1386 replies to this topic

[Critical Fumble]

It probably doesn't effect lasers, just continuous weapons. There's most likely still a small firing delay between trigger pull and the fire regestry, and with MGs it may happen for every shot, so something as small as a 0.01 second delay would accumulate to 10% of the firepower of the weapon. Meanwhile laser weapons have o finish the beam, so all the checks still go off with only one delay.

The fix may be as simple as having the HSR code assume that certain weapons are firing until told otherwise, rather than waiting for each call to fire.

[KableGuy]

Sifright, on 09 April 2013 - 02:37 AM, said:

except the latest ask the dev threads explicitly states they don't look at specific suggestions. They might reply to them but they aren't taken onboard as part of their feedback process. only trends are of concern.

In the AMA event a couple weeks ago i asked about implementing screen shake to try and quell some of the poptarting, guess what, they are implementing screen shake to quell the poptarting. They do actually listen to us. But there are a lot of us and very few of them and with 9000 people screaming about the flavor of the week the good suggestions get lost. This is why true democracy doesn't work but and electorate systems does.

[HammerSwarm]

Lord of All, on 03 May 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Those Mechs are not designed to fight other Mechs, Get over it.

Gee I thought this was a game of competitive mech fighting? What other possible use could they have?

[FupDup]

HammerSwarm, on 06 May 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Gee I thought this was a game of competitive mech fighting? What other possible use could they have?

To him, that use is pleasing people who lack sufficient imagination to believe that the result of shooting an Abrams tank with an M4 carbine in 2013 would be different than that of five-hundred kilogram, 20mm gatling guns shooting at ablative giant-robot armor in the year 3050.

Edited by FupDup, 06 May 2013 - 09:29 AM.

[Lord of All]

HammerSwarm, on 06 May 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Gee I thought this was a game of competitive mech fighting? What other possible use could they have?

It's obvious to me that the devs didn't take MG roles into consideration when they chose chassis out of a Pre designed game that they are cherry picking and peacemealing together. Have you played the entire game it is of a much larger scale than just robot bashing deathmatch?

FupDup, on 06 May 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

To him, that use is pleasing people who lack sufficient imagination to believe that the result of shooting an Abrams tank with an M4 carbine in 2013 would be different than that of five-hundred kilogram, 20mm gatling guns shooting at ablative giant-robot armor in the year 3050.

I lack imagination because I don't want to fill in the gaps in rule flaws with "It's how a unicorn really looks" arguments?

[FupDup]

Lord of All, on 06 May 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

I lack imagination because I don't want to fill in the gaps in rule flaws with "It's how a unicorn really looks" arguments?

We already know "how the unicorn really looks" if we take a glance at Battletech Tabletop rule books, which is what this whole thread is about. There are no gaps to fill, only people to convince.

Edited by FupDup, 06 May 2013 - 09:48 AM.

[Lord of All]

FupDup, on 06 May 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

We already know "how the unicorn really looks" if we take a glance at Battletech Tabletop rule books, which is what this whole thread is about. There are no gaps to fill, only people to convince.

If there were no gaps to fill in there would be no threads like this. Sometimes I don't even want to waste my time answering your posts. This time has come again.

[HammerSwarm]

Lord of All, on 06 May 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

It's obvious to me that the devs didn't take MG roles into consideration when they chose chassis out of a Pre designed game that they are cherry picking and peacemealing together. Have you played the entire game it is of a much larger scale than just robot bashing deathmatch?

Gee I thought it was mech warrior online. No I haven't played "specific chassis were designed for objectives online" Is it fun?

So you're position if I can cut through your sarcasm is that you would just like to see the machine gun chassis removed because the devs didn't think through the role they would have in mech warrior online before adding them to the game? why not just fix the machine gun?

I have in fact played both of the two game modes, and on multiple maps!

Assault (aka capture the base) is a game mode focused largely on fighting with one main base cap. What if when I am heading to cap their base I run into another mech? what if their base has on it a mech playing defense? What would the point of my peashooter be then? I can't cap because they have some one playing defense, I am at a specific disadvantage because I don't have as viable of a weapons load out in my spider 5k.

