1386 replies to this topic

[ICEFANG13]

Lord of All, on 29 April 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

No one has said MG's should do no damage that is a straw man argument (If you people don't know what straw man and red herrings are take a critical thinking course). The argument that they should not be buffed is that they are not designed for mechs and therefore should do negligible damage as they do now.




Not really I quoted the edit that added "while still being effective at damaging [[BattleMechs]]." which is at the core of the argument.

Also I have never edited the wiki so don't accuse me of such.

What part of "should not deal damage to mechs" means that they should not deal damage? Of course they should deal damage, people are just fools if they want it to be at this power and consider them balanced.

Of course they should do more damage to mechs, they did 2 in TT, the A/C-2 deals 2 as well. I don't care if its anti infantry (like the A/C-2 is I guess?), you are limiting your viewpoint because of the name of the weapon. That's just foolish.

[shintakie]

Lord of All, on 29 April 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

No one has said MG's should do no damage that is a straw man argument (If you people don't know what straw man and red herrings are take a critical thinking course). The argument that they should not be buffed is that they are not designed for mechs and therefore should do negligible damage as they do now.

Not really I quoted the edit that added "while still being effective at damaging [[BattleMechs]]." which is at the core of the argument.

The core of the argument was that they did the same damage as an AC/2 against mechs. Whatever fluff garbage says is completely and utterly irrelevant against that simple fact. The game manual says it does the same damage as an AC/2 against armor and mechs. Whether you want to quibble over fluff that has absolutely no bearin on the game balance side of things is your own problem, but to completely and utterly ignore simple facts like a MG doin the same damage to mechs as an AC/2 is willful ignorance at best.

[Deathlike]

http://mwomercs.com/...-may-be-bugged/

No effort required... these threads write themselves.

[xenoglyph]

shintakie, on 29 April 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

The core of the argument was that they did the same damage as an AC/2 against mechs. Whatever fluff garbage says is completely and utterly irrelevant against that simple fact. The game manual says it does the same damage as an AC/2 against armor and mechs. Whether you want to quibble over fluff that has absolutely no bearin on the game balance side of things is your own problem, but to completely and utterly ignore simple facts like a MG doin the same damage to mechs as an AC/2 is willful ignorance at best.

qft

[stjobe]

shintakie, on 29 April 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

The game manual says it does the same damage as an AC/2 against armor and mechs.

This wouldn't be a problem unless it also did the same damage as a single SRM, and 2/3rds of the Small Laser.

In BT, that number was the same (2 DP10S), but in MWO it's not.

MWO AC/2 does 40 DP10S
MWO SL does 10 DP10S
MWO SRM-1 does 4.3 DP10S
MWO MG does 4 DP10S

So should the MG be buffed to 4.3 DP10S? 7? 40?

It's clear from the *massive* buff the AC/2 got (20x damage) that just DPS isn't in itself the be-all, end-all of weapon balancing, which is why I advocate the following:

* Increase range to 90/270m.
* Reduce spread so that it starts at 90m and spreads to 0 damage at 270m.
* Increase per-projectile damage to somewhere between 0.12 - 0.2.
* Adjust crit damage to fit the increased per-projectile damage.
* Adjust ammo capacity to give the MG the standard 150 damage/ton.

[Lord of All]

Can someone link me even one Support Machine Gun that can penetrate even todays tank armor?

If you can do this then I'm converted.

Edited by Lord of All, 30 April 2013 - 07:09 AM.

[FupDup]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

Can someone link me even one Support Machine Gun that can penetrate even todays tank armor?

If you can do this then I'm converted.

1. Support Machine Guns and Battlemech Machine Guns are not the same thing:
http://www.sarna.net...ort_Machine_Gun
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_gun

1b. Battlemech Machine Guns weigh five hundred kilograms, are specified as 20mm, and list a specific amount of damage dealt to standard units (2)
1c. Support Machine Guns weigh 45 kilograms without a mentioned caliber and also don't say what their anti-mech damage is (they probably don't do any at all)

2. Modern day tank armor usually isn't ablative. Ablative means that the outer layers will break off when damaged to deflect force from the unit. Conventional armor tries to prevent penetration instead of breaking off.

Edited by FupDup, 30 April 2013 - 07:30 AM.

[Lord of All]

FupDup, on 30 April 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

1. Support Machine Guns and Battlemech Machine Guns are not the same thing:
http://www.sarna.net...ort_Machine_Gun
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_gun

1b. Battlemech Machine Guns weigh five hundred kilograms, are specified as 20mm, and list a specific amount of damage dealt to standard units (2)
1c. Support Machine Guns weigh 45 kilograms without a mentioned caliber and also don't say what their anti-mech damage is (they probably don't do any at all)

2. Modern day armor isn't ablative. Ablative means that the outer layers will break off when damaged to deflect force from the unit. Conventional armor tries to prevent penetration instead of breaking off.

I am aware of this, being a former Ordinance-man I've loaded many a 20mm Cannon
I've rebuilt these with my own hands.


Now show me where this is going to penetrate a modern tanks armor, Let alone a Mechs (these are not your daddy's T36)?

I stand bye my statement that a Mech would have to stand there for an inordinate amount of time for this to happen. Pretty close to what MG's are doing now. Even the A10 Tank Buster uses a 30mm Vulcan Cannon (Gatling) and that is used for "Soft" targets (aircraft/infantry). For Armor the Maverick is the weapon of choice.

So PLEASE link me to a single barrel 20mm piercing modern Armor. My Marine side wants to be enlightened.

Semper Fi

[ICEFANG13]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

Can someone link me even one Support Machine Gun that can penetrate even todays tank armor?

