111 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 June 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

@Fup,
I played Battletech for at least 15 years, never using a Machine Gun. I also played every MW video game without Machine Guns. I never ever missed them. Just sayin'...

I'm guessing you spent most of your time in proper Lyran Reconnaissance mechs such as the Atlas as opposed to lights or mediums. There are also a lot of other anti-infantry weapons out there that are flat-out better than MGs such as Flamers, Small Pulse Lasers, and Micro Pulse Lasers (the last two items did equal damage against infantry as MGs, minus the ammo explosions and stuff). I don't know why some people cling so hard to this whole anti-infantry thing when in reality MGs were garbage for that task even in TT.


Anyways, I'm only campaigning this hard for MGs because they're the only lightweight ballistic that we've got. If we fast forwarded a few years to the mech-sized Magshot, I wouldn't spend nearly as much time in threads like these (even though I still want all weapons to be viable). Energy weapons have the Medium Laser to replace crappy weapons like the SL, SPL, and Flamer. Missiles have the SSRM2. Ballistics...have only the MG for now.

Edited by FupDup, 06 June 2013 - 09:05 AM.

[General Taskeen]

FupDup, on 06 June 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

I don't know why some people cling so hard to this whole anti-infantry thing when in reality MGs were garbage for that task even in TT.

I'll tell you why. People become (Interweb-Fan-Boyz-And-Girls) of any sort of thing in a game or some other type of product (like the "console wars", "nuh uh, my console is the best!"), for the following reasons: 1. Its fun being on the debate 2. Purchase Justification (people purchasing mwo and using said item in game gravitate toward a certain mentalities that agree with their mindset, because thinking otherwise would imply that their decision is the wrong one, and thus all energy is diverted in the brain to prove another person wrong if their purchase justification is under threat)

Edited by General Taskeen, 06 June 2013 - 09:14 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 06 June 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

I'm guessing you spent most of your time in proper Lyran Reconnaissance mechs such as the Atlas as opposed to lights or mediums. There are also a lot of other anti-infantry weapons out there that are flat-out better than MGs such as Flamers, Small Pulse Lasers, and Micro Pulse Lasers (the last two items did equal damage against infantry as MGs, minus the ammo explosions and stuff). I don't know why some people cling so hard to this whole anti-infantry thing when in reality MGs were garbage for that task even in TT.


Anyways, I'm only campaigning this hard for MGs because they're the only lightweight ballistic that we've got. If we fast forwarded a few years to the mech-sized Magshot, I wouldn't spend nearly as much time in threads like these (even though I still want all weapons to be viable). Energy weapons have the Medium Laser to replace crappy weapons like the SL, SPL, and Flamer. Missiles have the SSRM2. Ballistics...have only the MG for now.

Started as a Battlemaster pilot (Heavy Recon)'86 went Merc after that ended up as the XO of Morguhn's Marauders.

Small Pulse Laser became a good Anti infantry weapon in the latest rule set IIC. We didn't use a lot of infantry.

I am all for seeing the MG be just as useful as a small laser. It is after all the smallest Ballistic, it is the same weight as a Small laser and 0.5 ton weapons did light damage (SRM2 being the heavy hitter at 4 points per shot). So buffing to be the same as a Small Laser in damages and recycle time would be just fine.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 June 2013 - 09:25 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

The only true destinction between a Machine Gun and Cannon is not weight or speed of fire but what the weapon is firing. Machine Guns will always fire nothing but pure unadulterated lead (ie, solid projectiles with no added quirks - exceptions being hollow points which are just an adaptation of a solid round). Cannons, on the other hand, fire specialty rounds that are, in most cases, explosive shells. There is some grey area on the part of the cannon because you have things like sabot rounds, flichete rounds, etc. But, they are still specialty rounds which allows the difference to be drawn.

