Joseph Mallan, on 19 August 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:
I do not want to see a single Machine gun matching a weapon 12 times its weight. At all. Ever.
It doesn't, there's this thing called 'range'
6
Machineguns And Battlemechs
Started by Caelroigh Blunt, Aug 17 2013 02:47 PM
171 replies to this topic
#81
-
-
- Mercenary
- 1,201 posts
Member
Posted 19 August 2013 - 12:35 PM
It doesn't, there's this thing called 'range'
#82
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 1,161 posts
Member
Posted 19 August 2013 - 12:37 PM
Joseph Mallan, on 19 August 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:
On TT it is a joke weapon unless mounted by the dozen. AC2s are also a PoS on TT. 2 points of damage only scare lights and Mechs with thin armor on the TT game. A MG should be a ballistic version of a small laser.
I agree with you. I think we only differ on how you think my suggested implementation should go. I think they should be a viable short range weapon about equal to a small laser, but requiring ammo. This internal crit damage bonus and 15% crit chance is BS and overly complicated.
#83
Posted 19 August 2013 - 12:44 PM
So long as you are wanting them to be as good as a small laser, we are on the same page ts those folks looking to get them to be just like an AC2 I have a problem with.
So long as you are wanting them to be as good as a small laser, we are on the same page ts those folks looking to get them to be just like an AC2 I have a problem with.
@ Ripp. It's not the range people are trying to get. its a 0.5 ton weapon that does 20 damage in 10 seconds.
So long as you are wanting them to be as good as a small laser, we are on the same page ts those folks looking to get them to be just like an AC2 I have a problem with.
@ Ripp. It's not the range people are trying to get. its a 0.5 ton weapon that does 20 damage in 10 seconds.
#84
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 1,161 posts
Member
Posted 19 August 2013 - 12:46 PM
Joseph Mallan, on 19 August 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:
So long as you are wanting them to be as good as a small laser, we are on the same page ts those folks looking to get them to be just like an AC2 I have a problem with.
So long as you are wanting them to be as good as a small laser, we are on the same page ts those folks looking to get them to be just like an AC2 I have a problem with.
@ Ripp. It's not the range people are trying to get. its a 0.5 ton weapon that does 20 damage in 10 seconds.
So long as you are wanting them to be as good as a small laser, we are on the same page ts those folks looking to get them to be just like an AC2 I have a problem with.
@ Ripp. It's not the range people are trying to get. its a 0.5 ton weapon that does 20 damage in 10 seconds.
Now I see the miscommunication. not 20 damage in 10 seconds... 2 damage in 10 seconds.
#85
Posted 19 August 2013 - 01:15 PM
OP. Machine guns deal damage to mechs because this is a game.
This game is not reality.
This game isn't even accurately based on reality.
What would be the point of a weapon that does not have a function in a game?
Op please, I think you might have a serious concussion from the amount of stupid that fell on your head. You should see a doctor.
This game is not reality.
This game isn't even accurately based on reality.
What would be the point of a weapon that does not have a function in a game?
Op please, I think you might have a serious concussion from the amount of stupid that fell on your head. You should see a doctor.
#86
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 9,498 posts
Member
- LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 19 August 2013 - 01:21 PM
Joseph Mallan, on 19 August 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:
On TT it is a joke weapon unless mounted by the dozen. AC2s are also a PoS on TT. 2 points of damage only scare lights and Mechs with thin armor on the TT game. A MG should be a ballistic version of a small laser.
For someone having played as much TT as you have, you sure seem to be blissfully unaware of the importance of crits in TT. Through-armour crits and the dreaded one-shot-kill was what made MGs relevant to heavier 'mechs. Having a couple of heat-less extra crit-chances from MGs was often the difference between walking away from a fight or not, when 1 in 36 crit-rolls meant instant death for the target.
And, as you so rightly observe, MGs were eminently useful both mounted on and fired against light 'mechs.
The difference between TT's AC/2 and MG wasn't one of damage output, it was one of range, and the AC/2 paid with tonnage for its extremely long range. The MG with its range of 3 hexes was compensated by no heat and low tonnage.
