165 replies to this topic

[LinkIcefang]

Well, since folks don't seem to like the link I posted regarding the small laser being also intended for anti-infantry duty, let me present another example.

Why would the Mechwarrior in the MW2 intro fire his MGs against the enemy 'mech if MGs did no damage?

[LinkIcefang]

Well, since folks don't seem to like the link I posted regarding the small laser being also intended for anti-infantry duty, let me present another example.

Why would the Mechwarrior in the MW2 intro fire his MGs against the enemy 'mech if MGs did no damage?

[Lord of All]

FupDup, on 20 April 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

It is a 35 ton unit with 2 ballistic hardpoints. You're going to have to sacrifice something if you want anything bigger than MGs in there.



40-ton unit with 4 ballistic hardpoints. Same issue as Raven 4X.



If you check the Sarna page of those Machine Guns it says they do 2 damage to mechs in TT and are fully capable of stripping mech armor. MGs might be better against infantry than mechs, but they can still hurt mechs.



Good luck filling up all 6 ballistic hardpoints with AC/2's and still having good ammo/armor/heat efficiency/anything.



My facts are based on their in-game hardpoints. Your "facts" are based on stock loudouts that nobody uses. Normally I try to take a more diplomatic approach, but I'm getting impatient here and want to throw in an ad-hominem. Play the mechs above for a little while and come back to this thread. Get your head out of your rear-center torso and smell the damn roses.

FupDup, on 20 April 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

It is a 35 ton unit with 2 ballistic hardpoints. You're going to have to sacrifice something if you want anything bigger than MGs in there.



40-ton unit with 4 ballistic hardpoints. Same issue as Raven 4X.



If you check the Sarna page of those Machine Guns it says they do 2 damage to mechs in TT and are fully capable of stripping mech armor. MGs might be better against infantry than mechs, but they can still hurt mechs.



Good luck filling up all 6 ballistic hardpoints with AC/2's and still having good ammo/armor/heat efficiency/anything.



My facts are based on their in-game hardpoints. Your "facts" are based on stock loudouts that nobody uses. Normally I try to take a more diplomatic approach, but I'm getting impatient here and want to throw in an ad-hominem. Play the mechs above for a little while and come back to this thread. Get your head out of your rear-center torso and smell the damn roses.

FupDup, on 20 April 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

It is a 35 ton unit with 2 ballistic hardpoints. You're going to have to sacrifice something if you want anything bigger than MGs in there.



40-ton unit with 4 ballistic hardpoints. Same issue as Raven 4X.



If you check the Sarna page of those Machine Guns it says they do 2 damage to mechs in TT and are fully capable of stripping mech armor. MGs might be better against infantry than mechs, but they can still hurt mechs.



Good luck filling up all 6 ballistic hardpoints with AC/2's and still having good ammo/armor/heat efficiency/anything.



My facts are based on their in-game hardpoints. Your "facts" are based on stock loudouts that nobody uses. Normally I try to take a more diplomatic approach, but I'm getting impatient here and want to throw in an ad-hominem. Play the mechs above for a little while and come back to this thread. Get your head out of your rear-center torso and smell the damn roses.

All Red Herrings, Try taking a Critical thinking course some day child and maybe then you can form a logical argument.

Your arguments are nothing more than QQ's Why would I try to run a mech with weapons that are not designed for the purpose you wish to use them for. That's just moronic. As was stated use them for component destruction after you strip the armor and yes they can strip the armor off a mech but that mech better stand there for quite awhile while your trying it.

[Elepole]

Like usual in any MG thread:

People for buffing MG want it to fill a empty slot in the weapon collection of MWO, or they want to make some build actually worth something, or they just want more tactical option.

People against buffing have no gameplay related arguments and throw ONE argument based on a "lore" that is not even followed by the game, since "gameplay" >>>>> "lore". They also forget to say the lore don't support their argument.

[Naja]

Loler skates, on 20 April 2013 - 08:06 PM, said:

do you have a lot of packet loss? because I play with 105 ping roughly and lasers are hitscan for me.

about 1-2 packets every hop when i run pathping =(

[TOGSolid]

Elepole, on 20 April 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

Like usual in any MG thread:

People for buffing MG want it to fill a empty slot in the weapon collection of MWO, or they want to make some build actually worth something, or they just want more tactical option.

