124 replies to this topic

[Lolpingu]

Now, this might come off as very noobish and untrue to the TT stats, but just hear me out.
From what I can gather, the Machine Guns in TT fire a caliber that ranges from .50 caliber (12x99/107mm) to 20mm. In real life, those kinds of calibers have MASSIVE ranges, even when fired from gatling guns/machineguns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-19 - .50 BMG minigun; effective range: 1,800m http://en.wikipedia....wiki/M61_Vulcan - 20mm minigun, effective range seems to be hidden, but from that muzzle velocity, I can gather that It has an effective range of at about 1000 yards. http://en.wikipedia....nzio_20mm_rifle - 20mm Anti-Materiel rifle - effective range: 4572m)
The MG in this game, however, has a pathetic range of 90m for no explicable reason as far as I can tell, and I would be glad if someone enlightened me on the subject. If it has a caliber that can damage BattleMech armor, then should be big enough to travel much, MUCH farther than 90m.
I understand that some battles occur on planets with high gravity, but 90m is still pathetic. even with a high gravity setting, the Machine Gun's projectiles should travel much farther than 90m. If the gravity is THAT HIGH, I don't think that even BattleMechs could traverse the surface of the said high-gravity planets, not without taking massive penalties to their speeds (and no jumpjetting Jenners, either).
As for game balance - think about it. The Machine Gun's volleys are very inaccurate and the projectiles are really slow. All it can really do at long ranges is harass and lay down suppressive fire. Kind of like the AC2 - it could be pretty powerful at closer ranges, but in Alpine Peaks sniper duels, all it can do is just harass since most of the shells will miss. But it's still something. I think that the Machine Gun needs a huge buff to it's range, if only for the sake of some realism. Once again, feel free to correct any TT/Real world errors that I might have made.

Edited by Lolpingu, 31 March 2013 - 05:04 AM.

[Yokaiko]

Dont try to apply real life to 45 foot tall walking battletanks.


...in game they need a damage buff, untill I can do more damage with a machine gun than the machine gun ammo does to me if it gets blown up MGs will always be poop.

[Lolpingu]

Yokaiko, on 31 March 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

Dont try to apply real life to 45 foot tall walking battletanks.


...in game they need a damage buff, untill I can do more damage with a machine gun than the machine gun ammo does to me if it gets blown up MGs will always be poop.

I had a re-read of the entire BattleTech history a couple of weeks ago. The ONLY error in reality that I could find is the realization of FTL travel (And who knows? maybe one day, Einstein will be proven wrong). Everything else made sense. Fusion engines. Politics. Psychology. Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as everything goes, the BattleTech universe makes a lot of sense in every aspect of it.
I'm not talking about 'mechs. I'm talking about the weapon itself. It doesn't matter if you put it on a 'mech or a combat vehicle, it's still going to be the same gun.

Edited by Lolpingu, 31 March 2013 - 05:14 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Lolpingu, on 31 March 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

I had a re-read of the entire BattleTech history a couple of weeks ago. The ONLY error in reality that I could find is the realization of FTL travel (And who knows? maybe one day, Einstein will be proven wrong). Everything else made sense. Fusion engines. Politics. Psychology. Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as everything goes, the BattleTech universe makes a lot of sense in every aspect of it.
I'm not talking about 'mechs. I'm talking about the weapon itself. It doesn't matter if you put it on a 'mech or a combat vehicle, it's still going to be the same gun.

Giant Walking Robots used for warfare will never make sense.
There is a magical reason why Battlemechs wearing armour can do it more effectively than other vehicles. That's the thin veneer that makes Battlemechs "work".

It's also quite illogical that Auto-Cannons lose range with damage. That is not how bullets or shells normally work.
PPCs describe no sensible weapon system.
Gauss Rifles being almost heat-less bears no resemblance to real world coil guns or rail guns.
Mechs shooting dozens of tiny missiles at "long" ranges of 1000m doesn't make sense.
---

Game-wise, the Machine Gun needs a damage buff. But if they buff its range as well, they damage buff might be acceptable if it's not as big as some suggest.

