1386 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Praetor Shepard, on 31 October 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

I can see mechs like the Marauder or King Crab able to hand the recoil on rounds that size as tanks can, but humanoid mechs don't seem as capable of managing that kind of recoil.

I could see them absorb the recoil, from a single round, like a tank does, though the tank has a much lower center of gravity and better inherent mechanical balance. But a stream of tank sized shells fired full auto? It would literally damage the barrel mechanisms on a tank, as well as start literally pushing ti backwards.

So to go with an AC 20 with autofire mode would require a much smaller caliber round, which IRL would signifigantly reduce penetration, even in volume. The GAU8, for instance, is a great gun, but attacks from above and behind for a reason, thinner armor. The Gau cannot penetrate the frontal glacis of most top tier battletanks.

[Bishop Steiner]

C0VVB3LL, on 31 October 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

You are correct, he would load 1 round and squeeze the butterfly. I'm just saying a full auto weapon is what he used and although not in that capacity it was precise enough...

Correct. But had he used that weapon in full auto, the precision would not have been there past the first shot. Which is the realm of discussion here, not whether a weapon capable of full auto could also be precise (which we see in many of the AR platforms, they can be. But precision shots are only accomplished by those weapons in single shot, or at mid range, occasionally 2-4 round bursts.)

[FupDup]

This thread got unstickied. :\

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 31 October 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

This thread got unstickied. :\

Yes, because Paul believe it's "balanced".

[Amsro]

HAHA I will be trolling this to the top of this page.... MG STILL SUCK

Before you unsticky you SERIOUSLY need to try some tweaks on the test server to not do so is just being lazy.

[stjobe]

FupDup, on 31 October 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

This thread got unstickied. :\

Wait, what?

[FupDup]

stjobe, on 31 October 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:

Wait, what?

Yup, it did.

WE MUST KEEP IT AFLOAT, FORUMWARRIORS! DO NOT LET THE GOSPEL OF THE MACHINE GUN FADE FROM THE FRONT PAGES!

[C0VVB3LL]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 October 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Correct. But had he used that weapon in full auto, the precision would not have been there past the first shot. Which is the realm of discussion here, not whether a weapon capable of full auto could also be precise (which we see in many of the AR platforms, they can be. But precision shots are only accomplished by those weapons in single shot, or at mid range, occasionally 2-4 round bursts.)

You are correct again, but I feel maybe you're misunderstanding me and getting unnecessarily confrontational. I think I clearly stated my intent previously. Like I said i'm not discounting your point or making statements or claims in reference to the discussion at hand. Just making a clarification on the historical use of a heavy machine gun by one of the most renowned snipers ever for precision shooting. Keep in mind you brought up Hathcock specifically in this context so a certain amount of scrutiny should be expected given his well documented exploits on hill 55. Now i'm sorry if I pissed in your Cheerios or spanked your e-peen or whatever but instead of constantly trying to defend your point about machine guns not being accurate in full auto (which I wasn't even attacking and am in complete agreement with you on) just say something like "hey man thanks for the clarification, not really relevant to the sum of the whole discussion but cool info non the less". So let me reiterate one last time so you don't get the wrong Idea. I totally get what you're saying about the MGs. A specific statement about a historical figure was a bit unclear/ incomplete. Even though it had no bearing on the topic I thought it deserved a little expounding for those who might be interested. This response is not mean spirited I actually admire your insight on the actual topic and appreciate the fact that you invoked such an amazing figure to define your metaphor, but as this is my final clarification my bluntness could be confused with condescension and I don't want it taken that way. Love you.

[Amsro]

FupDup, on 01 November 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Yup, it did.

WE MUST KEEP IT AFLOAT, FORUMWARRIORS! DO NOT LET THE GOSPEL OF THE MACHINE GUN FADE FROM THE FRONT PAGES!

68 pages and all we end up with is a comical buff.... followed by a swift nerf.... then unstickied... WTF kind of effort is that PGI, your weapon is broken and needs some work still. Cone of Fire? Please try that removed its sucks to have it auto-paint the entire enemy mech.

[C0VVB3LL]

[Amsro]

GG? I guess its only a matter of time before this makes it off the first page...

[stjobe]

Amsro, on 01 November 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

GG? I guess its only a matter of time before this makes it off the first page...

Not if I can help it. The MG still needs love, and the only two things they haven't tried adjusting yet are
1. The Cone of Fire.
2. The Continuous-fire mode.

