48 replies to this topic

[Mypa333]

My big question is the following: 2 pages of responses towards MGs being useless, but when I made the following survey, guess what the results were? http://mwomercs.com/...d-machine-guns/

Seems to me that something smells fishy.

[Mypa333]

MadPanda, on 28 March 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

MG's can be used to annoy your opponents and confuse them. Of course if you get some crits as well then all the better. Check out this build that use MG's:

Have you ever played a CTF 4x, quad AC2 ? The shaking effect from an AC2 and from an AC20 is the same. I search for MGs mechs in battle because I know i can beat the hell out of them. So I believe you're confusing the effects of the AC2 with the ones of the MG. Get rid of them and put some AC2 ammo in there.

I usually play a Spider SDR 5D, with an ER PPC or 2ML and one LL. I stayed in front of a Spider with MGs and a Small Laser, it only made my armor yellow before I killed it. Didn't even bother to dodge any fire.

[RealityCheck]

Mypa333 has just highlighted the main reason machine guns need some love. He was being engaged by another spider with mgs and he was IGNORING THE DAMAGE. I too have done the same to mg toting adversaries, despite the crit seeking ( I had armor striped sections, and even lost a double heat sink to them. I still focused his wounded Jaggermech buddy in my Cicada).

Is a weapon in MWO properly balanced if it is ignored?!?
RealityCheck

[focuspark]

Mypa333, on 30 March 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

My big question is the following: 2 pages of responses towards MGs being useless, but when I made the following survey, guess what the results were? http://mwomercs.com/...d-machine-guns/

Seems to me that something smells fishy.

The result is that nobody wants a weapon that ignores armor. Nothing fishy about it.

[Gremlich Johns]

The BT/MW canon MG is an anti-infantry weapon. Just cuz you like the dakka dakka, it has no place as an anti-mech no heat weapon in a Mechwarrior video game

[Gamgee]

I've seen this brought up 11213123100000 times and every single time it's correct. I have no idea why they are being so stubborn on the issue.

[RealityCheck]

<strong>THE MACHINE GUN IS NOT AN ANTI-INFANTRY WEAPON. It was in the original battletech tabletop game <u><strong>BEFORE INFANTRY WAS INTRODUCED INTO%

Edited by RealityCheck, 01 April 2013 - 05:45 AM.

[Voivode]

Gremlich Johns, on 31 March 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

The BT/MW canon MG is an anti-infantry weapon. Just cuz you like the dakka dakka, it has no place as an anti-mech no heat weapon in a Mechwarrior video game

This doesn't work. This is a video game with no infantry and a host of light mechs that are set up with multiple ballistic slots. Those mechs have to work in the video game they are a part of, not the table top game that inspired them. It does nothing for the game to stick to Battletech canon in a Mechwarrior game as most of the items from canon are not part of this game. Bottom line: Machine Gun needs to work because these light mechs (in canon perhaps meant to fight infantry) are expected to fight other mechs in this game.

[stjobe]

Gremlich Johns, on 31 March 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

The BT/MW canon MG is an anti-infantry weapon.

You, sir, have just demonstrated your ignorance of BattleTech and therefore you are disqualified from discussing this any further.

The MG was an anti-'mech weapon just like any other (just low-range, low-damage) in BT for three years before CityTech arrived with infantry rules. The MG then retained its damage against 'mechs while gaining an additional bonus against infantry (2-12 infantry killed per MG).

In all the years and all the revisions the designers of BattleTech have never adjusted the MG's damage against 'mechs, even though they've introduced weapons incapable of damaging 'mechs.

The MG is an anti-'mech weapon that's ALSO capable of laying waste to infantry in a most effective manner.

Edited by stjobe, 02 April 2013 - 03:51 AM.