59 replies to this topic

[Caelroigh Blunt]

Machine guns, according to every other aspect of the BattleTech universe are considered anti-personnel or soft target weapons. In the books they don't even damage a mech. In the RPG they do so little damage as to be negligible to a mech. So why am I seeing guys with 6 machine guns cutting down mechs (including assault mechs - when used in concert with other weapons)?

[Ralgas]

Except for the tt rules, in which they are as good as an ac/2, along with being better vs inf

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

This is not a book. Nor is it the top of a table. a 50cal can penetrate an Abrams tank now days. how far in the future is this suppose to be?

I loved MG before. They are better now. Who knows what the future holds.

Edited by Funkadelic Mayhem, 21 May 2013 - 03:28 PM.

[Warge]

I'd like to see MG's damage 1 d/s and lesser crit chance.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

Warge, on 21 May 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

I'd like to see MG's damage 1 d/s and lesser crit chance.

DONT EFF WITH THE CRIT!

[Warge]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 21 May 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

DONT EFF WITH THE CRIT!

EFF? What's that?

[Aegic]

Warge, on 21 May 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

EFF? What's that?

A way around the forum guidelines about acceptable vocabulary :-/

[Aegic]

As for the topic at hand. MGs have always done a small amount of damage to mechs. In MWO they are only truly effective against parts that have already been stripped of armor.

Also, imagine a MG mounted on a mech as one of these.

http://youtu.be/XyoAP10uKTk

[Akule]

Caelroigh Blunt, on 21 May 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

Machine guns, according to every other aspect of the BattleTech universe are considered anti-personnel or soft target weapons. In the books they don't even damage a mech. In the RPG they do so little damage as to be negligible to a mech. So why am I seeing guys with 6 machine guns cutting down mechs (including assault mechs - when used in concert with other weapons)?

The machine guns are not cutting down mechs. They are simply assisting with their minimal damage.

In The RPG, they do as much as the following weapon:
http://www.youtube.c...v=IBCPxDdPUtU#!



Are these mechs that you are "seeing" being killed as fast? No?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[aniviron]

OP is correct, MGs are not currently a mech killing weapon. But they should be. If you put infantry in this game, fine, you can make them suck.

[LackofCertainty]

Caelroigh Blunt, on 21 May 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

Machine guns, according to every other aspect of the BattleTech universe are considered anti-personnel or soft target weapons. In the books they don't even damage a mech. In the RPG they do so little damage as to be negligible to a mech. So why am I seeing guys with 6 machine guns cutting down mechs (including assault mechs - when used in concert with other weapons)?

You are either misinformed about the topic or deliberately trolling.

BT rules specifically mention that you shouldn't interpret stuff from the books as real rules because a lot of book writers were terribly uninformed about the lore of Battletech. (see: Stackpole and his mechs that blow up like an atom bomb) A lot of writers heard the term "Machine Gun" and assumed that they were an ak47 strapped onto a giant robot. Really, they're more like the mini-guns we have strapped onto modern aircraft.

I'm unfamiliar with the RPG, I admit, but I suspect that you're confusing an infantry MG vs a vehicle/mech MG. The infantry MG is a weapon a person can carry, and generally needs to be used in numbers to damage a mech. Basically you're refering to the TT rules for a hand held machine gun instead of the half ton vehicle/mech mounted machine guns we have in game.

In the base battletech rules (which don't even include infantry) MG's are still used. Why would they include MG's in a game that is pure Mech vs. Mech combat? Because MG's are effective against Mechs.

TT MG's are a point blank range AC2, that happens to weigh 1/12th as much. They are comparable to SL's, except that they do a little less damage and generate no heat. (which often makes them a preferred point blank weapon for Mechs that run hot)

Edited by LackofCertainty, 21 May 2013 - 06:25 PM.

[Seddrik]

Yeah, don't mess with machine guns anymore. They aren't meant to be an AC 20. Solid machine gun builds do not break any records. But they are perfect for hitting broken mechs up close and filling in that last ton and half of space you have nothing else to fill it with.

Edited by Seddrik, 21 May 2013 - 09:34 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

The Spider-5K needs an edge, or else it will be nothing but "That last mech to basic out so I can elite the 5D". Same with that one Cicada variant with the 4 ballistic hardpoinyd.