So I suggest either a removal of the Cone of Fire, or a reworking of the MG into a burst-fire weapon (e.g. 4 x 0.5 dmg projectiles in a 0.25s burst, then 0.75s cooldown. Yes, I'm aware that puts it at 2 DPS, but that's probably where it needs to be).

[FupDup]

Remember guys, we need an MG buff so that this image below can come true:

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 01 November 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

Remember guys, we need an MG buff so that this image below can come true:

That should be followed with a pic with the words "Your QQ powers my dakka"

[Bishop Steiner]

C0VVB3LL, on 01 November 2013 - 06:59 AM, said:

You are correct again, but I feel maybe you're misunderstanding me and getting unnecessarily confrontational. I think I clearly stated my intent previously. Like I said i'm not discounting your point or making statements or claims in reference to the discussion at hand. Just making a clarification on the historical use of a heavy machine gun by one of the most renowned snipers ever for precision shooting. Keep in mind you brought up Hathcock specifically in this context so a certain amount of scrutiny should be expected given his well documented exploits on hill 55. Now i'm sorry if I pissed in your Cheerios or spanked your e-peen or whatever but instead of constantly trying to defend your point about machine guns not being accurate in full auto (which I wasn't even attacking and am in complete agreement with you on) just say something like "hey man thanks for the clarification, not really relevant to the sum of the whole discussion but cool info non the less". So let me reiterate one last time so you don't get the wrong Idea. I totally get what you're saying about the MGs. A specific statement about a historical figure was a bit unclear/ incomplete. Even though it had no bearing on the topic I thought it deserved a little expounding for those who might be interested. This response is not mean spirited I actually admire your insight on the actual topic and appreciate the fact that you invoked such an amazing figure to define your metaphor, but as this is my final clarification my bluntness could be confused with condescension and I don't want it taken that way. Love you.

Not being confrontational at all. I am trying to keep the point of my post crystal clear. I agree with your premise, but too many people here need their hands held or they get confused and run off spouting all sorts of odd ideas.

Simply put, the put had nothing to do with whether a weapon was capable of full auto, but the over all precision of said weapons in that mode. And so I am and was simply trying to keep that point as the focal. If anything, i think you might be misunderstanding my point or direction I am attempting to make.

TBH, that Hathcock used a Ma Deuce is technically irrelevant because he did not use it in full auto. That is the reason I keep clarifying that point as that is the point that is germane to the discussion, not what different guns Carlos used.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 01 November 2013 - 02:20 PM.

[Oppresor]

"Absolutely not, worst idea ever. Go stand in the corner and put the doofus cap on. If there's one thing people loath with World of Tanks, it's Gold Ammo; we don't need that {Scrap} around here"

So the idea of making us pay for specialist (more effective) ammo is frowned upon I take it. LOL. TBH I'm surprised that PGI haven't tried it yet though; after all its a funding stream and isn't that far removed from things like the Artillery strike Module.

[Bishop Steiner]

Oppresor, on 01 November 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

"Absolutely not, worst idea ever. Go stand in the corner and put the doofus cap on. If there's one thing people loath with World of Tanks, it's Gold Ammo; we don't need that {Scrap} around here"

So the idea of making us pay for specialist (more effective) ammo is frowned upon I take it. LOL. TBH I'm surprised that PGI haven't tried it yet though; after all its a funding stream and isn't that far removed from things like the Artillery strike Module.

except arty strike can also be gotten for free.

[Svensken]

the biggest isue that noone in their right mind can deny is that we now have mechs ingame that use a weapon apearently not intended as a primary...as their primary


this must be fixed


so ask yourself

is 4x ac2 with 120m effective range and cone of fire op?

[Oppresor]

"except arty strike can also be gotten for free."

I did actually suggest that in the original post, but then saw the logical potential for PGI to make more money out of us (See below). I think Svensken has a point as well in that we are (in some cases) using weapons that weren't intended to be primary weapons, as primary weapons. I am seeing a lot of Light units carrying four or more MG arrays as main armament; they look and sound awesome and there is something about seeing all those cartridge cases flying everywhere. It brings us full circle back to the need to make the things more effective, either through changing the DPS or introducing an AP version of the Ammo. (See below)

"I believe this is the direction that machine guns should take in MWO. produce two types of Bullet and charge more C-Bills for the AP version. Alternatively, make them a MC purchase only. The AP version should have more DPS to make it worth the cost."

[Iacov]

the cone of fire is quite unfair, compared to the fact that no other weapon (except for the lbx) has bullet spread...
i enjoy using mgs and prefer them over splas or mlas every day