1386 replies to this topic

[S1lent0ne]

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.

1. And if we were playing the TT you would have a point. Sad facts for you; in MWO one round = one shell and if this were TT the MG would do about the same dps as an SL.

2. That is the reason that an 'MG' wouldn't chew armor, it just isn't designed to do so. It should relatively harmlessly bounce off of anything over about 15-20 points of armor doing some damage to the outer layer. However anything under that should be exposed to penetration, the armor stays relatively undamaged as the round neatly penetrates through it and wrecks havoc on the fleshy underbits.

[Terror Teddy]

S1lent0ne, on 07 May 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

2. That is the reason that an 'MG' wouldn't chew armor, it just isn't designed to do so. It should relatively harmlessly bounce off of anything over about 15-20 points of armor doing some damage to the outer layer. However anything under that should be exposed to penetration, the armor stays relatively undamaged as the round neatly penetrates through it and wrecks havoc on the fleshy underbits.

Your argument is invalid. Mainly from start of thread to the end since there are billions of arguments but I will repeat the most important one I have.

-GAME BALANCE

-NO VIABLE LIGHT BALLISTIC WEAPONS FOR LIGHT MECHS

[Utilyan]

Sarna:

These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns.

====
Take a Mech's machine gun put it on a static mount crewed by infantry its a support machine gun.......how good are those?

====
Sarna:
Support Machine Guns are large crew-served support weapons mounted on vehicles or emplacement turrets. Too massive for a single trooper to carry, these guns fire large-caliber bullets at much greater ranges than most other ballistic weapons and with enough firepower to be a threat to heavily-armored vehicles. Support machine guns achieve superior accuracy at these ranges thanks to their stable, static mounts and built-in recoil compensation.^[1]




Despite what the TT gods say, I like the idea of it being as horrible as it is vs armor, BUT It should be KING vs UNARMORED. If your mech's lost his ARMOR on any piece, then it should be in big trouble vs MGs. And the RANGES vs UNARMORED should apply......FULL damage, across the map ranges. Further then anything else.

As is, MGs is the worst vs unarmored......I think if you rendered a man he could throw a ball further then we could shoot a gun.

[FupDup]

Utilyan, on 07 May 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

Sarna:

These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns.

====
Take a Mech's machine gun put it on a static mount crewed by infantry its a support machine gun.......how good are those?

====
Sarna:
Support Machine Guns are large crew-served support weapons mounted on vehicles or emplacement turrets. Too massive for a single trooper to carry, these guns fire large-caliber bullets at much greater ranges than most other ballistic weapons and with enough firepower to be a threat to heavily-armored vehicles. Support machine guns achieve superior accuracy at these ranges thanks to their stable, static mounts and built-in recoil compensation.^[1]




Despite what the TT gods say, I like the idea of it being as horrible as it is vs armor, BUT It should be KING vs UNARMORED. If your mech's lost his ARMOR on any piece, then it should be in big trouble vs MGs. And the RANGES vs UNARMORED should apply......FULL damage, across the map ranges. Further then anything else.

As is, MGs is the worst vs unarmored......I think if you rendered a man he could throw a ball further then we could shoot a gun.

Support Machine Gun =/= Battlemech Machine Gun. Compare:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_gun
http://www.sarna.net...ort_Machine_Gun




There already is a king vs unarmored. It's called the AC/20.


But seriously. MGs don't actually shred components like the devs like to say they do. Go try it. Find an exposed armor section on any enemy and hose it down with MGs. You're not gonna remove any components unless you're lucky or have a lot of time. Earlier in this thread or a different one, I saw somebody do a test where a single Small Laser could destroy an entire body section faster than quad-Machine Guns could crit out all of the components...that is f#%$ed up. And even if they did in a perfect world remove components faster than an SL can destroy the whole mech, an MG mech is still only useful for 1/3 of the battle.

Edited by FupDup, 07 May 2013 - 09:36 AM.

[stjobe]

S1lent0ne, on 07 May 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

1. And if we were playing the TT you would have a point. Sad facts for you; in MWO one round = one shell and if this were TT the MG would do about the same dps as an SL.

If this was BT, it would do 2/3rds of a SL *and* the same as the AC/2 *and* the same as a single SRM. Try that trick in MWO, where the SL is 1 DPS in 3-point chunks, an AC/2 is 4 DPS in 2-point chunks, and a SRM is 0.43+ DPS in 1.5+ chunks (variable due to splash).

200 rounds in BT just meant the weapon could fire 200 times. 2,000 rounds in MWO means it can fire 2,000 times - although it fires 100 times faster than the BT version (10 rounds per second vs 1 "round" per 10 second turn), so it goes through 2,000 rounds in the same time a BT 'mech would go through 20.

