1386 replies to this topic

[Loler skates]

Dawnstealer, on 25 April 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Really, the MG does what it did in the tabletop game: was an annoying thing that was more sound and fury than actual danger.

When I was running my 3-MG CDA, it was a lot of fun to just annoy the crap out of people with the MGs, but I was never under the delusion they were actually doing anything other than making loud clanging noises on the other player's mech. Against mechs, "LORDS OF THE BATTLEFIELD!!!!!!", they really should be ineffective as anything more than a distraction.

I'm fine with what they do now, but to be a viable build, you'd almost HAVE to have AI vehicles and/or infantry involved (would also make Flamers useful). Of course, when the [SPOILER ALERT] clans arrive, there'll be Elemental/TOADS aplenty. The MG will be pretty useful against them.

did you run around with your figures going "PEW PEW PEW" for laser sound effects as well? :|

[Wildstreak]

FupDup, on 22 April 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

References which don't contradict the fact that MGs in the lore are able to do 2 damage to mechs. Delicious red herrings, those are.


They're certainly a lot better against infantry than mechs, but they're not useless against mechs. There are better anti-mech weapons out there that are of similar weight and have more range without the ammo asplosions. An example of similar logic but a different topic: A UAC/5 is pretty much always more effective than an AC/5. Does that mean the AC/5 is useless? No.


I'm going to now deploy a hyperbole to show the issue with the Sarna descriptions:

Does that mean that Jagermechs shouldn't be able to damage anything but aircraft? Let's try another:

[/size]
Does that mean the LBX cluster shots can't damage anything other than mechs?


I think you get the idea.

No Red Herring, you are one of several people that don't seem to grasp how combat machines are built. Ignoring that doesn't prove a red herring.

Thanks for bringing up the LBX, you should see why in my previous post to this.

Esplodin, on 22 April 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Yet you missed this:

Nope, I pay attention to the methodology as to why combat machines are buil the way they are. Ever since BT was made, players have had issues regarding stock builds, a long standing argument that you clearly don't get or ignore. Ignoring it doesn't make you right.

stjobe, on 22 April 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

Falcon - In 3050, it's a clan 'mech. Production restarted by Wolf's Dragoons in 3060.
Firefly - In 3050, it too is a clan 'mech, used only by Wolf's Dragoons.
Hermes - Only has two variants usable by MWO
Hussar - This could work, but it's a really weird-looking 'mech. Chicken-legs and arms on the nose? WTH?
Javelin - This could work too, but it has nothing that either the Commando or Jenner doesn't have
UrbanMech - No comment.
Valkyrie - Unseen design

Seems that you could stand to think a bit more about this topic as well as on the topic of MGs.

Nope, you should especially in light of the pictures you post about MG damage (more on that in my previous post to this).

As for the Mechs listed, you have got to be kidding. Look at what is in game already.

The Cataphract is a pure Liao design used by Liao and maybe merc units. Davion stole plans to make the Caeser off it. Do you see nothing but Liao players driving Cataphracts?

Certain variants are supposed to be limited to only certain Houses, maybe mercs. Are players limited by faction choice to only what they should have available?

Kaiser R Metzger, on 22 April 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

I love the SPD-5D

I've playd the 5k enough to realize its worthless in what MWO has become. MG are worthless. Simple as that. I ran a 4 MG 5K. There is no point in going in for a crit kill if it wont ensure its death. Why would you do that when you could hit that same spot form a distance with your ER laz? You are completely exposing yourself. Now with projectile roll back getting legged is almost assured with every assault Bpat with Gauss, Ac/20s and PPC's. Personally I run a 5D with a single PPC and ECM. I'd be luck too get a single kill with the 5K but with the 5D I get 2-4 kills and assists on the whole enemy team with 500dmg.

If mg where ever to be useful would be against light mechs and brawls. Probably still be useless no matter what devs change to the long range combat that has become standard.

