165 replies to this topic

[Joe Mallad]

Straften, on 20 April 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

So that we can have 2 completely useless weapons in the game!

At least machine guns do well once the armor is gone.

ALL weapons do well when there is no Armor. I dont see why people think machine guns are so much better at this? So machine guns have a possible modifier to do extra damage to internals once the armor is gone. But guess what? my AC 20 does not need a modifier to kill internals My whole argument is not whether machine guns can or cant kill internals. Its why not just allow them to have some bite when it comes to damaging armor.

[Grimmnyr]

Yoseful Mallad, on 20 April 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

Here is what im thinking.

Small pulse lasers do 3 damage for a duration (burst) of .5 seconds so... do the same with machine guns. Have machine guns burst fire just as small pulse lasers do and that .5 second burst of ammo can do 3 damage just as a small pulse laser do.

If they worked the same as burst fire (pulse) weapons and did 3 points of damage per burst, machine guns would be on the same level as small pulse lasers.


now the advantages and disadvantages...

Both small pulse lasers and Machine guns have an optimum range of 90m but the advantage goes to machine guns at a max range of 200m over small pulse lasers at 180m and machine guns do not build heat like the small pulse lasers do. However, machine guns do need ammo and that ammo runs a risk of cooking off or being hit and blowing up. So... both weapons still have their advantages and disadvantages, giving players reason to use both or either depending on play style. But making machine guns work in the same manor as small pulse lasers and giving them 3 damage per burst would give them a lot more bite.

The only other change i would do with machine guns is to make their recycle time 1.00 instead of the continuous 0.1 fully auto fire between each individual machine gun round as we have now. The machine guns would still have a faster recycle time and have an advantage over the small pulse lasers recycle time of 2.25, but again... the small pulse lasers have the advantage of not needing ammo so it all works out in the wash.

Machine guns are ANTI INFANTRY weapons in the Battletech universe. They have always done minimal damage versus heavily armored units such as mechs. Get some different mechs and make new builds, stop trying to have the devs waste their time buffing and nerfing things unnecessarily.

[FupDup]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

They have always done minimal damage versus heavily armored units such as mechs.

I never knew that "2" was considered as minimal damage.

Edited by FupDup, 20 April 2013 - 05:57 PM.

[Elepole]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Machine guns are ANTI INFANTRY weapons in the Battletech universe. They have always done minimal damage versus heavily armored units such as mechs. Get some different mechs and make new builds, stop trying to have the devs waste their time buffing and nerfing things unnecessarily.

I feel obligated to quote myself as an answer to this:

Elepole, on 20 April 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

For infantry indeed:

Edited by Elepole, 20 April 2013 - 05:59 PM.

[Loler skates]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Machine guns are ANTI INFANTRY weapons in the Battletech universe. They have always done minimal damage versus heavily armored units such as mechs. Get some different mechs and make new builds, stop trying to have the devs waste their time buffing and nerfing things unnecessarily.

Dude thats rubbish

THey did 2 damage a shot to mechs

Same as an AC/2 the trade off was range.

No one ever suggests the AC/2 is an anti infantry weapon.

No one ever suggest SRM missiles should only fire at infantry. Each SRM missile does 2 damage by the way.

TT purists who don't even understand TT are why we can't have nice things ! : (

FupDup, on 20 April 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

I never knew that "2" was considered as minimal damage.

Man, it's 10 damage a shot or i take my ball and go home *Lance armstrong*

Edited by Loler skates, 20 April 2013 - 05:59 PM.

[Joe Mallad]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Machine guns are ANTI INFANTRY weapons in the Battletech universe. They have always done minimal damage versus heavily armored units such as mechs. Get some different mechs and make new builds, stop trying to have the devs waste their time buffing and nerfing things unnecessarily.

and my point again is IF thats all they are good for... why have them in at all mech based game? And as far as im concerned weapon balance is still far from balanced in this game so yeah, they should waste some more time getting things a bit more balanced and useful.

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 20 April 2013 - 06:04 PM.