Conquest (aka hold the point) a little better for my 5k but I am so easily chased off the point by any mech with a better weapons load out. Then I can be chased down by any mech that is also fast. Because of the hard speed cap and crap weapons load out I can't even turn to fight a mech that I can't outrun.

The best pilot in the galaxy can't overcome a lack of weapons, armor, and speed.

[FupDup]

Lord of All, on 06 May 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

If there were no gaps to fill in there would be no threads like this. Sometimes I don't even want to waste my time answering your posts. This time has come again.

Perceived gaps =/= real gaps. Battletech rules tell us that Battlemech-mounted MGs were able to do 2 damage to mechs and 2D6 to infantry for whatever reason. The only reason threads like this exist is because not everyone accepts those Battletech rules.

PS: It's pretty ironic that you say that you don't want to waste time answering my posts by answering my post.

[Sir Ratburger]

The fact that they had to condense all the posts into this single post because there where so many complaints that the Machine gun was next to useless must tell you something - It was filling up the forums so much it was basically pushing all other posts below it.

Now stop arguing about Unicorns and rulebooks, the FACT is that when you shoot a Mech with machine guns (even 4 at the same time) they don't do enough damage to warrant equipping them.

I like the sound, the feel, the look and enjoy getting close up and personal with them... but they are next to useless. I doubt a mech equipped with 4 machine guns going up against the exact same mech with 1 medium laser would win and would have to pay a far greater weight penalty.

That is all.

[FupDup]

Sir Ratburge, on 06 May 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

Now stop arguing about Unicorns and rulebooks, the FACT is that when you shoot a Mech with machine guns (even 4 at the same time) they don't do enough damage to warrant equipping them.

Maybe in MWO that's how they work because of PGI's decisions, but this whole effin' thread has been about how they worked in Battletech--which Mechwarrior games are based on. PGI has changed the spirit of BT MG's for some odd reason or another and thus this whole mess was spawned. They were never crit seekers like LBX cluster rounds or SRMs are supposed to be (Flamers aren't crit seekers, either, but PGI goofed them up too). They did 2D6 damage to infantry and 2 to mechs at the downsides of ammo explosions and pitiful range.

Edited by FupDup, 06 May 2013 - 10:31 AM.

[Volume]

Doubled MG damage should help but still probably won't be enough.

[S1lent0ne]

Posted this in some other MG thread - putting it here for posterity.


Ok, let us do a little nerd math.

1 ton = 2000 pounds
1 ton of mg ammo = 2000 rounds
1 mg round = 1 pound

For scale reference a .50 BMG round weighs about 1/4 pound and 20mm round is a little over 1/2 a pound.

To get a one pound round takes a 25mm projectile, essentially we have an M242 Bushmaster. If you don't have the time to Google it, let us just say that it isn't what you would expect when you hear 'machine gun'.

So the thing shouldn't chew armor like an AC (for those you need to think of them more like the guns on an MBT) but if it is loaded with APDS it should be able to put a bigger dent in things than it does with the possibility of getting crits through light armor. Cocpits, light mechs, and rear armor should all feel internal pain.

[stjobe]

S1lent0ne, on 07 May 2013 - 01:12 AM, said:

the thing shouldn't chew armor like an AC (for those you need to think of them more like the guns on an MBT) but if it is loaded with APDS it should be able to put a bigger dent in things than it does with the possibility of getting crits through light armor. Cocpits, light mechs, and rear armor should all feel internal pain.

Two things:
1. A "round" in BT terms isn't a single shell, it can be any number of projectiles. It's just a unit of convenience ("as many projectiles as is fired in a TT turn").
2. 'Mechs have ablative armour. It's specifically designed to shatter and flake away under impact to dissipate kinetic energy. Anything that hits it hard will chip away at it, so there's simply no reason the MG shouldn't damage 'mech armour.

[FupDup]

S1lent0ne, on 07 May 2013 - 01:12 AM, said:

Posted this in some other MG thread - putting it here for posterity.


