124 replies to this topic

[Panzerman03]

"Realistically" is a word that doesn't belong in a BT discussion.

[El Bandito]

Quote

Realistically

Stopped reading there.

Realistically Battlemechs are terrible waste of resources. Tanks can own them hard.

Edited by El Bandito, 31 March 2013 - 04:49 PM.

[MonkeyCheese]

Machine guns need a buff in some way soon, I finally gave in and sold my 5k Spider and it was only a few thousand exp away from mastered.

[Sifright]

MonkeyCheese, on 31 March 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

Machine guns need a buff in some way soon, I finally gave in and sold my 5k Spider and it was only a few thousand exp away from mastered.

so about 60-600 games away from getting that xp?

Edited by Sifright, 31 March 2013 - 04:49 PM.

[El Bandito]

MonkeyCheese, on 31 March 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

Machine guns need a buff in some way soon, I finally gave in and sold my 5k Spider and it was only a few thousand exp away from mastered.

Why do you need to Master the Spider? Selling after Eliting is simply dumb.

[WhupAzz]

Team Leader, on 31 March 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

1) Never. It's a cause worth fighting (occasionally typing) for!
2) you're wrong, they are in the original game for a reason, to kill mechs at close range. They should worry about "machine guns", I'm tired of these ignorant posts.

To be ignorant i would have to in some way lack knowledge and i don't for instance, I know the MG is an Anti-Infantry ballistic weapon that has 200 rounds per ton in TT and i know that in a Sim/FPS it can never have its TT AC/2 damage because that would make it OP for .5 tons.

You just have to accept that you cannot have a .5 ton, 270m (max range) AC/2 with 2000 rounds per ton.

[FupDup]

WhupAzz, on 31 March 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

To be ignorant i would have to in some way lack knowledge and i don't for instance, I know the MG is an Anti-Infantry ballistic weapon that has 200 rounds per ton in TT and i know that in a Sim/FPS it can never have its TT AC/2 damage because that would make it OP for .5 tons.

You just have to accept that you cannot have a .5 ton, 270m (max range) AC/2 with 2000 rounds per ton.

...Then don't give it 2 damage and reduce the ammo per ton? We don't have to go that high to make the Spider 5K, Raven 4X, and Cicada 3C useful ya know.


In TT, they aren't anti-infantry exclusively, that's just their main talent and they get a bonus against soldiers to reflect that. They do damage to mechs just fine, the only things that get in the way is their crappy range and ammo explosions. Most other weapons are more efficient and optimal against mechs, but MGs can still do the job in the right circumstances.

Edited by FupDup, 31 March 2013 - 04:59 PM.

[Ralgas]

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. ).

^this except for the dmg figures, .2-.3 would be more realistic.

the .8 suggested would allow for a 7dps x6 jagger dd for 3 tons + ammo and still have 2 las slots to burn. .3 would put it slightly under med las (about 2.7 dps) but require 100% uptime on target to achieve. drop ammo to 500 per ton with a potential yield of 150 dmg.

Edited by Ralgas, 31 March 2013 - 05:39 PM.

[Sifright]

Ralgas, on 31 March 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

^this except for the dmg figures, .2-.3 would be more realistic.

the .8 suggested would allow for a 7dps x6 jagger dd for 3 tons + ammo and still have 2 las slots to burn. .3 would put it slightly under med las (about 2.7) but require 100% uptime on target to achieve. drop ammo to 500 per ton with a potential yield of 150 dmg.

Unghhhhhh
current mgs are 0.4 dps..

You just suggested halving their damage.

have you even bothered to check out how things currently work before making this kind of statement.

or are you talking per bullet..

.3 damage per bullet would be 3dps... a lot more than the figure you are complaining about on the jaeger..

either way your post isn't very good or useful.

[Ralgas]

Sifright, on 31 March 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

Unghhhhhh
current mgs are 0.4 dps..

You just suggested halving their damage.

have you even bothered to check out how things currently work before making this kind of statement.

or are you talking per bullet..

.3 damage per bullet would be 3dps... a lot more than the figure you are complaining about on the jaeger..

either way your post isn't very good or useful.

i just suggested upping to 2.7 dps which is going from .04 to .3 dmg per shot. edited to make it clearer but how would i come to 500 rounds equaling 150 dmg if i was cutting dmg?

Edited by Ralgas, 31 March 2013 - 05:41 PM.

[MonkeyCheese]

El Bandito, on 31 March 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Why do you need to Master the Spider? Selling after Eliting is simply dumb.

I was blindly believing that some really good improvement to machine guns would one day come that would let the spider 5k with 4 machine guns combined with its small size/speed/jumpjets really shine, but now that the new crit updates are here it dosnt really seem likely anymore.

[Sifright]

Ralgas, on 31 March 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

i just suggested upping to 2.7 dps which is going from .04 to .3 dmg per shot.

Okay i'm perfectly fine with 2.7 DPS per machine gun but you said you had problems with the jager being able to do 7dps..

Your suggestion makes the jaeger do 16.2 DPS... one of the variants has 6 ball points.

and i'm fine with that because 16.2dps at 90 m range is pretty far from scary considering the zero front loading of damage.

Edited by Sifright, 31 March 2013 - 05:40 PM.

[Team Leader]

WhupAzz, on 31 March 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

To be ignorant i would have to in some way lack knowledge and i don't for instance, I know the MG is an Anti-Infantry ballistic weapon that has 200 rounds per ton in TT and i know that in a Sim/FPS it can never have its TT AC/2 damage because that would make it OP for .5 tons.

You just have to accept that you cannot have a .5 ton, 270m (max range) AC/2 with 2000 rounds per ton.