If you can do this then I'm converted.

Mechs are designed with armor that is supposed to fall off when damaged,
http://www.sarna.net...hs_%26_Vehicles

Tanks are not.

It would make sense that MGs are amazing at dealing damage to armor (maybe even 2 damage a shot) to mechs because of its high ROF it could just go nuts on armor.

Plus if you want to go full derp and make this another "MGs can work because they wouldn't work in real life" things, I think we should also remove lasers, PPCs, A/Cs (put rifles in) probably SSRM and LRMs. Sounds good?

[HammerSwarm]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

Can someone link me even one Support Machine Gun that can penetrate even todays tank armor? If you can do this then I'm converted.

I had linked several Wikipedia articles, then asked if you had some statistics you wanted to hear or criteria you wanted it to meet. Then I thought about it. Nothing here will convince you of the physics of a game that works with fictional giant robots.

A while back I remember hearing about one of our american tanks being taken out by an RPG because the terrorist shot it in a relatively lowly armored rear section. If you are asking that a machine gun take out the front armor of an atlas no that's unlikely. Even if we buffed it to 4 DPS we're talking about 25 seconds of standing still and firing. However if we moved to the rear of that mech the armor is much more pliable.

What you have to ask yourself is what makes this game the best, and what is balanced. The physics are made up, and reality doesn't matter.

I'll ask you the same thing I ask everyone. Do you use machine guns? Do you think playing a mech with no potential to damage an opponent mech on your own sounds fun for pug play? Do you think it's balanced that the lightest weapon of a given class is 6(7) tons when the two other weapons classes have 1(2) and 0.5 ton options? What would the weapon that fills that gap using the tech available in 3050 have been?

I think the answer to those questions is that the current machine gun is broken and it needs to be increased not because 20mm ammo available in 2012 is mech armor piercing but the ammo available in 3050 might be. This weapon needs to be fixed because it's unbalanced and that unbalancing is leading to a number of mechs being painful to play and in some cases the options are so limited that you can't make the mech fun to pla, but you have to play it to master your mechs.

Edited by HammerSwarm, 30 April 2013 - 08:29 AM.

[Lord of All]

ICEFANG13, on 30 April 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

Mechs are designed with armor that is supposed to fall off when damaged,
http://www.sarna.net...hs_%26_Vehicles

Tanks are not....

Actually the ceramic layer does, maybe you need to do a little more reading. Or are you arguing that Mech armor is less advanced than todays armor?

HammerSwarm, on 30 April 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

Can you give me the statistics you are looking for XX inches of pentration? newtons of force? I had something typed up linking some things much like the one you linked but I want to convince you. So I edited all that out to get more specific.

Do your own research. A Vid would suffice.

[Esplodin]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

Can someone link me even one Support Machine Gun that can penetrate even todays tank armor?

If you can do this then I'm converted.

There are no equivalents to real life, because this is NOT REAL LIFE. Get that in your head FFS. There is no place for a weapon that can be ignored in this game. NONE. You can ignore a machine gun because they are pathetic, and I routinely do without consequence.

Good $deity! You can accept that 100 death machines move because of bacteria juice in tubes (Myomer bundles) powered by mini-suns(fusion). GET THE FSK OVER IT ALREADY. A useable light ballistic is necessary to balance certain chassis in the game. THAT is the only thing that MATTERS.

BALANCE IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS!

It is stupid to argue anything else in a game of space robots. But then again, stupid has no upper bound so carry on.

[Lord of All]

Esplodin, on 30 April 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

...But then again, stupid has no upper bound so carry on.

[ICEFANG13]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

Actually the ceramic layer does, maybe you need to do a little more reading. Or are you arguing that Mech armor is less advanced than todays armor?



Do your own research. A Vid would suffice.

Are you arguing that mech weapons like machine guns are less advanced than today's machine guns?

[Esplodin]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

Sorry, I should have used the word insanity. STILL NOT REAL LIFE. Show some damned imagination.

[Lord of All]

ICEFANG13, on 30 April 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

Are you arguing that mech weapons like machine guns are less advanced than today's machine guns?

Not at all I am making a equivalency bye todays standards. What are you trying to do?

[Terror Teddy]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

So PLEASE link me to a single barrel 20mm piercing modern Armor. My Marine side wants to be enlightened.

If you had done any reading on the subjects of MECHS and not real life you would understand that mechs in battletech dont HAVE hardened armour - they have ablative armour that is SUPPOSED to fall off when damaged.


Hence, no weapon in battletech PENETRATES armour, at all, they blast it to pieces piece by piece.

Thats the only reason mechs take damage from ALL weapons regardless of size.

Hell, the only weapon that DONT do any damage are "Light Rifles" which are the equivalent of the 105mm M1A1 abrahams main gun.

The lack of proper armour penetrating rounds in battletech is another issue entirely and why mechs DONT have hardened armour.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 30 April 2013 - 08:43 AM.

[ICEFANG13]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Not at all I am making a equivalency bye todays standards. What are you trying to do?

I don't have to do anything, you are the minority. Only [redacted] think that MGs should be where they are at. Convince us instead.

Edited by Niko Snow, 30 April 2013 - 02:58 PM.

[Lord of All]

Keifomofutu, on 30 April 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

[I disagree with your disagreement]

[Well let's agree to disagree]

Edited by Niko Snow, 30 April 2013 - 03:10 PM.

[Keifomofutu]

Keifomofutu, on 30 April 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

[I disagree with your disagreement]

[Well let's agree to disagree]

Edited by Niko Snow, 30 April 2013 - 03:10 PM.