124 replies to this topic

[Vermaxx]

Useful Machine Gun:

1 damage beam, .25 second duration. 1.125 second cooldown. Same range, ammo-per-ton more in line with tabletop, functional gun.

What does that add up to? It shoots twice in the time of a small laser - for two total damage. Still seems like an auto-fire weapon with the next-to-nothing cooldown, short beam duration, and every bullet counting for damage. It actually becomes useful however, since it applies real damage in a real time frame.

Or, just make it do 2 damage with a .50 second beam, and a 2.25 cooldown. Then it becomes a lead-small-laser, is completely balanced AGAINST it's closest comparison, can NEVER EVER outshine a small laser, and remains more useful than the crap we have now.

[Corbon Zackery]

As a bullet comes out of a gun gravity takes hold and it starts to drop in velocity and power. At long ranges MG don't have enough power to get through the armor.

Shows like Triggers have shown us that a 50. cal. really cant get trough a 1/2ton of armor. You also start spreading out the bullets at longer ranges in more of a cone.

90 meters is about the correct range for a MG to do some sort of damage to a mech the bullets would still have a tight group and enough velocity to dent up the armor enough to punch through.

Edited by Corbon Zackery, 01 April 2013 - 09:43 AM.

[FupDup]

Corbon Zackery, on 31 March 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

Shows like Triggers have shown us that a 50. cal. really cant get trough a 1/2ton of armor. You also start spreading out the bullets at longer ranges in more of a cone.

Most .50 cal machine guns don't weigh five hundred kilograms.

[Goldhawk]

Wait Wait Wait. Before we go too deeply into another why is the battlemech an unfeasible battlefield resource, let's go over the advantages of the battlemech

1) Higher LOS (line of sight), from the average tank.

2) I am not a military expert, but I expect that the average tank (which tank?) uhhhh. I don't know shut up... cannot duck around a building quickly, so agility is a Battlemech positive.

3) I would say that the battlemech carries more weaponry then the average tank, but then I remembered this....
http://www.sarna.net...mbat_Vehicle%29
*CHALLENGE: Put this tank loadout on an Atlas*
Wait... Can't be done. Well..... *cough cough* Ummmmm weapon versitility and ability to target specific locations while moving? (Okay, they will buy that one move on to the next one)
4) Not quite sure about how tanks are in the future, but the Mackie.... That UGLY 1st apparent mech, apparently devistated 4 tanks.... (Ah.... y'all can read)
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Mackie
5) Finally I almost forgot had to edit, the pilot can interface with the mech via neurohelmet thus the reaction time of the mech is superior to some dudes in a metal box.

Okay, Machine guns in the cannon were used on infantry. We don't have infantry, so PGI made them intro Crit finders. Weak? Yes, they are supposed to be. Faster firing, hmmm perhaps. Could use a buff. But please do not turn the Spider that mounts 4 ballistic spots into an insane wounded mech killer.

Edited by Goldhawk, 31 March 2013 - 07:10 PM.

[Vermaxx]

Goldhawk, on 31 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

(stuff)

Okay, Machine guns in the cannon were used on infantry. We don't have infantry, so PGI made them intro Crit finders. Weak? Yes, they are supposed to be. Faster firing, hmmm perhaps. Could use a buff. But please do not turn the Spider that mounts 4 ballistic spots into an insane wounded mech killer.

I just added those weapons to a blank mech in Skunkworks. Granted, with a slow engine, no ammo, and no armor...it still only came to 53 tons. (SORRY, forgot the SRM2s. 57 tons, still doable). That loadout is completely doable on a mech. It wouldn't be a very fast or heavily armored mech, but it is possible. That is also a 100 ton tank, which in Battletech was around as rare as a 100 ton mech.

As far as your post on machine guns, you're spouting the same biased info as everyone else. First edition Battletech had machine guns and no infantry. The machine gun didn't get bonus damage because there was nothing to bonus against. It did two damage to mech armor and internals. It weighed HALF A TON, and shot at mechs.

People, please stop telling us machine guns are for killing people. "Machine gun" is a classification. The M16, and the cannon on an A-10 Warthog, are both technically "machine guns." One of them is designed to shoot through tanks, and one is designed to shoot AT (not through) people. We are not talking about taking a real world gun, upping the weight to 500kg for the hell of it, and strapping it to a mech with a boxful of 5.56 ammo. We are talking about half-ton rapid-fire cannons, designed to shoot mechs.

The MWO machine gun is grossly useless. The crit bonus is stupid, because items should not have hitpoints. It is not worth it's equip weight, whereas the tabletop version was. The fix would be incredibly simple, but they refuse to do it. The excuse of "they were unbalanced in other games" is no longer valid, since the hardpoint system MWO has ELIMINATES MW4 boating.