I'd say a Normal Range of 180m and a Max Range of 540m could make the Machine Gun competitive and useful even at 0.8 damage per second. Maybe even 120m / 360m could work.
Keep its ammo efficiency low (80-120 damage per ton) as it is, and it will also scale well when boated (that means you need to invest a lot of tonnage that is comparable to other weapon's need in heat sink investment if you want to get similar DPS. ).

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 31 March 2013 - 05:21 AM.

[Yokaiko]

By that rate AC10 and AC20s would shoot 16 and 25 miles (read 50,000m)

The ranges are low for a reason. Missile that only go 1000? Really, I've shot missile out of outer space in real life, literally.
http://www.usnews.co...hind-the-scenes

^^ That was my old boat and that was my old Captain.

Like I said pressing for realism when you are flying through the air with a 35ton walking tank running 77mph is a false economy.

[Commander Kobold]

raw damage > range

[Lolpingu]

MustrumRidcully, on 31 March 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

Giant Walking Robots used for warfare will never make sense.
There is a magical reason why Battlemechs wearing armour can do it more effectively than other vehicles. That's the thin veneer that makes Battlemechs "work".

It's also quite illogical that Auto-Cannons lose range with damage. That is not how bullets or shells normally work.
PPCs describe no sensible weapon system.
Gauss Rifles being almost heat-less bears no resemblance to real world coil guns or rail guns.
Mechs shooting dozens of tiny missiles at "long" ranges of 1000m doesn't make sense.
---

Game-wise, the Machine Gun needs a damage buff. But if they buff its range as well, they damage buff might be acceptable if it's not as big as some suggest.

I'd say a Normal Range of 180m and a Max Range of 540m could make the Machine Gun competitive and useful even at 0.8 damage per second. Maybe even 120m / 360m could work.
Keep its ammo efficiency low (80-120 damage per ton) as it is, and it will also scale well when boated (that means you need to invest a lot of tonnage that is comparable to other weapon's need in heat sink investment if you want to get similar DPS. ).

All things considered, bipedal weapon platforms could have some very versatile military applications which a tank or a jet wouldn't have (think about Metal Gear Solid), although it would work different - all of the ammo would have to be stored in the component which has the weapon that uses the said ammo.
Actually, bullets/shells lose kinetic energy as they travel because the center of Earth is pulling them downwards, therefore diverting it's kinetic energy downwards rather than forward. However, if the projectile has an explosive payload, it should lose no damage as far as the explosion goes. So it makes sense that a distant shell will lose some of it's kinetic punch, but it will still retain the explosive payload.
Tiny? how are the missiles tiny? BattleMechs are just huge. Although I do think that for a device with an explosive payload, a guidance system and omnidirectional thrusters should be a bit larger than what it is in the BattleTech universe.
Though I agree about PPCs and Gauss Rifles. PPCs aren't quite explained, and the hundreds of ultracapacitors in the Gauss Rifles would generate a lot of heat. I guess that it's a matter of balance.

Yokaiko, on 31 March 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

By that rate AC10 and AC20s would shoot 16 and 25 miles (read 50,000m)

The ranges are low for a reason. Missile that only go 1000? Really, I've shot missile out of outer space in real life, literally.
http://www.usnews.co...hind-the-scenes

^^ That was my old boat and that was my old Captain.

Like I said pressing for realism when you are flying through the air with a 35ton walking tank running 77mph is a false economy.

Well, if you simply assumed that AC20 and AC10 shells had their propellant neglected in favor of explosive payload, the effective ranges in-game would SORT OF make sense. Why it wouldn't work with machineguns? Their projectile size is inappropriate for explosive payloads (the only application for explosive MG rounds is anti-infantry)
Missiles that go to outer space would require much, much more fuel to travel that distance (and therefore larger size and higher weight), and it would be out of a BattleMech's role (although there is no reason they couldn't make a designated anti-spaceship 'mech)
Well, fusion engines are extremely powerful. I don't see how they can't provide enough power to propel BattleMechs using thrusters.
The USS Pennsylvania weights like 18,750 metric toons and can be propelled at around 45KPH underwater. The Nuclear Reactor it uses gives it's turbines some impressive power. Since BattleMechs use Fusion-Powered Engines, I would assume that they could achieve some pretty decent results aswell.

