43 replies to this topic

[The pessimistic optimist]

Steadfast, on 15 July 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Yah, so will be the armour that laughs about the same weapon regarless of how tiny you built it, it will still ping most of the time. So, whats your point?

Yes but the new armor shreding ammo laughs back at the armor as it rips it a part:)

Edited by SirSmokes, 15 July 2013 - 12:47 PM.

[Boogie Man]

PanzerMagier, on 15 July 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Compared to weapons like the medium laser/ small laser...
You people are asking a lot from a 0.5 ton weapon. I'd say they're pretty damn useful now as a 0.5 ton weapon, everyone who's still bitching just want to see if they can sneak in their 4mg spider to become broken.

tl;dr
Shut up you noise makers.


Additionally, that doesn't look like it weighs half a ton.

Actually according to Wiki it is:

Weight 619.5 lb (281 kg)

That would be 0.301 tons. Throw in feeding mechanisms for a mech and we can stay under 0.5 tons each easily.

[PanzerMagier]

SirSmokes, on 15 July 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

I am pretty sure in 1000 year we could build it under half a ton. You do know over time we learn to build thing better and more efficiency.

A.) this is battletech, technology pretty much hit a brickwall in the late 2700's when war consumed mankind to such a point that factories were producing things people didn't even know how to build anymore.
B.) this is battletech logic we're talking about it here. It's what the 1960~80's thought 3000 would look like. It's a fictional Sci-fi so please don't try to bother logic with it.

Compare the machine gun with something else in the game, compared to a small laser, the stuff people want from it is quite absurd.

[Team Leader]

Boogie Man, on 15 July 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

Actually according to Wiki it is:

Weight 619.5 lb (281 kg)

That would be 0.301 tons. Throw in feeding mechanisms for a mech and we can stay under 0.5 tons each easily.

Fried

[The pessimistic optimist]

PanzerMagier, on 15 July 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

A.) this is battletech, technology pretty much hit a brickwall in the late 2700's when war consumed mankind to such a point that factories were producing things people didn't even know how to build anymore.
B.) this is battletech logic we're talking about it here. It's what the 1960~80's thought 3000 would look like. It's a fictional Sci-fi so please don't try to bother logic with it.

Compare the machine gun with something else in the game, compared to a small laser, the stuff people want from it is quite absurd.

So we just throw all logic out the windows? What you say makes no sense? My point still stands battlemech MG are much more powerful and lighter then what we have today get over it.

[PanzerMagier]

SirSmokes, on 15 July 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

So we just throw all logic out the windows? What you say makes no sense? My point still stands battlemech MG are much more powerful and lighter then what we have today get over it.

Yes, this is a game with extremely faulty logic, the science, reality laws of battletech is not even comparable to real life science and reality. So excluding logic is actually a prerequisite. Battletech MG is used for killing infantry, it practically did NOTHING against another mech. Considering that a 6MG jager is quite viable right now, I'd say you people crying over mg's are just being spoiled.

[Warge]

PanzerMagier, on 15 July 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Additionally, that doesn't look like it weighs half a ton.

+2 tons of ammo.

[Boogie Man]

PanzerMagier, on 15 July 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Yes, this is a game with extremely faulty logic, the science, reality laws of battletech is not even comparable to real life science and reality. So excluding logic is actually a prerequisite. Battletech MG is used for killing infantry, it practically did NOTHING against another mech. Considering that a 6MG jager is quite viable right now, I'd say you people crying over mg's are just being spoiled.

I'm sorry but as soon as you slip into the "Used for killing infantry" crap I can't even take you seriously at all. It does the same damage as an AC2 and it does BONUS damage against infantry. That means it worked fine on mechs, but also worked even better on infantry. This does not mean it only works on infantry so stop even saying that tired misinformation. Machine Guns were a real damage source in every other MW title as well.

[Trynn]

Machine guns are over buffed now, They where not intended to be mech killers. a 100 ton mech should not be afraid of them and this is what you are asking. TT values had the Machine gun doing what 1 point of damage at minimal ranges , now you want them to be 300+yard weapons that Shred armour in seconds? Oh noes...we have to maintian our point of aim with MG's ..unfair...unfair,

machine gus are light wiehgt weapons intended within the lore to deal with light mechs, infantry and vehicle, it never was and never should be an effective weapn against anything else. Get overyourselves, and your pet project of making machine guns far more effective that what they should be becuase YOU happen to like them.

IMO: leave the damage where it is (would prefer a nerf) reduce the range to 30 Meters and call it a day,

[Joseph Mallan]

Boogie Man, on 15 July 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

I'm sorry but as soon as you slip into the "Used for killing infantry" crap I can't even take you seriously at all. It does the same damage as an AC2 and it does BONUS damage against infantry. That means it worked fine on mechs, but also worked even better on infantry. This does not mean it only works on infantry so stop even saying that tired misinformation. Machine Guns were a real damage source in every other MW title as well.

It did the same damage on TT... But as gets said so often when a TT player wants to make a balance point..."This isn't TT."

I would hate to see a 0.5 ton weapon doing the same damage as a 6 ton one. Specially since the 6 ton weapon got such a huge boost to total damage output as the AC2 got.