Don't get the point here. Sure you love the 5D for a reason you don't list that a lot of people know, it is better than even the 5V because of that. You mention having only 1 weapon on the 5D despite having 3 Enmergy Hardpoints, you can run 1 Energy weapon on all Spiders. We know the real reason the 5D is so good.

ECM.

You cannot compare an ECM variant to others and expect the same results.

General Taskeen, on 22 April 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

Yo Merchant, check this out:

HERP THE ROMMEL

"If attacked by infantry, or as a last resort, the tank commander can aim a single ASL Small Laser."

Don't be a cherry-picker, you copied descriptions, and bolded things, who cares? There is no infantry in MWO. Period. Never will Be.

By your logic, the Small Laser should be nerfed into nothing, for non-existent anti-infantry duty. There are plenty of the same Small Laser "shooting infantry" descriptions in Battle Tech too. Go browse the hundreds of TROs. MWO has followed basic TT damage values for 92% of the weapons, guess what the other ones that aren't are?

Its time to put an end to that tired logic. Forever. And provide logic to balancing the game with logical suggestions.

MW3 MG damaged Mechs, because the MG could damage Mechs. They did it right. MWO did it wrong. End of story.

Not cherry picking, people really need to get over that. Again, you are just going back to the years old argument of how players do not like how stock designs are made similar to how RL combat vehicles are made. Put an end to your illogic just because you don't like the method behind combat vehicle design.

Curccu, on 22 April 2013 - 10:37 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Piranha


"The Piranha's main threat is its twelve Series XII Rotary Machine Guns. These are a serious threat on such a speedy 'Mech to any foe, especially if a Star of Piranhas operate in a pack, and such a large array allows a Piranha to chew through an opponent's rear armor almost instantly."

Star of them, meaning 5.
5 x 12 = 60 MGs.
Do you have a way to test the effects of 60MGs in MWO?

TOGSolid, on 23 April 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

Does rabble rousing for information really count as evil? I thought it was more "being intentionally annoying for the greater good." Ends/means etc.

You do know what type of people use the End/Means belief?

HammerSwarm, on 24 April 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

Well the we agree(I think) that the end goal here is that we need something between .5(1.5) and 6(7) tons. In regular table top battle tech what was the weapon that did this?(3050 rules, no clan tech) I and I think most here would contend that it was the machine gun. The machine gun also had the role of protecting mechs with minimum range weapons when and if something closed in. From a mech design standpoint this makes sense. You don't want a range where you are defenseless for a skilled pilot to take you apart.

This is a design choice by the devs but in table top the A/C 2 has a minimum range. Not so much in MWO. In table top what ballistic weapon would you use to fill that minimum range in 3050(no clan tech)? Now how about in MWO?

Now in table top small mechs use machine guns such as the Piranha. Do you think a Piranha would work as intended in MWO?

I am interested to hear your thoughts.

I have registered for access on the Catalyst BT Forums there to start such discussion regarding the Ballistic gap.

[hammerreborn]

Merchant, on 25 April 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Don't get the point here. Sure you love the 5D for a reason you don't list that a lot of people know, it is better than even the 5V because of that. You mention having only 1 weapon on the 5D despite having 3 Enmergy Hardpoints, you can run 1 Energy weapon on all Spiders. We know the real reason the 5D is so good.

ECM.

You cannot compare an ECM variant to others and expect the same results.

Or you know, the fact that an ERPPC (his one admitted energy weapon) can't be mounted in either the V or K and gets full range motion that can be used while jumping compared to useless torso mounts that are abysmal for hitting opponents from high locations which is the entire point of the spider, but we can go with your argument too.

Edited by hammerreborn, 25 April 2013 - 11:39 AM.

[FupDup]

Merchant, on 25 April 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

No Red Herring, you are one of several people that don't seem to grasp how combat machines are built. Ignoring that doesn't prove a red herring.

Thanks for bringing up the LBX, you should see why in my previous post to this.