People against buffing have no gameplay related arguments and throw ONE argument based on a "lore" that is not even followed by the game, since "gameplay" >>>>> "lore". They also forget to say the lore don't support their argument.

But then you do something like this:

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 20 April 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

Read LORE.

HA..now was it Shin Yodama that said "The machine guns just make them mad?" I remember it was a Kurita Phoenix Hawk Pilot....  Turtle Bay or Edo maybe? In one of the novels....

Yes machine guns can hurt an elemental but it's not instakill.


So a machine gun does 2 damage..remember..in table top its 2 damage every 10 second turn (yes..a turn is 10 seconds)..here...ppl are talking about a 1 second "recharge". so..2 damage...every 1 second.

Can you imagine a 6 MG spider, doing 12 damage every other second? WITH NO HEAT?

You need to think things through.

NO.

AC/2s do 2 damage a turn also.

Oops, there goes your entire argument.


And these TT bible thumpers have no clue what to say from that point.  Anyone arguing against the MG being a viable weapon is just a grognard who can't see past his own food riddled neckbeard.  Sorry guys but this is a video game that has already broken away from canon in a lot of ways in the name of gameplay.  If you don't have a gameplay reason that MGs should not be viable then shut your mouths because you don't have anything productive to add to this discussion.

Edited by TOGSolid, 20 April 2013 - 08:51 PM.

[FupDup]

Lord of All, on 20 April 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

All Red Herrings, Try taking a Critical thinking course some day child and maybe then you can form a logical argument.

Your arguments are nothing more than QQ's Why would I try to run a mech with weapons that are not designed for the purpose you wish to use them for. That's just moronic. As was stated use them for component destruction after you strip the armor and yes they can strip the armor off a mech but that mech better stand there for quite awhile while your trying it.

None of them are red herrings. You cannot fill up the ballistic slots on the Raven 4X, Spider 5K, and/or Cicada 3C with weapons larger than MGs without gimping yourself. That is the issue. That is why people care. It's that simple. Stop ignoring it. Nobody runs the stock configurations on those mechs.

Try taking a Critical thinking course some day child and maybe then you can form a logical argument.


PS: You're also using a strawman in that last paragraph. I never said I'm trying to strip armor with MGs. The purpose they are designed for and I use them for is not being equipped on any of my mechs. I want them to be strong enough that I can dust them off.

I also have actually tried them out in combat. Even when they were bugged at 80% crit chance (they have been reduced dramatically since then), it still took forever to crit out components from exposed internals. I virtually always destroyed the section with my dual LL (on my Raven 4X) faster than I could crit out the items in it. Crit-seeking is an illusion.

Edited by FupDup, 20 April 2013 - 08:59 PM.

[kf envy]

this is from the current battletech techmanual i added the Heavy MG to give ppl idea of damage"
heavy weapons and equipment table & weapons and equipemts chapter


page 341
weapon/item ~ heat ~damage ~ammo per ton ~ ton
small laser ~1 ~3 ~NA ~0.5
MG `0 ~2 ~200 .~05
Hmg ~0 ~3 ~100 ~1.0

page228
Machine gun
introduced: Pre-spaceflight
favored as the quintessential anti-infantry weapon since the first crude models appeared in the nineteenth century, the machine gun (MG) is not an uncommon sight on battlemechs, armored personnel carriers and even police swat trucks. heaver and capable of a far greater volume of fire then the weapons carried by conventional infantry or battle-suited troopers, these vehicular and mech-mounted machine guns can flatten entire platoons of regular troops in just one or two passes.
Revently clan developments have even affected even this area of modern weaponry with the fielding of heavy and light MG types.
inner sphere manufacturers have yet to duplucate these weapons.
"

hope this help with why the pre-clan invasion MG should stay the same.

Edited by kf envy, 20 April 2013 - 10:11 PM.

[TOGSolid]

kf envy, on 20 April 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

this is from the current battletech techmanual
"

weapon/item

Fascinating, tell us more.

[kf envy]

TOGSolid, on 20 April 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

Fascinating, tell us more.

look again

[Peiper]

Give us infantry, battlearmor, minefields to detonate, VTOLs to shoot down, etc... and you'll have a reason to mount machine guns. But you can shoot a machine gun at an M-1 Abrams tank all day long and the only damage you'll do is wearing out the machine gun barrel.

GIVE PURPOSE to weapons and people will stop complaining they have no purpose!

