NO ONE EVER USES?).

I agree

[rgreat]

General Taskeen, on 21 March 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

I think an above average IQ should be required for an Battle Tech MG Discussion.

All others below the line will be sent to Gulag. General's orders.

Gulag does not have capacity needed...

I recommend to use grinder and cannery.

[Metalcell]

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.

same here there's lots of mechs not being use just because machine guns suck.

[KuruptU4Fun]

That's just it, the Sarna.net page on MG's states that they are effective against BM's, it does not state that MG's are effective against BM armor, so PGI's implementation of the Crit bonuses over overall damage does fall within justifiable interpretation of that page.