Edited by Lolpingu, 31 March 2013 - 05:43 AM.

[Noobzorz]

No need to trot out the realism. We all agree that it makes absolutely no sense to have them in the game if all they do is take up crit slots and tonnage.

I'd like to see them make the flamer and MG appropriately menacing. It just seems like a waste of two interesting weapons to leave them like they are.

[Brilig]

I could see giving them the same range as medium lasers. Not really a massive buff, it could make them a bit more fun to use.

[Chavette]

Are MGs pretty much useless for practical use? Yes

Is PGI planning to do anything? No, they said they are "happy with it" at the moment.

[Training Instructor]

Cicada 3C and Spider 5K are poster children for why machine guns need a big damage buff, rather than this silly crit-seeking mechanic they've tried to pass off as a viable alternative to actually doing damage.

[General Taskeen]

Whatever the case, still pretty sad that some people still defend PGI's poor implementation of them.

[Slanski]

Actually BattleMechs do make military sense once you have the technology perfected. Not quite as they are used in the assault chassis, but consider that you effectively have a highly mobile unit which shares the attributes of a main battle tank and an attack helicopter. However they require an effective interdiction of air space, which would require higher tech than the BT universe features.

Effectively the battles described in BT are Napoleonic/Civil war like cavalery engagements with limited recon and tech. It's anachronistic, Mad Max and lots of fun.

OT: I would prefer if they made the MG's AC like with high RoF and a rapid fall off in range beyond 200m and sensible DPS which would go with their relatively little weight. We need them as an effective all round weapon system for lights with ballistic slots, which currently are pigeonholed into using oversized lasers on their energy slot.

[Team Leader]

Check the link in my sig

[Noobzorz]

Slanski, on 31 March 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

Actually BattleMechs do make military sense once you have the technology perfected. Not quite as they are used in the assault chassis, but consider that you effectively have a highly mobile unit which shares the attributes of a main battle tank and an attack helicopter. However they require an effective interdiction of air space, which would require higher tech than the BT universe features.

Effectively the battles described in BT are Napoleonic/Civil war like cavalery engagements with limited recon and tech. It's anachronistic, Mad Max and lots of fun.

OT: I would prefer if they made the MG's AC like with high RoF and a rapid fall off in range beyond 200m and sensible DPS which would go with their relatively little weight. We need them as an effective all round weapon system for lights with ballistic slots, which currently are pigeonholed into using oversized lasers on their energy slot.

I cannot agree with this. If you have the technology to have an 80 robot that moves like a human, you have the technologies to destroy it instantaneously from orbit (we're pretty close as it is; give us another 1000 years and we'll have it down pat). "Hey look, it's a mech lance in open ground. Ok, now it's a crater."

Anyway, I'd like to see MGs become an effective brawler weapon (a la small lasers), rather than the PoS they are right now.

[MustrumRidcully]

For the Flamer I tend to think - focus more on buffing its damage instead of its heat. The heat component will just be problematic and lead to the MW:O equivalent of stun locks if it's useful at all. Just give it a reasonable damage for its heat levels, range and weight.

Slanski, on 31 March 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

Actually BattleMechs do make military sense once you have the technology perfected. Not quite as they are used in the assault chassis, but consider that you effectively have a highly mobile unit which shares the attributes of a main battle tank and an attack helicopter. However they require an effective interdiction of air space, which would require higher tech than the BT universe features.

Power armour might have a place on a real battlefield, assuming we really manage to build such things.
A 10-40m Battletech sticks out like a sore thumb, easily identifiable by RADAR, satellite and the Mark 1 Eyeball. A 100 ton mech with such a small ground surface are will sink in many environments a tank can travel without any problems. Even regular street pavement might be unable to carry the weight of some of the heavier mechs.