[kf envy]

Peiper, on 20 April 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

Give us infantry, battlearmor, minefields to detonate, VTOLs to shoot down, etc... and you'll have a reason to mount machine guns. But you can shoot a machine gun at an M-1 Abrams tank all day long and the only damage you'll do is wearing out the machine gun barrel.

GIVE PURPOSE to weapons and people will stop complaining they have no purpose!

there are some types of .50 AP/HEAT ammo for the .50 now of days im sure it can do damage/disable tanks

[Sephlock]

Peiper, on 20 April 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

Give us infantry, battlearmor, minefields to detonate, VTOLs to shoot down, etc... and you'll have a reason to mount machine guns. But you can shoot a machine gun at an M-1 Abrams tank all day long and the only damage you'll do is wearing out the machine gun barrel.

GIVE PURPOSE to weapons and people will stop complaining they have no purpose!

Someone with more patience than me find (YET AGAIN) the links citing the caliber of the machineguns in battletech, and a youtube video of the gau tearing **** up.

[kf envy]

for thows to lazy to read there battletech core books
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Gun

[Peiper]

Sephlock, on 20 April 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

Someone with more patience than me find (YET AGAIN) the links citing the caliber of the machineguns in battletech, and a youtube video of the gau tearing **** up.

If you want to argue realism, don't play a sci-fi game backed by pulp fiction. Battletech fiction says machine guns are there to shoot infantry. In Star Wars, guys shoot lasers that aren't tight incandescent beams, but look like glowing popsicles flying through the air MUCH slower than the speed of light. If you want to argue realism, ONE AC/20 shot should be able to core ANY mech in one hit, and like modern tanks, you'd only need one main gun and a few machine guns to keep the groundpounders' heads down. In fact, you probably wouldn't build walkers at all, and if you saw a walker coming your way, you'd pound it with hidden anti-tank guns, much cheaper tanks, and if you want to get fancy, shoot a heat seeker into it's back from beyond it's radar range....

Machine guns are meant to kill infantry. AC/2's are what, 20 mm AA cannons? Perhaps those are closer to what you're looking for in rapid-fire weapons? (Obviously, they aren't as fast firing as AA guns in MWO, but that's what they're SUPPOSED to be, just as machine guns are small calibre anti-infantry weapons.)

Geez. You know the game is getting stale when I come here to argue instead of playing and having fun!

And another thing: mech mounted machine guns are the same weapons mounted in one of the arms of a suit of elemental armor. Even Elementals know that they have to climb up on a mech, tear open the armor with their claw, and THEN stick their machine gun into the breach before it's going to do any damage. And this weapon is man-portable, unlike the GAU, which would fall into the category of a rotary AC/2, I would think. Maybe even a rotary AC/5.

[Straften]

LinkIcefang, on 20 April 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

Well, since folks don't seem to like the link I posted regarding the small laser being also intended for anti-infantry duty, let me present another example.

Why would the Mechwarrior in the MW2 intro fire his MGs against the enemy 'mech if MGs did no damage?

It didn't do any damage... and then he died.

[Magicbullet141]

LinkIcefang, on 20 April 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

Why would the Mechwarrior in the MW2 intro fire his MGs against the enemy 'mech if MGs did no damage?

The Mechwarrior video games were never considered to be canon, also did you not see in the video that his machine guns did no damage?

Edited by Magicbullet141, 20 April 2013 - 11:46 PM.

[Cifrer]

I don't exactly agree with the poll, however I voted yes simply because machine guns need some type of buff.

MACHINE GUN 87 58,071 31,849 54.84% 06:58:34 1,298

This is why.

Also, we're not playing tabletop battletech, we're playing mechwarrior online. Sure, it's based off battletech, but some adjustments need to be made for the sake of gameplay. Because of this it doesn't matter what you think weapons are for or how they work in tabletop, because this isn't tabletop.

We don't care if you're the most super awesome tabletop player ever or whatever else you like to think of yourself, it doesn't matter. We're not playing tabletop.

One last time for folks who don't get it, this isn't tabletop battletech. Different game, completely different environment. So if you're absolutely convinced that machine guns should be useless simply because you think they are in tabletop...oh well, you're wrong.

Machine guns need to be a viable weapon in mechwarrior online.



P.S. 2 damage in tabletop, just like AC/2. Suck it.