As for round weight, yeah, you're correct. A MG round in MWO weighs 0.5kg. 1,000kg/2,000 rounds = 0.5kg. Not your average .50 BMG shell, as you say.

S1lent0ne, on 07 May 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

2. That is the reason that an 'MG' wouldn't chew armor, it just isn't designed to do so.

It isn't designed to do so *in MWO*. In every other BattleTech incarnation, it is, including the boardgame that started it all and from where MWO springs.

[Lord of All]

stjobe, on 07 May 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

...In every other BattleTech incarnation, it is, including the boardgame that started it all and from where MWO springs.

Wrong. Have you ever even played BT TT? I doubt it with a patently false statement like that.

[ICEFANG13]

MGs do 2 damage in TT right? Like A/C-2s? Or what?

[Terror Teddy]

Lord of All, on 07 May 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

Wrong. Have you ever even played BT TT? I doubt it with a patently false statement like that.

You are either a bad troll or an *****.

Sarna.net has the stats
Scanned pages from the rulebooks have been posted
It has been stated on the thread over and over again with multiple links when it comes to the weapos damage value.

If you are too lazy to look up facts that is your problem not ours.

[Terror Teddy]

ICEFANG13, on 07 May 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

MGs do 2 damage in TT right? Like A/C-2s? Or what?

Yes, essentially a short-ranged ac/2 with bonus damage vs infantry.

[FupDup]

Lord of All, on 07 May 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

Wrong. Have you ever even played BT TT? I doubt it with a patently false statement like that.

You must have played a very strange and different TT if the MGs there didn't do 2 standard damage, 2D6 to unarmored infantry, and 1D6 to power armored infantry.

Edited by FupDup, 08 May 2013 - 05:45 AM.

[Lord of All]

Anyone that says they played BT TT and put MG's on their mechs for anything other than non-mech battle is either a moron or a liar.

In mech battles you would take more damage from the ammo explosions than you could deal!

Don't believe everything you read and try to act like you were there children.

FupDup, on 08 May 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

You must have played a very strange and different TT if the MGs there didn't do 2 standard damage, 2D6 to unarmored infantry, and 1D6 to power armored infantry.

Don't try to put words in my mouth and then attack that lie. Your childish attempts at stawman arguments are transparent and pathetic.

I never stated anywhere any such thing. PLEASE point out where I stated that?

Edited by Lord of All, 08 May 2013 - 10:21 AM.

[stjobe]

Lord of All, on 08 May 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Anyone that says they played BT TT and put MG's on their mechs for anything other than non-mech battle is either a moron or a liar.

In mech battles you would take more damage from the ammo explosions than you could deal!

Don't believe everything you read and try to act like you were there children.

I'll bite, but you have to promise me you'll stay under your bridge after that, ok?

Any hit in BT had a 1/11 chance of doing a crit (a roll of 2 on 2d6). Mounting two MGs meant two more chances to crit, at no extra heat. And that crit could kill the 'mech outright, destroy a limb, or disable internal components like weapons, actuators, heat sinks etc.

That's where the value of the MG lay for heavier 'mechs in BT. For light 'mechs, 2 damage was a sizeable proportion of their armour, so for them it was a dangerous weapon in its own right.

As for who used them, well anyone who played with stock 'mechs did, and I know that was what we usually did (and still do, when I can find the time to play). Customized 'mechs were very expensive and usually didn't work very well - unless you disregarded all the customizing rules and just went and built anything you wanted. Most of the people I play and played with didn't.

[FupDup]

Lord of All, on 08 May 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Anyone that says they played BT TT and put MG's on their mechs for anything other than non-mech battle is either a moron or a liar.

In mech battles you would take more damage from the ammo explosions than you could deal!

Don't believe everything you read and try to act like you were there children.

We know about the ammo explosion weakness because it's been brought up again and again as a mechanic from Tabletop--and I'm the one who's said it more than anyone else. For this entire thread, you've been preaching that MGs can't do any significant anti-armor damage. However, this is the first time that you've acknowledged the ammo explosions and didn't deny that MGs were able to do significant damage to armored units as long as their ammo didn't asplode. Those are two very different concepts.


Don't believe everything you read and try to act like you were there, infant.

Lord of All, on 08 May 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Don't try to put words in my mouth and then attack that lie. Your childish attempts at stawman arguments are transparent and pathetic.

I never stated anywhere any such thing. PLEASE point out where I stated that?