Yes, those references were red herrings. My point was that, despite their description, official rules list Battlemech MGs as doing 2 damage to armored targets. Bringing up those Sarna stock mechs didn't disprove or challenge that point in any way, shape, or form. You are one of several people that don't seem to grasp official weapon tables. You are using those descriptions as a distraction from my point, which is the very definition of a red herring.

You also didn't address my hyperbole about the AA-only Jagermech or the anti-mech only LBX, or even General Taskeen's reference to the Rommel tanks's anti-infantry Small Laser. If you really want to keep following the line of logic "anti-x means it can only hurt x and nothing else" then you're going to have to find a way to explain how an AA platform can hurt Battlemechs, how an anti-infantry Small Laser hurts Battlemechs, or how a specialized anti-mech cluster round can damage non-mech units.



EDIT: The LBX thing above doesn't have anything to do with why a specialized anti-mech cluster round should or shouldn't be able to damage anything other than a mech. All that shows is that our current LBX sucks eggs pretty hard and is also another distraction. For the LBX, all we need to do is just tighten the spread a bunch, make it a cylinder instead of a cone (doesn't spread out as distance increases), and up the damage per pellet to 1.2-1.4. Doneski.

Edited by FupDup, 25 April 2013 - 03:53 PM.

[Homeless Bill]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but machine guns are pretty bad.

[TOGSolid]

Merchant, on 25 April 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Snip

You typed a whole lot of words while completely ignoring the fact that your sacred texts, your tabletop bible, your golden plates found in a hill by some wacky Mid-Western Americans all state that the Machine Gun does the exact same damage to a mech as an AC/2.

You can rant about how battle machines are "really" built. You can debate the semantics of the word "quintessential." You can point to fluff that talks about machine guns being used to shoot mans. None of that changes the fact that Machine Guns A.) Do not suffer a penalty to shooting mechs and B.) Do the exact same damage as an AC/2. Nothing else you talk about means a ******** thing in this discussion. If we were playing table top in a tournament environment and I walked up and killed your mech with machine guns, do you really think anyone is going to give a **** that "MACHINE GUNS DON'T WORK THAT WAY, THEY'RE ANTI-INFANTRY ONLY!!!" Nope. They're gonna point at that weapon chart, then look up at you, and laugh.

Them's the rules as laid out by the very book that some of you are using to try and argue against us. Unfortunately for you, unlike the Bible, you're not allowed to pick and choose which sections you like the most.

Edited by TOGSolid, 25 April 2013 - 10:59 PM.

[sarkun]

Oh FFS! If you want to keep the ridiculous "crit-seeking" (equals useless) Machine Guns - fine - I'll just keep not using them. But give us a flapping light ballistic weapon to use on Medium / Light mechs. An AC/1, LAC/2, Imaginary Light Autocannon, anything... or just buff the freaking MG so it's useful.

[Kmieciu]

HammerSwarm, on 24 April 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:

Even with my relatively low ping of 50-75 I can still only make it to the mid eights. increasing the theoretical cap to 25 would only widen the gap between what is possible and what is theoretically possible.

Even on testing grounds (which is a local server = 0 latency) if you set ROF 20 for machineguns you get about 15 in game.

Homeless Bill, on 24 April 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

And I disagree that armor is 70% of the fight. Stripping armor is half-way at best most of the time.

Internal HP is equal to half of the max armor value for component. (except cockpit that has 18 armor 15 internals)
An Atlas has 614 max armor and 313 internal structure, so the armor accounts for 614/(313+614) = 66% of the mech HP.

Edited by Kmieciu, 26 April 2013 - 12:05 AM.

[Homeless Bill]

Kmieciu, on 25 April 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

Internal HP is equal to half of the max armor value for component. (except cockpit that has 18 armor 15 internals)
An Atlas has 614 max armor and 313 internal structure, so the armor accounts for 614/(313+614) = 66% of the mech HP.