I think the devs like a gun that goes dakkadakkadakka, runs an ammo counter like a pulse rifle from Aliens, and shoots a cool stream of gunfire. That doesn't make the gun useful, or worthwhile.

Edited by Vermaxx, 31 March 2013 - 07:17 PM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Set MG damage to 1.2 DPS. Let us play with them at that level for 1 patch cycle (2 weeks). If it is vastly OP then you can do a hotfix, if it works fine then you leave it as-is. If the amount needs to be adjusted again you can easily change the DPS values again.

I seriously doubt that 1.2 DPS from an MG would be OP. It is not that easy to keep the bullet stream on target while both you and the enemy are moving, they have limited range and the damage will be spread all over the place even if you are able to hit with all of it.

[MustrumRidcully]

Team Leader, on 31 March 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

I saw a Jaeger DD core an afk atlas after a solid 3 minutes of shooting. NERF THEM ASAP MACHINE GUNS SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HURT AN ATLAS!

This shall be from now on recorded as the "3 minute Jaeger" that proved that MGs were OP, just like that 3-second Jenner proved DHS were OP.

Goldhawk, on 31 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Wait Wait Wait. Before we go too deeply into another why is the battlemech an unfeasible battlefield resource, let's go over the advantages of the battlemech

1) Higher LOS (line of sight), from the average tank.

Which unfortunately works both ways. If you need the tank to do it and not satellite or air surveillance or some infantry units - get a large periscope.

Quote

2) I am not a military expert, but I expect that the average tank (which tank?) uhhhh. I don't know shut up... cannot duck around a building quickly, so agility is a Battlemech positive.

The average tank doesn't need to duck to hide behind a building.

Quote

4) Not quite sure about how tanks are in the future, but the Mackie.... That UGLY 1st apparent mech, apparently devistated 4 tanks.... (Ah.... y'all can read)
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Mackie

Of course it did, because it existed in the magical reality where Battletech made sense.

Quote

5) Finally I almost forgot had to edit, the pilot can interface with the mech via neurohelmet thus the reaction time of the mech is superior to some dudes in a metal box.

Why can't you build neurohelmet interfaces with a tank? And AFAIK, the only reason the neurohelmet exists is to keep the mech standing and walking without falling over. Which is rarely a concern for a tank.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 01 April 2013 - 03:47 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Sifright, on 31 March 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

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

No wonder they end up fighting century-long wars. They've got nothing else to do for fun.

[Roland]

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

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.

It's AC2 damage, with a max range of 90m.
That range difference is pretty critical, and folks like you tend to overlook it.

[jay35]

I'd suggest testing these specs:

• Range: 180m (currently 90m), steep drop off to 200m
  
• Damage: 0.20 damage per shot (currently 0.04)
  
• Cooldown: 0.10 (currently none), so 1 damage per second of sustained fire per MG (assuming 0.10 is one tenth of a second)
  
• Heat: 0.10 per shot (currently none), so 1 heat per second of sustained fire per MG
  
• Ammo per tonne: 1,000 (currently 2,000)

So if you're boating six of them, out to 180m you're doing 6 damage per second, earning six heat per second, and you'll want to bring 4-5 tonnes of ammo. Seems like a nice minimum ballistic weapon.

Edited by jay35, 01 April 2013 - 05:36 AM.

[John Norad]

Starting any BT discussion with a reference to 'reality' is a surefire way to fail.
Hell, mechs are not realistic or viable to begin with..

But more specifically, all weapon ranges are not realistic.
Yet if you take a closer look, all weapon ranges are pretty much cut by 1/10th to make the game playable on the TT, without requiring a footbal field to play.

So it does make a bit of sense. Playability > realistic.

[Esplodin]

People are thinking that constant fire is scary, and a cool down would help balance things. My Spider 5K would LOVE to front load damage, scurry away, then pop you for another blast. Constant stream of fire is a WEAKNESS for anything but a face hugging brawler. Even then it is extremely stupid for an atlas to stay cockpit forward on an enemy and not torso twist to spread damage and wait for that LL or AC20 cool down to pop you again.

Look, I'm pretty OK with a spider. Most matches I have NO ARMOR left and all orange internals to deep, deep red - even when I live. I cannot do that by facing my target all the time. By torso twisting you make your mech have 3-4X the armor it would have standing toe to toe. Any mechwarrior worth their geranium spreads damage across their entire torso - including back. If you aren't then you are a drag on your team, period. At the end of the match if you more often then not see your mech with one section gone and another section not hit you should really watch how the pros do it instead of disconnecting right away after death.

Now knowing that, constantly trickling out damage by staying on target is not overpowered in the slightest. It is DEATH, even for the boating jager. If you stand there facing me, I'm going to kill the meat and cockpit you.