Machine guns require you to close to spitting range and look at your target 100% of the time, so you can't torso-twist to spread out damage in between cooldowns like you would with a laser. They are currently a high risk, low reward weapon. Even with double the damage, they could still use a substantial ROF buff so that they can actually put out respectable damage.

[Vermaxx]

Machine guns are supposed to cause two damage to the target. Let's take that into MWO context.

Every weapon in MWO does book damage (some more for desirability, missiles are not included because who the fk knows how they're working this week) in a reasonable beam duration or projectile flight path.

Ok, so let's put that in an example all the mouth breathers can understand. I don't know what the "current" MG damage is, I'll use the last one.

A small laser (the closest equivalent to a MG since the beginning of time) does 3 damage for one heat. In MWO, the small laser does 3 damage over a 0.5 second beam. A large laser does 10 damage in a one second beam.

A MACHINE GUN DOES TWO DAMAGE IN A FIVE SECOND BEAM. NO OTHER WEAPON IN MWO REQUIRES YOU TO KEEP CURSOR-ON-TARGET FOR FIVE SECONDS, LET ALONE DO THAT FOR JUST TWO DAMAGE. BEAR IN MIND THIS IS ALSO A BEAM WITH 10 "PULSES" PER SECOND, SO YOU HAVE MASSIVE POTENTIAL TO WASTE THAT DAMAGE ALL OVER YOUR TARGET.

Ok, MAYBE machine guns got better this patch. If they take anything more than half a second to impart two damage, they are broken. I would even allow one damage per ONE SECOND of beam if PGI insisted on leaving them constant-fire.

Really though, the MG needs a duration, AND A COOLDOWN, like every other valid weapon in MWO, so it can be both useful and perfectly balanced against the small laser.

[Vermaxx]

Having gone and read the patch notes, a MG now does 0.8 damage per second. Anyone who thinks this is valid for a weapon intended to be strapped to a mech and shot at other mechs is dead wrong.

And make no mistake, machine guns were INTENDED TO SHOOT AT MECHS. There were no infantry or vehicles in the original Battletech. Mechs shot mechs, and lots of mechs had machine guns.

[Liquid Leopard]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 21 May 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

This is not a book. Nor is it the top of a table. a 50cal can penetrate an Abrams tank now days. how far in the future is this suppose to be?

I loved MG before. They are better now. Who knows what the future holds.

120mm cannon shells don't penetrate an Abrams tank. Turning a .50 cal on an Abrams would annoy the crew, because they'd have to repaint the tank later.

[Amberite]

MG's are 0.5 tonnes. Over a period of 5 seconds they do 4 damage. They produce no heat.

SL are 0.5 tonnes. Over a period of 5 seconds they do 6 damage (2.25 seconds cooldown). They produce 4 heat over that time.
---

So, MGs are quite similiar to SLs now. They spread damage around a lot more and don't do quite as much of it, but don't generate any heat.

SLs are sometimes 'boated' to stack the short range dmg efficiency. MGs can be 'boated' similiarly.

MGs are a fairly good harassment weapon as well as handy for doing internal damage. SLs are more useful as direct damage.

MGs require ammo (which can explode), SLs don't.

I think its fairly well balanced.

[Vermaxx]

I just did the math, and provided a small laser is still 0.5 second duration plus 2.25 cooldown (for a total 'time' of 2.75), a MG does 2.2 damage in the same amount of time.

In short, by raw math, a MG is BETTER than one would hope when compared to the small laser. Maybe they finally did fix it. If this is true then I can't ask for anything more. I'm having too many game problems to stress test MG performance.

[Shae Starfyre]

I thought the damage was .08 not .8....anyways, I took a 2 MG and 2 Pulse Medium to the training grounds and pin-pointed the Atlas dead center and let her rip.

It was interesting compared to before the patch; I recommend others take a look.

[Aegic]

Liquid Leopard, on 21 May 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

120mm cannon shells don't penetrate an Abrams tank. Turning a .50 cal on an Abrams would annoy the crew, because they'd have to repaint the tank later.

120mm shells absolutely can penetrate an Abrams armor.

However it is much "easier" to disable one. The tracks can be broken with cannon, heavy machine gun, or .50BMG sniper fire which would leave it immobile.

This does not stop the Abrams from being still one of the most safe and advanced tanks in the world today.

The MG in MWO does negligible damage unless there is no armor in the target location.

Imagine a mech with gaping holes and internal UNARMORED components and parts showing. Why would a heavy machine gun do no damage to those components?