I'm not talking on a numerical basis. I'm talking time and effort. When armor gets stripped, anyone that knows what they're doing cradles it and shields it. I can keep my 9M running until I have just about no armor above the legs left (head doesn't count).

[Hekalite]

Wow, 35 pages of feedback. Who's got time to read all that?

I know I'm going to go against the grain here, but I really don't think MGs need to do a whole lot more damage. The dev's want to make them crit seeking weapons, not armor strippers. That works for me. Suggested changes need to consider that end goal, otherwise you are just wanting your time. If you have exposed guts, the MG should finish you off significantly quicker than an equal number of small lasers. To achieve that, I would leave the damage exactly where it is versus armor, increase the crit rate and buff damage versus internal structure. And as a bonus, make engine and gyro hits do something.

[ICEFANG13]

Hekalite, on 26 April 2013 - 04:03 AM, said:

Wow, 35 pages of feedback. Who's got time to read all that?

I know I'm going to go against the grain here, but I really don't think MGs need to do a whole lot more damage. The dev's want to make them crit seeking weapons, not armor strippers. That works for me. Suggested changes need to consider that end goal, otherwise you are just wanting your time. If you have exposed guts, the MG should finish you off significantly quicker than an equal number of small lasers. To achieve that, I would leave the damage exactly where it is versus armor, increase the crit rate and buff damage versus internal structure. And as a bonus, make engine and gyro hits do something.

With engine hits etc, maybe it would be ok right now, but its been shown that a Small Laser will destroy the part before a MG will crit the internal stuff on a part that is already unarmored.

[HammerSwarm]

Dawnstealer, on 25 April 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Really, the MG does what it did in the tabletop game: was an annoying thing that was more sound and fury than actual danger.

When I was running my 3-MG CDA, it was a lot of fun to just annoy the crap out of people with the MGs, but I was never under the delusion they were actually doing anything other than making loud clanging noises on the other player's mech. Against mechs, "LORDS OF THE BATTLEFIELD!!!!!!", they really should be ineffective as anything more than a distraction.

I'm fine with what they do now, but to be a viable build, you'd almost HAVE to have AI vehicles and/or infantry involved (would also make Flamers useful). Of course, when the [SPOILER ALERT] clans arrive, there'll be Elemental/TOADS aplenty. The MG will be pretty useful against them.

Welcome troll. Please explain how the machine gun which does the same damage as an A/C2 in table top is useless.

[HammerSwarm]

Hekalite, on 26 April 2013 - 04:03 AM, said:

Wow, 35 pages of feedback. Who's got time to read all that?

I know I'm going to go against the grain here, but I really don't think MGs need to do a whole lot more damage. The dev's want to make them crit seeking weapons, not armor strippers. That works for me. Suggested changes need to consider that end goal, otherwise you are just wanting your time. If you have exposed guts, the MG should finish you off significantly quicker than an equal number of small lasers. To achieve that, I would leave the damage exactly where it is versus armor, increase the crit rate and buff damage versus internal structure. And as a bonus, make engine and gyro hits do something.

Do you routinely use machine guns? why or why not? If you do use them, do you find them effective?(please post stats) If you go back just 5 pages you'll see math and pictures, and testimonials showing why we who do have the time to read this because we care about this issue think it needs to be changed. If you don't use machine guns have the honesty to say so and move along.

[Barghest Whelp]

Here: http://www.sarna.net...28BattleMech%29

That proves it. It was made for combat in the Solaris games. It says so in the article. Solaris games, for those of you who are unfamiliar with it, is an arena type of coloseum featuring pure mech vs. mech combat. The mech has 12 machine guns. Why on earth would you bring 12 of the damn things if they don't do damage to mechs, in a purely mech vs. mech combat arena?

The mech was even released long after infantry was introduced, so there's another arguement gone down the drain.

Besides, I seem to recall PGI having stated that they have no intention of introducing infantry to the game, ever. Why do we need a weapon that's only effective against something that practically doesn't, and never will exist in the game? Does that mean I can have an anti pink elephant cannon as well? Because it would be just as useful.