Let's take a trip down memory lane. Up above, stjobe and S1lent0ne were arguing about whether or not MGs can chew mech armor. Stjobe said that they did in every BT incarnation except this one. You quoted him and responded that you think he was wrong and that you doubted that he played TT. I quoted your response to his response and said that they did 2 damage to mechs in Tabletop, which in essence confirms stjobe's point of them being able to chew mech armor.

Don't try to put words in my mouth and then attack that lie. Your infantile attempts at ad-hominem and strawman arguments are transparent and pathetic.

Edited by FupDup, 08 May 2013 - 10:39 AM.

[Lord of All]

Changed my mind. this is not worth the time wasted on it.

Edited by Lord of All, 13 May 2013 - 06:55 PM.

[HammerSwarm]

To anyone who is new to this thread and has haphazardly ended up here. Please don't repeat this argument::

Utilyan, on 07 May 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

Despite what the TT gods say, I like the idea of it being as horrible as it is vs armor, BUT It should be KING vs UNARMORED. If your mech's lost his ARMOR on any piece, then it should be in big trouble vs MGs. And the RANGES vs UNARMORED should apply......FULL damage, across the map ranges. Further then anything else.

As is, MGs is the worst vs unarmored......I think if you rendered a man he could throw a ball further then we could shoot a gun.

First, the current machine gun is broken. I can interpret this from your post being that you support some change. Knowing that the weapon is not functional as is will help you here.

Secondly, the current draw distances already prevent attacks at the maximum range because you can't see out to or passed the maximum range. The game mechanics would hamper your proposal. What benefit would you have at such ranges? even if you were firing an infinite stream of bullets the adjustments to target a mech with pinpoint accuracy at that range are outside the technological bounds.

Third, We're talking about a 1 degree error at 2000 meters being 34 meters when your projectile gets there. So an infinite range weapon isn't practical even if you are firing 10 a second because most people would just be spraying around the target.

[Utilyan]

HammerSwarm, on 08 May 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

To anyone who is new to this thread and has haphazardly ended up here. Please don't repeat this argument::



First, the current machine gun is broken. I can interpret this from your post being that you support some change. Knowing that the weapon is not functional as is will help you here.

Secondly, the current draw distances already prevent attacks at the maximum range because you can't see out to or passed the maximum range. The game mechanics would hamper your proposal. What benefit would you have at such ranges? even if you were firing an infinite stream of bullets the adjustments to target a mech with pinpoint accuracy at that range are outside the technological bounds.

Third, We're talking about a 1 degree error at 2000 meters being 34 meters when your projectile gets there. So an infinite range weapon isn't practical even if you are firing 10 a second because most people would just be spraying around the target.

Compared to what we got now......i'd take it If I could shoot even in horrible cone fashion just to get visual effects would be benefit. Supressive fire, points out where the enemy is, points out where I am(grabs attention).

Folks will duck behind cover over small lasers....... so even a few love taps from mgs would be pretty useful.

Best of all it could be a game changer in sense of giving a better combat/war atmosphere.


If machine guns having a great maximum range is so insignificant then why hold it back?

Give me that "useless" machine gun with longer range then any weapon here anyday.


Having long range is absolute advantage. I would completely welcome it to the Mg. when we got fire teams, flanking manuvers that ability to draw attention play on the deceptions of being far away or up close is valuable.


Combat plays out on mental levels too and being able to snap your own fingers can be quite deadly.

Like having smoke bombs, most folks would count it pretty useless too.

I wouldn't expect a person to understand the concept of a long range weapon having the advantage of being long range, till they see it for themselves.

Perhaps i can give you a way of seeing it for youself. Lets take another weapon with a cone effect... Take a mech grab LBX cannon 10 has a range of about 1980m with alot of ammo. And start spamming the enemy at that long range. 1500-1980.... If you catch a grouped up lance, you'll hit not do any physical significant damage......but I want you to notice when they all turn to look at you not your 3 buddies behind them.


Now imagine your them.....you hear a plink......red flash on screen..... and you see a mech shooting. Do you really think you have the dicipline to take your eyes off who is hitting you.....flashing your armor, your screen.

Your attention is going to stay on that guy. There are only 2 people who are going to ignore you, The noob and the master.

[Sephlock]

At the present rate of tweaking, it should be viable in about... 2 years.

As for flamers... well... one step at a time, I guess >_<.

[Rustiax]

Lets make one of these instead !
Gatling laser on the shoulder or arm would be amazing...

[FupDup]

Rustiax, on 09 May 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

Lets make one of these instead !
Gatling laser on the shoulder or arm would be amazing...

Small Pulse Laser buff?

[Rustiax]

FupDup, on 09 May 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

Small Pulse Laser buff?

Yeah machineGun vs Small pulse laser ^^