[Gremlich Johns]

In canon, Machine-guns are anti-infantry. Stop trying to get no-heat weapons to destroy mechs with. If that is what you really need, then you should be filling up every ballistic point you have with MGs. Frankly, seeing a mech doing the dakka dakka dance with MGs is really lame. And yes, I am entitled to not agree with your idea to use, and I repeat, anti-infantry weapons against mechs.

[Lucian Nostra]

Gremlich Johns, on 31 March 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

In canon, Machine-guns are anti-infantry. Stop trying to get no-heat weapons to destroy mechs with. If that is what you really need, then you should be filling up every ballistic point you have with MGs. Frankly, seeing a mech doing the dakka dakka dance with MGs is really lame. And yes, I am entitled to not agree with your idea to use, and I repeat, anti-infantry weapons against mechs.

I really hate TT coming into discussions on MWO as a hardline this is how it is damnit! approach, and I hate it even more when someone uses TT/Canon wrong. The damn gun does perfectly fine at racking up damage on mechs in Canon and in TT it's just BETTER at killing infantry than other weapons.

Was it ZOMG amazing? NO! but was it this POS that's in MWO, hell no! You can just IGNORE someone firing MGs at you in this game and you shouldn't be able to do that.

Edited by Lucian Nostra, 31 March 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[Lolpingu]

Noobzorz, on 31 March 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

I cannot agree with this. If you have the technology to have an 80 robot that moves like a human, you have the technologies to destroy it instantaneously from orbit (we're pretty close as it is; give us another 1000 years and we'll have it down pat). "Hey look, it's a mech lance in open ground. Ok, now it's a crater."

Anyway, I'd like to see MGs become an effective brawler weapon (a la small lasers), rather than the PoS they are right now.

By your logic, using MBTs and anything with several tons of firepower that's not as fast as a jet is pointless with the involvement of orbital weapons, since it would be cannon fodder for orbital fire. A powerful laser from orbit will hit anything on the ground instantenously because it travels at light speed, meaning that anything that's big enough to be targeted by a satelite is practically useless. Tanks, Choppers, Humvees, Aircraft Carriers, or anything along those lines. When a weapon is used openly, a counter for it is invented eventually, so another satelite will counter the satelite attempting to shoot down your ground forces, and then we'll have orbital warfare in addition to marine and aerial warfare, and no one will be able to fund it for more than a couple dozen years if it escalates to orbital battlefields.
About the Power Armour part, I disagree unless they manage to make it about twice as fast as an average ground trooper - in most games and concepts, Power Armour is very heavy and has trouble keeping up with regular infantry speeds even with it's rotary systems. If it can be fitted with a fusion engine and some powerful rotary joints, it might be worth it - otherwise, with regular ground infantry speed or less, it would be a good target for artillery bombardment/airstrikes.

MustrumRidcully, on 31 March 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

Power armour might have a place on a real battlefield, assuming we really manage to build such things.
A 10-40m Battletech sticks out like a sore thumb, easily identifiable by RADAR, satellite and the Mark 1 Eyeball. A 100 ton mech with such a small ground surface are will sink in many environments a tank can travel without any problems. Even regular street pavement might be unable to carry the weight of some of the heavier mechs.

I agree about the sinkng part, and it does seem like a bad idea to use an Atlas or a Phract, though if you know what's the PanzerKampfWagen VIII "Maus", I'm pretty sure that there were no concerns associated with sinking, only the fact that it was too heavy for bridges. It weighted 189 tons.
But then, what about mediums and lights? I imagine that a speeding Jenner or Centurion will be impossible to target and hit due to their high speed, and they are really small compared to heavier mechs. Plus, if you stay in the general medium/light region, ignoring heavy 'mechs, then 50 Tons (and less) is lighter than most recent MBTs.

Edited by Lolpingu, 31 March 2013 - 08:59 AM.

[Chavette]

Too bad there's no infantry in this game, and wont be for a while...