Just buff the damage already. The fact that nobody uses them (at least I haven't seen them used in god knows how long), even after the crit buff just proves that they are in dire need to some love. For christs sake, it's not rocket science, and rocket launchers haven't even been introduced yet (pun intentional).

[Tickdoff Tank]

Homeless Bill, on 25 April 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but machine guns are pretty bad.

[Wildstreak]

hammerreborn, on 25 April 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

Or you know, the fact that an ERPPC (his one admitted energy weapon) can't be mounted in either the V or K and gets full range motion that can be used while jumping compared to useless torso mounts that are abysmal for hitting opponents from high locations which is the entire point of the spider, but we can go with your argument too.

True as well though I consider the ECM to be stronger than the advantage of mounting weapons somewhere other than the CT. I did however not state that the 5V or 5K could run an ERPPC, they can run Energy. I don't know why the 5D was chosen for ECM.

FupDup, on 25 April 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

You are one of several people that don't seem to grasp official weapon tables.

Assuption without proof. No where did I ignore anything unlike comments here that flat out stated people wanted to ignore things such as anit-infantry references thus anyone ignoring anti-infantry references are the ones guilty of red herrings and cherry picking and you know it.

FupDup, on 25 April 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

You are using those descriptions as a distraction from my point, which is the very definition of a red herring.

No, the distraction came from those ignoring such references that was part of my point that you are still ignoring.

FupDup, on 25 April 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

You also didn't address my hyperbole ....

Because it is irrelavent considering the ignoring of the references in the first place to cherry pick and focus too much on the 'damaging a Mech' references.

FupDup, on 25 April 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

EDIT: The LBX thing above doesn't have anything to do with why a specialized anti-mech cluster round should or shouldn't be able to damage anything other than a mech. All that shows is that our current LBX sucks eggs pretty hard and is also another distraction. For the LBX, all we need to do is just tighten the spread a bunch, make it a cylinder instead of a cone (doesn't spread out as distance increases), and up the damage per pellet to 1.2-1.4.

Spread is not fixable that way based on the tests I have done with LBX. Cylinder is how other weapons work anyhow such as AC/s and Lasers, they use a very narrow cylinder, cone is how LBX should work just the results are borked as is the MG that should not even use spread, it should fire straight line (that being a narrow cylinder).

TOGSolid, on 25 April 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

... that your sacred texts, your tabletop bible, your golden plates found in a hill ...
... unlike the Bible, ...

This language renders your entire post irrelevant. This is the language of politics, not gamers of any kind. In all the gaming I have done be it TT, RPG, computer, etc., people who communicate this way tend to find themselves pushed out of a lot of gaming groups. This isn't politics and I am not debating with someone who can only use politics in their language since it renders anything you say irrelevant. If you want politics, there are plenty of places to find it.

Really, you didn't even get my religion right anyway with all the Bible references. Complete failure.

[Loler skates]

Merchant, on 26 April 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

True as well though I consider the ECM to be stronger than the advantage of mounting weapons somewhere other than the CT. I did however not state that the 5V or 5K could run an ERPPC, they can run Energy. I don't know why the 5D was chosen for ECM.


Assuption without proof. No where did I ignore anything unlike comments here that flat out stated people wanted to ignore things such as anit-infantry references thus anyone ignoring anti-infantry references are the ones guilty of red herrings and cherry picking and you know it.


No, the distraction came from those ignoring such references that was part of my point that you are still ignoring.


Because it is irrelavent considering the ignoring of the references in the first place to cherry pick and focus too much on the 'damaging a Mech' references.


Spread is not fixable that way based on the tests I have done with LBX. Cylinder is how other weapons work anyhow such as AC/s and Lasers, they use a very narrow cylinder, cone is how LBX should work just the results are borked as is the MG that should not even use spread, it should fire straight line (that being a narrow cylinder).