Nobody is asking for that, that is exactly why you are ignorant of the issue. 1.5 DPS (which by the way is 2.5 DPS LESS than the AC2 which we have IN GAME) would make them effective without making them overpowered. MGs in MWO have an effective range of about 150m, because of the rampant bullet spread. Furthermore, MGs only have a potential 80 damage per ton of ammo, compared to the 150 of every other ballistic.

Ralgas, on 31 March 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

i just suggested upping to 2.7 dps which is going from .04 to .3 dmg per shot.

I feel like that would be far too much for the weight. MG is basically a ballistic small laser. They should be comparable.

[Sifright]

Team Leader, on 31 March 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

Nobody is asking for that, that is exactly why you are ignorant of the issue. 1.5 DPS (which by the way is 2.5 DPS LESS than the AC2 which we have IN GAME) would make them effective without making them overpowered. MGs in MWO have an effective range of about 150m, because of the rampant bullet spread. Furthermore, MGs only have a potential 80 damage per ton of ammo, compared to the 150 of every other ballistic.


I feel like that would be far too much for the weight. MG is basically a ballistic small laser. They should be comparable.

I think it would be a bit to much as well but to be honest with you i don't care if they are tiny bit overpowered.

They've had their day as the whipping boy and i don't trust pgi to look into them again properly after their next balance pass of them. I'd rather they end up over powered slightly than under powered and never looked at again.

[Skadi]

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. ).

AC's loose damage because they loose velocity... the lower velocity impact the lesser the damage... PPC's are essentialy lightning cannons, I actualy think were getting close to making one IRL, google it, Gauss rifles are different from coil guns and rail guns... google that as well, LRM's are ****... who cares. also the "rule of cool" is the reason of battlemechs being so dominant on the fields, if you actualy do some research you will see tanks such as the demolisher/demo II and the DI Morgan quickly became mech destroyers... http://www.sarna.net...Combat_Vehicles "In many cases, combat vehicles can be just as good if not better than their BattleMech counterparts."

[Ralgas]

Sifright, on 31 March 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Okay i'm perfectly fine with 2.7 DPS per machine gun but you said you had problems with the jager being able to do 7dps..

Your suggestion makes the jaeger do 16.2 DPS... one of the variants has 6 ball points.

and i'm fine with that because 16.2dps at 90 m range is pretty far from scary considering the zero front loading of damage.

reread it, i said 7dps x6 ie 42 dps for 3 tons +ammo. ingame atm you get around 9 rounds per sec actual (sposed to be 10 but that's lag for ya) which @.8 suggested in my original quote (second post in the thread i believe) becomes a menace when linked on dd's and 5k's

Team Leader, on 31 March 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

Nobody is asking for that, that is exactly why you are ignorant of the issue. 1.5 DPS (which by the way is 2.5 DPS LESS than the AC2 which we have IN GAME) would make them effective without making them overpowered. MGs in MWO have an effective range of about 150m, because of the rampant bullet spread. Furthermore, MGs only have a potential 80 damage per ton of ammo, compared to the 150 of every other ballistic.


I feel like that would be far too much for the weight. MG is basically a ballistic small laser. They should be comparable.

too much for the weight? 4 slas = 2 mg when you count in ammo weight.

Edited by Ralgas, 31 March 2013 - 05:54 PM.

[Sifright]

Skadi, on 31 March 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

AC's loose damage because they loose velocity... the lower velocity impact the lesser the damage... PPC's are essentialy lightning cannons, I actualy think were getting close to making one IRL, google it, Gauss rifles are different from coil guns and rail guns... google that as well, LRM's are ****... who cares. also the "rule of cool" is the reason of battlemechs being so dominant on the fields, if you actualy do some research you will see tanks such as the demolisher/demo II and the DI Morgan quickly became mech destroyers... http://www.sarna.net...Combat_Vehicles "In many cases, combat vehicles can be just as good if not better than their BattleMech counterparts."

Tesla coils exist. (lightning cannon/guns/towers)

They would be absolutely awful weapons because they would immediately go to ground doing nothing. Also BIG metal shells work like a Faraday cage so a lightning weapon would do nothing.

[TOGSolid]

Panzerman03, on 31 March 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

"Realistically" is a word that doesn't belong in a BT discussion.

Realism is Lostech.

Edited by TOGSolid, 31 March 2013 - 05:51 PM.

[Sifright]

Ralgas, on 31 March 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

reread it, i said 7dps x6 ie 42 dps for 3 tons +ammo

Mustrum was asking for 0.8 DPS/damage per second not damage per bullet

I did indeed misread you.. which is funny because you misread Mustrum..

hehe well we were both wrong *shrug* I think we agree with each other though otherwise

TOGSolid, on 31 March 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

Realism is Lostech.

Battle tech world doesn't even have binary computers...

Think man all those poor people in battle tech don't have computer games for a hobby.. so sad.

[Skadi]

Sifright, on 31 March 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

Tesla coils exist. (lightning cannon/guns/towers)

They would be absolutely awful weapons because they would immediately go to ground doing nothing. Also BIG metal shells work like a Faraday cage so a lightning weapon would do nothing.

Tesla coils arnt what im referring to... ill try and find it but I will give you no promise. Edit: Found it! Its not a tesla coil, its plasma guided lightni- **** just read the article ill butcher it. http://www.dvice.com...-tests-lase.php and there also this... which doesn't work like a PPC but it produces the same results http://www.dvice.com...oding-coppe.php (please note im not claiming this to be "PPC's" im saying this are low end, not even close in tech, but along the same path as a PPC)

Edited by Skadi, 31 March 2013 - 05:59 PM.