Ideal machine gun:

4 DPS - yes, I'm going there. ALL other ballistics are 4dps
90M range, 270 max
5m beaten zone at 90m
150 damage per ton of ammo ALL other ballistics are 150 dmg per ton
0.5 ton

I would guarantee that this would make it worth taking, but still not make it OP even when boated on a Jager. Range, cone of fire, and constantly exposing your face to get the dakka - worse then a SRM6 cat because the cat has a 54 alpha and can spread damage by twisting. Make the MG face ripping within say 180m, but you gotta get in close or watch that DPS gush away from range damage drop off and cone of fire projectile loss. How do you beat that? Stay outside of 270m.

Ooooh, "but those QQ%#! lights!" you say? If you can't deal with a spider face hugging you at 90m turn in your keys to your mech. I mean really. Turn them in. Besides, who but the lazy and unskilled "circle of death" light pilots do that? Pop over a ridge, spray for a second, then ghost - that is how you do it in skilled light pilot land.

This has NOTHING to do with realism, TT, Lore, etc. STOP with the comparisons. It is MORE HARMFUL to the mech that loads it in MWO in all cases, except in the SDR-5K, CDA-3C, and RVN-4X because you have no viable alternative. It is far superior to load a heat sink and waste 0.5 tons of weight. It is just beyond dumbtarded that there is a weapon in our very limited selection that does more damage to the owner then it can put down range. Any weapon that can be IGNORED when fired at you is mind blowingly idiotic for a stompy robot shooting game. I'm sorry, but that trumps just about every reason for not fixing the damage.

And the final reason to buff the schmidt outta the MG - THIS IS SUPPOSE TO BE BETA. If it's broken, put out a patch walking the damage down. This is not hard stuff.

Edited by Esplodin, 01 April 2013 - 06:35 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Esplodin, on 01 April 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

4 DPS - yes, I'm going there. ALL other ballistics are 4dps
90M range, 270 max
5m beaten zone at 90m
150 damage per ton of ammo ALL other ballistics are 150 dmg per ton
0.5 ton

All other ballistic weapons are at least 12 times the size of a MG. Sorry I cannot agree with this.

[Esplodin]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 April 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

All other ballistic weapons are at least 12 times the size of a MG. Sorry I cannot agree with this.

No other ballistic has a 90m range, cone of fire, and no front loaded damage. No energy or missile weapon either have all those negatives associated with their damage profile. You cannot compare the weapon systems ton for ton because MG operate very differently and have some pretty nerftastic drawbacks.

[Joseph Mallan]

Esplodin, on 01 April 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

No other ballistic has a 90m range, cone of fire, and no front loaded damage. No energy or missile weapon either have all those negatives associated with their damage profile. You cannot compare the weapon systems ton for ton because MG operate very differently and have some pretty nerftastic drawbacks.

So fix the drawbacks. So long as it stays on par with other 0.5 ton weapons I don't care the buffs a Machine gun gets. But I will have something to say if it is equal to something 12 times its size. Sometimes size does matter. This is one of them.
SRM2 should do less than an SRM6, Small laser should do less than a Large Laser or PPC. MG Should do less damage than other Ballistics.

[Roland]

Quote

But I will have something to say if it is equal to something 12 times its size. Sometimes size does matter. This is one of them.

Given the MG's range, this isn't really something to worry about.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 01 April 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

Given the MG's range, this isn't really something to worry about.

Again equal to a small laser or SRM2 and we are good.(same ranges there )

[zraven7]

Just double the damage on machine guns and flamers. Leave the crit chance on machine guns, and make flamers LOWER YOUR HEAT, like they are supposed to. Flamers are supposed to be literally weaponized excess heat. If they were heat negative to your mech, you could remove heat damage to the other mech, and they would be perfectly viable.

That would make both weapons completely viable, and completely ON PAR with other weapons. Not broken, not worthless.

In canon, machine guns have defeated mechs. In TT, machine guns have defeated mechs. In previous games, machine guns have defeated mechs. They should be able to in this game.

[Joseph Mallan]

zraven7
0.8 damage per second is a bit to low I think.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

a.) Realism goes right out the window when considering what MIGHT happen in another 1,037 years.

b.) At what maximum range can a .50 or 20mm round be expected to consistently cut through the armor of the imaginary death machines of the NEXT millennium?

c.) BBQ

zraven7, on 01 April 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

Just double the damage on machine guns and flamers. Leave the crit chance on machine guns, and make flamers LOWER YOUR HEAT, like they are supposed to. Flamers are supposed to be literally weaponized excess heat. If they were heat negative to your mech, you could remove heat damage to the other mech, and they would be perfectly viable.

That would make both weapons completely viable, and completely ON PAR with other weapons. Not broken, not worthless.

In canon, machine guns have defeated mechs. In TT, machine guns have defeated mechs. In previous games, machine guns have defeated mechs. They should be able to in this game.

I've been killed once by MG so far. NEVER TAKE YOUR EYES OFF THE SPIDER!