This language renders your entire post irrelevant. This is the language of politics, not gamers of any kind. In all the gaming I have done be it TT, RPG, computer, etc., people who communicate this way tend to find themselves pushed out of a lot of gaming groups. This isn't politics and I am not debating with someone who can only use politics in their language since it renders anything you say irrelevant. If you want politics, there are plenty of places to find it.

Really, you didn't even get my religion right anyway with all the Bible references. Complete failure.

I loled +1 to troll post, you made me laugh pretty hard.

Would watch others get trolled again.

[FupDup]

Merchant, on 26 April 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

Assuption without proof. No where did I ignore anything unlike comments here that flat out stated people wanted to ignore things such as anit-infantry references thus anyone ignoring anti-infantry references are the ones guilty of red herrings and cherry picking and you know it.

It's not an assumption, I was mocking your "you are one of several people who can't seem to grasp how combat machines are built" sentence.

Merchant, on 26 April 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

No, the distraction came from those ignoring such references that was part of my point that you are still ignoring.

I'm "ignoring" them because you brought them up as the original distraction. If we went back in time, you would see that my screencapped Inner Sphere Heavy Weapons And Equipment Table was not posted in reply to any specific poster. The post didn't quote anyone. It was a fresh post. You responded directly to it by using Sarna mech descriptions to dodge the fact that I posted that MGs do 2 damage to armored targets.


And to make you happy, I'll even address them anyways. The Sarna descriptions do not dispute the fact that MGs do 2 damage to mechs in TableTop. Saying "anti-infantry" means that such is the primary role of them, not their only role like the anti-MG crowd keeps trying to fixate on. They are better against infantry than any other form of target they can shoot at. That doesn't make them weak against non-infantry targets. You are pulling that conclusion from your rear-center-torso. That conclusion does not have any evidence which it is based upon.

That would be like me saying that "FupDup is better at math than any other subject, therefore he must suck at science." The suck at science part is not based on anything. It is baseless.

Merchant, on 26 April 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

Because it is irrelavent considering the ignoring of the references in the first place to cherry pick and focus too much on the 'damaging a Mech' references.

I'll try this again because we (the pro-MG side) somehow haven't gotten you to see the flaw in your anti-MG line of reasoning.


Your argument (paraphrased): "A number of Mech descriptions say that they carry Machine Guns for anti-infantry, therefore Machine Guns are not able to do any significant damage to Battlemechs."

Your logic structure without specific items being mentioned: "A number of Mech descriptions say that they carry weapon X for anti-Y duty, therefore weapon X is not able to do any significant damage to targets other than unit Y."


Under your logic structure for why MGs shouldn't be able to damage mechs, that means that I can replace weapon X and unit Y with anything I want that has Sarna descriptions to back it up and you should have to automatically agree with it--at least if you want to stay logically consistent. Numerous mech and other unit descriptions replace weapon X and unit Y with things of their own, like the Jagermech being designed as an Anti-Aircraft platform. You haven't countered this yet...or the Rommel's Small Laser...or the LBX's specialized anti-mech cluster round.

I'll say it again: The LBX, Jagermech, and Rommel points all use your exact arguments but they replace weapon X and unit Y with different words. That's it. It's your own logic. And you haven't addressed this loophole yet.


PS: Here is post from above you that mentions a SOLARIS BATTLEMECH DUELING ARENA battlemech equipped with Machine Guns for knife-fighting range:

Barghest Whelp, on 26 April 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

Here: http://www.sarna.net...28BattleMech%29

That proves it. It was made for combat in the Solaris games. It says so in the article. Solaris games, for those of you who are unfamiliar with it, is an arena type of coloseum featuring pure mech vs. mech combat. The mech has 12 machine guns. Why on earth would you bring 12 of the damn things if they don't do damage to mechs, in a purely mech vs. mech combat arena?

The mech was even released long after infantry was introduced, so there's another arguement gone down the drain.