[FupDup]

Loler skates, on 20 April 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

Dude thats rubbish

THey did 2 damage a shot to mechs

Same as an AC/2 the trade off was range.

No one ever suggests the AC/2 is an anti infantry weapon.

No one ever suggest SRM missiles should only fire at infantry. Each SRM missile does 2 damage by the way.

TT purists who don't even understand TT are why we can't have nice things ! : (

People who advocate for anti-infantry only MGs are not TT purists. They are semanticists. They believe that just because of its name it is automatically on-par with a Kalashnikov-47 or other weapons of similar caliber. They ignore the damage, caliber, and weight of the weapon all because of its name alone.

Battletech Mech-Machine Guns were named incorrectly by its designers. Even IRL anything 20mm+ is considered an autocannon (by the way, autocannons are classified as a sub-division of machine guns and are known for the use of explosive shells or large caliber rounds).

Edited by FupDup, 20 April 2013 - 06:03 PM.

[Joe Mallad]

FupDup, on 20 April 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

People who advocate for anti-infantry only MGs are not TT purists. They are semanticists. They believe that just because of its name it is automatically on-par with a Kalashnikov-47 or other weapons of similar caliber. They ignore the damage, caliber, and weight of the weapon all because of its name alone.

Battletech Mech-Machine Guns were named incorrectly by its designers. Even IRL anything 20mm+ is considered an autocannon (by the way, autocannons are classified as a sub-division of machine guns and are known for the use of explosive shells or large caliber rounds).

thank you!

[FupDup]

Yoseful Mallad, on 20 April 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

thank you!

No problem, brah.

[Elepole]

FupDup, on 20 April 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

People who advocate for anti-infantry only MGs are not TT purists. They are semanticists. They believe that just because of its name it is automatically on-par with a Kalashnikov-47 or other weapons of similar caliber. They ignore the damage, caliber, and weight of the weapon all because of its name alone.

Battletech Mech-Machine Guns were named incorrectly by its designers. Even IRL anything 20mm+ is considered an autocannon (by the way, autocannons are classified as a sub-division of machine guns and are known for the use of explosive shells or large caliber rounds).

Too much consideration. Just the fact that one of the most powerful and effective anti-armor modern weapon is a machine gun should be enough to mute them anyway.

[Joe Mallad]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Machine guns are ANTI INFANTRY weapons in the Battletech universe. They have always done minimal damage versus heavily armored units such as mechs. Get some different mechs and make new builds, stop trying to have the devs waste their time buffing and nerfing things unnecessarily.

i will also add that in almost any instance in battletech that mech based machine guns were used, it was on armored infantry and light infantry vehicles like troop carriers or light attack vehicles or choppers. Most unarmored infantry were dealt with by other infantry.

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 20 April 2013 - 06:09 PM.

[Grimmnyr]

Loler skates, on 20 April 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

Dude thats rubbish

THey did 2 damage a shot to mechs

Same as an AC/2 the trade off was range.

No one ever suggests the AC/2 is an anti infantry weapon.

No one ever suggest SRM missiles should only fire at infantry. Each SRM missile does 2 damage by the way.

TT purists who don't even understand TT are why we can't have nice things ! : (



Man, it's 10 damage a shot or i take my ball and go home *Lance armstrong*

Ok, let's just buff the MG to 50 damage a second, so everyone can boat them and get one shot kills. Just go play Call of Duty.

[danust]

FupDup, on 20 April 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

I'd rather replace them with DHS so that I can cool down faster. Or take cover while you cool down. Or torso twist to spread damage.


That's exactly why it's more advantageous to destroy the entire section, because every component dies instantly and it saves time. Also, "main weapon" is an ambiguous term. Medium lasers are the main weapons on a Jenner, but they're only secondary weapons on an Atlas. It's all about what weapon makes up most of a mech's firepower. Mechs like the Spider 5K and Cicada 3C have 4 ballistic hardpoints and only 1 energy, so most of their weapons will probably be MGs or other ballistics.