Ok, let us do a little nerd math.

1 ton = 2000 pounds
1 ton of mg ammo = 2000 rounds
1 mg round = 1 pound

For scale reference a .50 BMG round weighs about 1/4 pound and 20mm round is a little over 1/2 a pound.

To get a one pound round takes a 25mm projectile, essentially we have an M242 Bushmaster. If you don't have the time to Google it, let us just say that it isn't what you would expect when you hear 'machine gun'.

So the thing shouldn't chew armor like an AC (for those you need to think of them more like the guns on an MBT) but if it is loaded with APDS it should be able to put a bigger dent in things than it does with the possibility of getting crits through light armor. Cocpits, light mechs, and rear armor should all feel internal pain.

Keep in mind that Battletech doesn't use English tons, it uses the Metric System (notice how distances in-game are measured in meters?). So, that makes PGI MG bullets weigh 0.5 kilograms each or 1.102 pounds (bigger by a smidgen).

Something fun to note is that in Tabletop, MGs had 200 ammo per ton and thus each bullet weighed 0.05 kilos, or 11.02 pounds. AN ELEVEN POUND FRIGGIN' BULLET! This means that the "20mm Gatling Gun" model for the BT Machine Gun is actually a massive understatement now that you bring it up.

Edited by FupDup, 07 May 2013 - 04:36 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 07 May 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

Two things:
1. A "round" in BT terms isn't a single shell, it can be any number of projectiles. It's just a unit of convenience ("as many projectiles as is fired in a TT turn").
2. 'Mechs have ablative armour. It's specifically designed to shatter and flake away under impact to dissipate kinetic energy. Anything that hits it hard will chip away at it, so there's simply no reason the MG shouldn't damage 'mech armour.

But only the first layer of said armour is Ablative.

Quote

The first layer is extremely strong steel, the result of crystal alignment and radiation treatment, which is also very brittle. The second layer is a ceramic, cubic boron nitride, which combined with a web of artificial diamond fibers acts as a backstop to the steel layer. These two layers rest atop a titanium alloy honeycomb structure which provides support, and a layer of self-sealing polymer sealant which allows for space and underwater operations.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 May 2013 - 04:33 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 03 May 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

Tell that to mechs that carry four of them.

They also iscribe that the Mech's main purpose is anti infantry or crowd control when loaded with that many MGs.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 May 2013 - 04:40 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 May 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

They also iscribe that the Mech's main purpose is anti infantry or crowd control when loaded with that many MGs.

Cool, now find me some infantry to shoot or crowds to control in this game......

or give me MGs that have a snowballs chance in hell of being useful. Half as useful as a Small Laser would be near to 10x as useful as they are now.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 May 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

They also iscribe that the Mech's main purpose is anti infantry or crowd control when loaded with that many MGs.

The funny part about that is that mechs with only 2 or so MGs usually say that they're for infantry defense, but as soon as you look at a Piranha or a Solaris mech like a Juggernaut that boat lots of MGs it says that they're for tearing $#!t up. The Bushwacker only mounts 2 MGs and doesn't even mention infantry, just "short range weapons" in general.


Conclusion: Battlemech descriptions are seriously inconsistent in what mechs mount MGs for.

Edited by FupDup, 07 May 2013 - 06:19 AM.

[stjobe]

FupDup, on 07 May 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

Conclusion: Battlemech descriptions are seriously inconsistent in what mechs mount MGs for.

As far as I can tell, MGs are general-purpose weapons, mounted by 'mechs of all weight classes; the BattleMaster mounted two, as did the Crusader, the Thunderbolt, and any number of light 'mechs.

They do okay-ish damage 'mechs and vehicles, and they absolutely tear up infantry. They're useful no matter what target you happen upon.

In MWO, they do negligible damage to 'mechs, and there are no vehicles or infantry to shoot at. They're useless - but only because the PGI devs *made* them useless. That's both lore-breaking and game-breaking, and it's time they fessed up to it and did something about it.