That being said, nobody wants the Machine Gun to become a mini-Gauss Rifle. What is wanted is for a ballistic copy of the Small Laser. The laser is a beam weapon with instantaneous contact, exactly like the laser, but doesn't have a cool down meaning that as much damage cannot be brought on a single target if the firing party or the target moves. Anti-infantry or not anti-infantry holds no sway here because we're still trying to get a weapon on par with the smallest energy weapon in game so that light mechs with ballistic slots have an option other then forgoing everything else to cram in an AC2.

The bigger question that I have for the angry "MGs ARE ONLY FOR INFANTRY" types is: Why are you so against a slight increase in damage for those mechs that don't have the tonnage to carry something bigger?



PS> Someone hack JoeMal's account and put nothing but MGs and Flamers on them!

Edited by Trauglodyte, 06 June 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[General Taskeen]

Trauglodyte, on 06 June 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

The bigger question that I have for the angry "MGs ARE ONLY FOR INFANTRY" types is: Why are you so against a slight increase in damage for those mechs that don't have the tonnage to carry something bigger?

Because they want the Battle Tech rules changed for their viewpoint, so then MG's will not do damage to vehicles, aerospace, tanks, and Mechs with their petitioned change, but only Infantry forever and ever. I gotta get back in the game, my personal favorite thing to do in the game is shoot at infantry in MWO with MG's (they're everywhere).

[Trauglodyte]

The whole pure canon thing is just weird. The way I look at it, I am using my MG to shoot at infantry because there is a dude in the mech that I'm shooting at. Trying to bring reason, books, rules of differing cycles, etc just makes no sense when you think about the fact that the cockpit "glass" is actually transparent armor which could, theoretically, lead to entire mechs being transparent. And that is just strange.

[Corvus Antaka]

they are fine. ive done well with them since the most recent patch.

[Esplodin]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 06 June 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

they are fine. ive done well with them since the most recent patch.

Drooling out 160 points of damage in 3 minutes 20 seconds of constant firing is hardly a good weapon by any measure.

[Malora Sidewinder]

Yes they are.
They were always bad.
They will always be bad.
This is a good thing.


Next topic!

[FupDup]

Malora Sidewinder, on 06 June 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

They will always be bad.
This is a good thing.

Please elaborate. I always thought that a greater number of viable weapons was better than just a handful?

Edited by FupDup, 06 June 2013 - 01:27 PM.

[stjobe]

CutterWolf, on 06 June 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

No matter how you cut it STJOBE MG's in MWO are doing the damage they are suppose to be doing period.

Supposed to?

Not if "supposed to" means "same ratio to other weapons as in BattleTech".
BT AC/2 = 2 damage per 10s turn
BT MG = 2 damage per 10s turn
BT SRM = 2 damage per 10s turn

MWO AC/2 = 40 damage per 10s
MWO MG = 8 damage per 10s
MWO SRM = 4.3 damage per 10s

So what is a 2-damage weapon from BT "supposed" to do damage-wise in MWO? 4 DPS? 0.8 DPS? 0.43 DPS?

CutterWolf, on 06 June 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

They will "never" do the amount of damage you want it to do since that would then make them the single greatest DOT weapon in the game.

They also have 100% time-on-target requirement unlike any other weapon in the game, they have spread, they are very short-ranged, and they are ammo-dependent. Is it too much to ask that they also have an upside? That if you manage to still have ammo, get within their effective range, and keep your reticule on the target 100% of the time, that they also do some appreciable damage?

I'm not asking for them to do 4 DPS like the AC/2, even though their shortcomings would make that effectively 2 DPS since spread takes away 25% and the 100% ToT takes away another 25% of their effective DPS, I'm asking for them to have 2 DPS with spread, 1 DPS if spread is removed. They're currently at 0.8 DPS so I don't really think that I'm asking for all that much.

I'm also asking for their crit bonus to be removed; it's unnecessary and them having it is a hindrance to them getting the DPS that I believe they need to become the viable light-weight ballistic weapon MWO so sorely needs.

[WolvesX]

Found a piece of unobtainium!