A buffed 4 MG Spider would still die to a Jenner or Raven any day of the week. Or most other boats. Also, 3 MGs wouldn't make much of a difference on a long-range configured mech. It would be better to put that extra weight into other things like armor, DHS, etc.

The times I've used them I didn't have 3 adjacent slots for another DHS (a common occurrence) and had 1.5t unused and ballistic slot and wanted to use a MG.

Main weapon. You are a semantic kind of pilot.

Can't destroy the entire section if you are up on heat and running away in a heavy is not always the answer. I just think you get what you pay for 1.5t.

[TheSteelRhino]

Terrible idea. Machine guns are supposed to be anti infantry weapons. They cannot even take out an elemental. Other than crit seeking once armour is stripped. and that was a gift from the devs for the folks upset on the forums.

Accept the fact until the devs add turrets (and maybe AI controlled infantry?) they won't have much use..and yes..the devs have said there will be fortifications in CW.

[FupDup]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

Ok, let's just buff the MG to 50 damage a second, so everyone can boat them and get one shot kills. Just go play Call of Duty.

That's a strawman. Nobody in the history of ever wants them anywhere near that much power. Most want them between 1-2 DPS.

[Loler skates]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

Ok, let's just buff the MG to 50 damage a second, so everyone can boat them and get one shot kills. Just go play Call of Duty.

the hell is wrong with you dude.

I'm looking for 0.16 damage per shot and 1.6 damage per second overall.

The last bit was pretty obviously me not being serious.... Sarcasm detector broken i guess.

[Joe Mallad]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

Ok, let's just buff the MG to 50 damage a second, so everyone can boat them and get one shot kills. Just go play Call of Duty.

no one is saying that or asking for that. But im sorry, machine guns need a damage buff that brings them into the range of other small caliber weapons.

[Loler skates]

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 20 April 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

Terrible idea. Machine guns are supposed to be anti infantry weapons. They cannot even take out an elemental. Other than crit seeking once armour is stripped. and that was a gift from the devs for the folks upset on the forums.

Accept the fact until the devs add turrets (and maybe AI controlled infantry?) they won't have much use..and yes..the devs have said there will be fortifications in CW.

Lies man.

[FupDup]

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 20 April 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

Terrible idea. Machine guns are supposed to be anti infantry weapons. They cannot even take out an elemental.

Leedair, on 20 April 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

The times I've used them I didn't have 3 adjacent slots for another DHS (a common occurrence) and had 1.5t unused and ballistic slot and wanted to use a MG.

Even an AMS would be better for 1.5t because some people still use Lurms (even though they're weak) and most missile-capable mechs load Streaks (which are still quite useful).

Leedair, on 20 April 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

Main weapon. You are a semantic kind of pilot.

If 4 out of 5 weapons on a mech are machine guns, they're the main weapons. A weapon is not designated as "main" in the mechlab, it is decided by how the player outfits their robot. My point still stands.

Leedair, on 20 April 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

Can't destroy the entire section if you are up on heat and running away in a heavy is not always the answer. I just think you get what you pay for 1.5t.

Then torso twist while let your heat dissipate and/or equip some lower-heat weapons like Gauss. There's also the ever-popular strategy of hillhumping/poptarting.

I'll get a lot more for just one ton in a medium laser. Or even a single small laser for 0.5t is better. Or a small pulse. Or an SRM2 (2 tons with ammo).

Edited by FupDup, 20 April 2013 - 06:19 PM.

[Joe Mallad]

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 20 April 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

Terrible idea. Machine guns are supposed to be anti infantry weapons. They cannot even take out an elemental. Other than crit seeking once armour is stripped. and that was a gift from the devs for the folks upset on the forums.

Accept the fact until the devs add turrets (and maybe AI controlled infantry?) they won't have much use..and yes..the devs have said there will be fortifications in CW.

lmao! Than why do i kill armored infantry (including) elemental infantry with them all the time in table top? And elementals are a form of infantry lol. And i have plenty of battletech and MW novels that would disagree with you. Mech machine guns can and will rip through any armored infantry unit with ease. And do it just fine on most mechs too. I dont see why they should be any different here either.