[kf envy]

Peiper, on 20 April 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

If you want to argue realism, don't play a sci-fi game backed by pulp fiction. Battletech fiction says machine guns are there to shoot infantry. In Star Wars, guys shoot lasers that aren't tight incandescent beams, but look like glowing popsicles flying through the air MUCH slower than the speed of light. If you want to argue realism, ONE AC/20 shot should be able to core ANY mech in one hit, and like modern tanks, you'd only need one main gun and a few machine guns to keep the groundpounders' heads down. In fact, you probably wouldn't build walkers at all, and if you saw a walker coming your way, you'd pound it with hidden anti-tank guns, much cheaper tanks, and if you want to get fancy, shoot a heat seeker into it's back from beyond it's radar range....

Machine guns are meant to kill infantry. AC/2's are what, 20 mm AA cannons? Perhaps those are closer to what you're looking for in rapid-fire weapons? (Obviously, they aren't as fast firing as AA guns in MWO, but that's what they're SUPPOSED to be, just as machine guns are small calibre anti-infantry weapons.)

Geez. You know the game is getting stale when I come here to argue instead of playing and having fun!

And another thing: mech mounted machine guns are the same weapons mounted in one of the arms of a suit of elemental armor. Even Elementals know that they have to climb up on a mech, tear open the armor with their claw, and THEN stick their machine gun into the breach before it's going to do any damage. And this weapon is man-portable, unlike the GAU, which would fall into the category of a rotary AC/2, I would think. Maybe even a rotary AC/5.

well you got a few things wrong there SIR. first off the power Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins. ^{http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Gun}
there not the same MG mounted on battle mechs. its like trying to mount a naval AC20 on a atlas. a 2,500ton weapon on a 100ton assult battlemech is just got going to work just to heavy for it. so go read your 4 core battle tech books there an lot of info in there
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Atlas http://www.sarna.net/wiki/NAC/20

the star wars thing. blasters are not the same thing as a laser. an look it up im not wasting my time on that for you.

modern tanks dont use AC they use cannons and because tanks unlike mech need a crew there some poor sap that has to load the gun for each shot or there a auto loader that is on the slow side an modren tanks carrie more then one type of ammo in there magazine. each type of ammo has a diffrent job. yes some types can 1 hit KO another tank but others just brake somthing or disable the tank an giveing the crew a bad headache and ####### them off before they send a sabot penetrator thow a sand dune and pop the t72

also real world AMS are getting smaller and in the next 10-20 years they should be small enough to fit on a tank. an on top of that there is now a thermal camouflage made just for tanks that hide there heat signicher so heat guided missiles will be usless an a soon as that missile is in the air you just gave away your spot and your about to have a really fun time.


an about building walkers. walkers can go on terrain that a wheeled or track vehicle cant go. an the higher weapon mountes give you the advantage being able to shoot over building and other structures a wheeled/track cant. and then there the urban battle field that is a death trap for tank because there is no room for them to move. you cant really move side ways in a tank can you

[Peiper]

kf envy, on 21 April 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

...

Talk about missing a point! Blasters aren't lasers. Geezus. It's a game based off of pulp-fiction and 1980's hack understandings of weapons, whose rules were already bent around the laws of physics in order to make up a fantastical game of 'Battledroids.' It has enough realism to FEEL right, and enough sci-fi to be really cool, but when it comes down to it, battlemechs are walking tanks covered in a variety of weapons - picked half the time because they sounded cool - and balanced in order to fit a GAME.

My argument is: Stop pushing the devs to change values of weapons because they're no good or useless versus battlemechs and instead expand the game to include REASONS to mount machine guns... And having 26 different calibre's of machine guns with AP, HP, Sabot, phosphorus, mushroom cloud rounds isn't going to change the fact that the game needs more variety of stuff to do, mission types, vehicles, infantry, trees, tarpits, and buildings that burn and so on...

Imagine playing Star Trek where the only combat was between guys in red shirts shooting phasers at klingons in red shirts shooting disruptors. You'd be arguing: we need different types of phasers: phaser rifles, sniper phasers, shotgun phasers instead of arguing that you need SPACE SHIPS in a Star Trek game too! Forgive the hyperbole, but it seemed a necessary response to such an impassioned, but shortsighted argument. (Shortsighted as in: you're arguing details instead of the greater problem - you did make good points.)