Besides, I seem to recall PGI having stated that they have no intention of introducing infantry to the game, ever. Why do we need a weapon that's only effective against something that practically doesn't, and never will exist in the game? Does that mean I can have an anti pink elephant cannon as well? Because it would be just as useful.

Just buff the damage already. The fact that nobody uses them (at least I haven't seen them used in god knows how long), even after the crit buff just proves that they are in dire need to some love. For christs sake, it's not rocket science, and rocket launchers haven't even been introduced yet (pun intentional).

Merchant, on 26 April 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

Spread is not fixable that way based on the tests I have done with LBX. Cylinder is how other weapons work anyhow such as AC/s and Lasers, they use a very narrow cylinder, cone is how LBX should work just the results are borked as is the MG that should not even use spread, it should fire straight line (that being a narrow cylinder).

Don't standard "pinpoint" weapons just fire in a straight line (with bullet drop factored in at long ranges) instead of a geometric shape like a cylinder?

Edited by FupDup, 26 April 2013 - 09:32 AM.

[Loler skates]

FupDup, on 26 April 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

It's not an assumption, I was mocking your "you are one of several people who can't seem to grasp how combat machines are built" sentence.



I'm "ignoring" them because you brought them up as the original distraction. If we went back in time, you would see that my screencapped Inner Sphere Heavy Weapons And Equipment Table was not posted in reply to any specific poster. The post didn't quote anyone. It was a fresh post. You responded directly to it by using Sarna mech descriptions to dodge the fact that I posted that MGs do 2 damage to armored targets.


And to make you happy, I'll even address them anyways. The Sarna descriptions do not dispute the fact that MGs do 2 damage to mechs in TableTop. Saying "anti-infantry" means that such is the primary role of them, not their only role like the anti-MG crowd keeps trying to fixate on. They are better against infantry than any other form of target they can shoot at. That doesn't make them weak against non-infantry targets. You are pulling that conclusion from your rear-center-torso. That conclusion does not have any evidence which it is based upon.

That would be like me saying that "FupDup is better at math than any other subject, therefore he must suck at science." The suck at science part is not based on anything. It is baseless.


I'll try this again because I we (the pro-MG side) somehow haven't gotten you to see the flaw in your anti-MG line of reasoning.


Your argument (paraphrased): "A number of Mech descriptions say that they carry Machine Guns for anti-infantry, therefore Machine Guns are not able to do any significant damage to Battlemechs."

Your logic structure without specific items being mentioned: "A number of Mech descriptions say that they carry weapon X for anti-Y duty, therefore weapon X is not able to do any significant damage to targets other than unit Y."


Under your logic structure for why MGs shouldn't be able to damage mechs, that means that I can replace weapon X and unit Y with anything I want that has Sarna descriptions to back it up and you should have to automatically agree with it--at least if you want to stay logically consistent. Numerous mech and other unit descriptions replace weapon X and unit Y with things of their own, like the Jagermech being designed as an Anti-Aircraft platform. You haven't countered this yet...or the Rommel's Small Laser...or the LBX's specialized anti-mech cluster round.

I'll say it again: The LBX, Jagermech, and Rommel points all use your exact arguments but they replace weapon X and unit Y with different words. That's it. It's your own logic. And you haven't addressed this loophole yet.


PS: Here is post from above you that mentions a SOLARIS BATTLEMECH DUELING ARENA battlemech equipped with Machine Guns for knife-fighting range:




Don't standard "pinpoint" weapons just fire in a straight line (with bullet drop factored in at long ranges) instead of a geometric shape like a cylinder?

Dude hes trolling, why are you trying to take him seriously? :|

[FupDup]

Loler skates, on 26 April 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Dude hes trolling, why are you trying to take him seriously? :|

A natural instinct of mine. I have a foolish tendency of trying to stand up for what I believe in (...at least on the interwebz, I'm too cowardly to do it IRL) even when the other side isn't fully listening to what is being said.