We didn't have fractional accounting when BattleTech came out so we just accepted that the Machine gun was a pop gun to be removed from Mechs for more armor or sinks or maybe a small laser or two. In the MMO we can work a little with what they are, but in the end they are the pea shooter of the Ballistic ranks. They need to stay on par with SRM2 and Small Lasers. Anything more would be silly.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 July 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

I would hate to see a 0.5 ton weapon doing the same damage as a 6 ton one. Specially since the 6 ton weapon got such a huge boost to total damage output as the AC2 got.

It also has severely limited range compared to the 6 ton weapon. Remember, balance isn't only about damage output.

[Rippthrough]

PanzerMagier, on 15 July 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Compared to weapons like the small laser...

Yes, the other half ton weapon, you know, the one with more damage, without the cone of fire and that doesn't run out of ammo.

[Foxfire]

PanzerMagier, on 15 July 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Compared to weapons like the medium laser/ small laser...
You people are asking a lot from a 0.5 ton weapon. I'd say they're pretty damn useful now as a 0.5 ton weapon, everyone who's still bitching just want to see if they can sneak in their 4mg spider to become broken.

tl;dr
Shut up you noise makers.


Additionally, that doesn't look like it weighs half a ton.

Eh.. more like 1.5 tons when you account for ammo... or if you use 4 of them and don't want to run out of ammo quickly(eg a spider 5k)... that is an investment of 1 ton per weapon if you take 2 tons of ammo.

That said.. two things need to really happen for MGs to be truely viable.

1) an elimination of the cone
2) the introduction of critical hits to critical components(which I'd think would take the form of debuffs)


If those two things aren't added, then damage needs to be upped on the weapon to make lighter mechs who are dependent on ballistics (the 5k, the locust, and to a lesser extent, the raven 4x)

[Victor Morson]

Trynn, on 15 July 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Machine guns are over buffed now, They where not intended to be mech killers. a 100 ton mech should not be afraid of them and this is what you are asking. TT values had the Machine gun doing what 1 point of damage at minimal ranges

Oh God I am so sick of this stupid meme that has no basis in TT.

The reason TT players hated MGs isn't that they were better at killing infantry (and then only were with advanced rules), but because FASA nerf'ed a lot of 'mechs by adding twin MGs and a ton of ammo; thus giving the 'mech a chance to suffer ammo explosions, very often, for having a crappy weapon. You would dump the ammo if you could on ANY heavy with twin MGs.

However, they did 2 damage each, and weighed .50 tons. They also cost *1* ammo to fire from your pool of 200.

Have you ever seen a 'mech that runs MORE than 2 MGs?

To better explain this to you, for the same tonnage you could get 4 medium lasers and a heat sink - VERY heat taxing on table top for a light - you could make one with 8 machine guns and a ton of ammo. That's 20 vs 16 damage.. but two alphas and that other light is done. The MG light isn't. It's going to keep going. It doesn't even need to mount a full ton of ammo.

If you want to get really crazy with it, Solaris or custom 'mechs with 14+ MGs - the weight of a single PPC - can deliver 28 damage per turn without heat, then back it with something like an AC/20 and outright obliterate 'mechs in a brawl, alpha striking all day long.

My point is MGs are very good in table top, it's just that they aren't smartly designed into the 'mechs - mostly on purpose. Here however the twin problems of hardpoint limits and less heat means MGs cannot possibly operate the same way.

Edited by Victor Morson, 15 July 2013 - 05:46 PM.

[General Taskeen]

You know what is a more useful 0.5 ton weapon? A Small Laser

Lol.

-> Hmm, let's see, 1 Small Laser does around... 33+ damage in 10-12 seconds. Who cries about Small Lasers, seriously? I do get kills with those.
-> 1 MG does less than 10 damage in 10 seconds. Something wrong with that picture, when 2 MG's should be slightly better than 1 SL.
-> An AC/2 is 2 damage, same as MG in Battle Tech, and the AC/2 is 20x more powerful in MWO than its TT counter-part, while the MG is 20x worse.

Uh, Houston. We have a problem!

Edited by General Taskeen, 15 July 2013 - 06:36 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Rippthrough, on 15 July 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Yes, the other half ton weapon, you know, the one with more damage, without the cone of fire and that doesn't run out of ammo.

And 2x infinity more heat.

[FupDup]

Technoviking, on 15 July 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

And 2x infinity more heat.

2 entire points of heat, brah! That's like, enough to overheat a 6 MG Spider!

Edited by FupDup, 15 July 2013 - 07:54 PM.

[Wolf Ender]

Rippthrough, on 15 July 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Yes, the other half ton weapon, you know, the one with more damage, without the cone of fire and that doesn't run out of ammo.

pretty much says it all right there.

[CeeKay Boques]

FupDup, on 15 July 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

2 entire points of heat, brah! That's like, enough to overheat a 6 MG Spider!

I know, only 2 less than a medium! If only you had a whole ton left!

[Victor Morson]

Technoviking, on 15 July 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

And 2x infinity more heat.

The reason the MG sucks has nothing to do with DPS. It has to do with burst damage.

Small Laser = Only needs to be on target for a second to get it's full DPS, every few seconds.
MG = Needs to be on target the entire small laser recycle to match it's DPS.

That's why in my "Fix" thread (see my sig) I tweaked the database to make the MG do .3 damage instead of .1, but it can only fire for up to 3 seconds (as long as you hold it down / 3 seconds, whichever comes first), after which it has a 2 second cool down.

That way it'd offer more up-front Dakka, still be different than lasers and not be needed as an "on target all the time" weapon.