34 replies to this topic

[Xelah]

How about instead of burst fire, we leave damage as is, but put in a "gun-lock" for machine guns that works similarly to streak/lrm locks, but isn't bothered by ECM? As long as the bad guy is on the screen, they are getting their paint chipped off by withering pew pew pew.

Edited by Xelah, 18 March 2013 - 07:42 PM.

[Sephlock]

Let MGs, flamers ,and LBXes have a chance for through armor criticals. They'd have to tweak things carefully to prevent groups of all dakka-mechs from swarming their way to victory...

But in all honestly, the hilarity would be well worth it.

[Corbon Zackery]

MG are hard to balance your looking at 3 main things when you balance them.

1. Rate of Fire
2. Ammo consumption
3. Damage per burst

A battletech MG is about the size of a 50 cal. MG and if you watch shows like Triggers you see that when it comes to armor penetration of a 50 cal. it stops at a half a inch. That's why you have to be at about 90 meters to be even somewhat effective.

Do they need a dmg. buff yea .04 right now I think you could push it to .06 or even .08 but you also need to look at rate of fire and dmg. per burst and ammo consumption you may do more dmg. but burn up twice as much ammo.

[stjobe]

Hakai, on 18 March 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

I might disagree (but i'd have to understand what you're saying fully first).
If you were to triple the current damage, what would it end up being per second of sustained fire, per MG?

If you were to stack up 4 MGs how much would it be in a focused area?

1.2 DPS per MG, or 4.8 DPS for four of them, given you manage to hold them on-target 100%.

Corbon Zackery, on 18 March 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

A battletech MG is about the size of a 50 cal. MG

Utterly and patently wrong. A M2 .50 BMG weighs about 50kg (with a tripod!), a BT MG weighs 500kg. Not to mention these are 'mech-scale weapons, not piddly man-sized ones. Putting a .50 on a 9-18m 'mech would be like using a 0.1 - 0.2 mm (0.004 - 0.008 inches) gun to shoot a man. A man in ablative armour, at that.

Edited by stjobe, 19 March 2013 - 01:14 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Corbon Zackery, on 18 March 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

A battletech MG is about the size of a 50 cal. MG

You might want to rethink what you just said there. Can you hold a 1,000 pound 'Machine Gun'?

[PurpleNinja]

I found the current implementation good.
Link the machine gun to a toogle macro and turn the switch on when you find the enemy.
As soon as they loose the armor they also loose the components.

[Deamhan]

http://en.wikipedia....tall_120_mm_gun

Weighs only about 1 ton. You telling me that the AC2 is 6 times larger? Or that the Mlaser is the same size?

http://en.wikipedia....riants.23M829A2

@ 41.1 pounds, 2000 rounds would be 41.1 tons.

Honestly you can't determine the size based off its mass in the BT universe. It is completely out to lunch.

[General Taskeen]

Deamhan, on 19 March 2013 - 04:54 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....tall_120_mm_gun

Weighs only about 1 ton. You telling me that the AC2 is 6 times larger? Or that the Mlaser is the same size?

Yeah, actually we are. Or are you not aware that everything in BT is huge? Did you think you were piloting a Battlefield 3 tank this whole time? You actually can determine its sized based off its mass just by scaling. BT Weighting was a balance measure, but they still scaled it to the immense size of things in Battle Tech.



It doesn't matter anyways, not sure what your angle is. We could discuss size and scale all day, but at the end of the day a Battle Tech MG still damaged Mech Armor. True Story. End of Story.

Edited by General Taskeen, 19 March 2013 - 05:06 AM.

[stjobe]

Deamhan, on 19 March 2013 - 04:54 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....tall_120_mm_gun

Weighs only about 1 ton. You telling me that the AC2 is 6 times larger? Or that the Mlaser is the same size?

The *barrel* weighs about 1 ton. The rest of the gun weighs another 3 tons, for a total (gun + mount) weight of just under 5 tons.

Also, that weapon is represented in BattleTech by the Light Rifle, a weapon that cannot damage 'mechs (it does 3 damage to vehicles and has a -3 damage penalty vs 'mechs, doing in effect 0 damage).

BattleMech armour is not steel plate, and 1000-years-in-the-future weaponry is not what we have today.

Edited by stjobe, 19 March 2013 - 05:10 AM.

[Roland]

Just increase the damage. We don't need to make any kind of complex change.

[Deamhan]

General Taskeen, on 19 March 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

Yeah, actually we are. Or are you not aware that everything in BT is huge? Did you think you were piloting a Battlefield 3 tank this whole time? You actually can determine its sized based off its mass just by scaling. BT Weighting was a balance measure, but they still scaled it to the immense size of things in Battle Tech.



It doesn't matter anyways, not sure what your angle is. We could discuss size and scale all day, but at the end of the day a Battle Tech MG still damaged Mech Armor. True Story. End of Story.

Take a good hard look at the assault mech in the picture and the tank in front with the person beside. That tank there would be the size of a tank that would use the gun that I linked to. Especially considering the size of the person next to said tank. In fact, as someone who worked on the Leopard 2 with a 105mm gun, the size between the tank and the person standing behind is pretty damn spot on. I would go as far as to say that the tank in the picture would use a 105mm or 109mm. This puts it in the ballpark of a gauss in comparison size wise using that picture as a reference to dimensions. So a 120mm would be comparable to an AC20.

You can't possibly tell me that the MG is as big as that gun considering that according to that very picture, a Gauss would actually be closer in size.

stjobe, on 19 March 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

The *barrel* weighs about 1 ton. The rest of the gun weighs another 3 tons, for a total (gun + mount) weight of just under 5 tons.

Also, that weapon is represented in BattleTech by the Light Rifle, a weapon that cannot damage 'mechs (it does 3 damage to vehicles and has a -3 damage penalty vs 'mechs, doing in effect 0 damage).

BattleMech armour is not steel plate, and 1000-years-in-the-future weaponry is not what we have today.

Ah yes. Still only half way to the weight of an AC2 while at the same time being in comparable size to that of an AC20 referance the picture above.

[Hakai]

stjobe, on 19 March 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

1.2 DPS per MG, or 4.8 DPS for four of them, given you manage to hold them on-target 100%.

Every individual bullet has to hit the same section for that damage to calculate (if even at all).
So what happens to the stray rounds? Do they get compiled into a final count? Do they not tag or calculate?

Edited by Hakai, 25 March 2013 - 02:15 PM.

[stjobe]

Hakai, on 25 March 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Every individual bullet has to hit the same section for that damage to calculate (if even at all).
So what happens to the stray rounds? Do they get compiled into a final count? Do they not tag or calculate?

Yes, every individual bullet has to hit the same section if you want to do damage to that section.

This is the reason why the DPS of the MG needs to be higher than pin-point or beam duration weapon DPS - bullets fly all over the place, and every missed or misplaced bullet is 1/10th of the DPS wasted or gone.

[Sifright]

Another mg thread that needs to be closed and it's post count and link added to the MG dicussion thread

This is a post to assist the mods in understanding the breadth of the problem I will be copy pasting this into older machine gun threads that did not recieve mod or dev attention so the feed back can be linked from the new thread.

[Egomane]

Closed!

For MG discussion go here: http://mwomercs.com/...eedback/unread/