In MWO, of course, the AC/2 has four times the damage output of the MG, making it hard to justify asking for the MG to be "like a short-ranged AC/2" even though that's what it should be. I'll just be happy that it's not useless any more and hope for no nerfs; I actually think it's in a good place right now - situationally powerful.
Edited by stjobe, 19 August 2013 - 01:22 PM.
#87
-
-
- The Hammer
- 47,187 posts
ForumWarrior
- Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 19 August 2013 - 01:33 PM
stjobe, on 19 August 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:
No, there's really no comparison to contemporary weapons.
According to the BattleTech Universe lore, the contemporary main battle tank guns evolved into the Rifle, which was only partially effective versus BattleMech armour, so it in turn evolved into the Autocannon.
The BattleMech-mounted MG is not some little contemporary machine gun, it's a 1000-pound monster of a gun - and it's a fairly safe bet that it too has undergone several hundred years of evolution.
That these weapons happen to share name and/or barrel diameter with some contemporary weapons is just coincidence, the weapons themselves are nothing like our modern-day weaponry.
Let me repeat that: 1000-years-in-the-future sci-fi weaponry is not the same as modern-day real life weaponry.
However if you insist on classifying e.g a Bushmaster in BattleTech terms, it would more likely be classed as a MG than an AC/2 (as would the Vulcan and the GAU-8); the main difference between an AC/2 and a MG in BattleTech is weight (the AC/2 weighs 6 tons, the MG weighs 500 lbs, the Bushmaster 260 lbs) and range - the damage output of the AC/2 and MG is the same.
According to the BattleTech Universe lore, the contemporary main battle tank guns evolved into the Rifle, which was only partially effective versus BattleMech armour, so it in turn evolved into the Autocannon.
The BattleMech-mounted MG is not some little contemporary machine gun, it's a 1000-pound monster of a gun - and it's a fairly safe bet that it too has undergone several hundred years of evolution.
That these weapons happen to share name and/or barrel diameter with some contemporary weapons is just coincidence, the weapons themselves are nothing like our modern-day weaponry.
Let me repeat that: 1000-years-in-the-future sci-fi weaponry is not the same as modern-day real life weaponry.
However if you insist on classifying e.g a Bushmaster in BattleTech terms, it would more likely be classed as a MG than an AC/2 (as would the Vulcan and the GAU-8); the main difference between an AC/2 and a MG in BattleTech is weight (the AC/2 weighs 6 tons, the MG weighs 500 lbs, the Bushmaster 260 lbs) and range - the damage output of the AC/2 and MG is the same.
ftfy my man. fight on!
#88
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 9,498 posts
Member
- LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 19 August 2013 - 01:45 PM
Bishop Steiner, on 19 August 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:
ftfy my man. fight on!
Duh, yes. Thank you. I'm from a country with proper SI units for measurements, I sometimes gaffe when it comes to the weird and wrong Imperial measurements
Edited by stjobe, 19 August 2013 - 01:47 PM.
#89
-
-
- The Hammer
- 47,187 posts
ForumWarrior
- Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 19 August 2013 - 02:01 PM
stjobe, on 19 August 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:
Duh, yes. Thank you. I'm from a country with proper SI units for measurements, I sometimes gaffe when it comes to the weird and wrong Imperial measurements
though funnily enough, those "imperial" measurements originated with one of the most ardent supporters of the SI. Truly a more linear form of measure, but so dry and lifeless. Probably why I never majored in science..... facts over fun!
#90
-
-
- Bad Company
- 636 posts
Member
Posted 19 August 2013 - 02:02 PM
Caelroigh Blunt, on 17 August 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:
I will say it once again: Machineguns should NOT be able to damage BattleMechs. Look (once again) at the real world: Not even a fifty caliber machinegun can do more than scratch the paint of an Abrams tank. How is it possible in ANY universe to make a machinegun a viable weapon against reactive armor plate? Okay, machinegun ammo is better, faster, stronger, more potent in the 31st century. SO IS ARMOR. It's not right and it should be changed.
You know mechwarrior isn't real right? You're on the internet. I'm not even really devil's advocate.
#91
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 9,498 posts
Member
- LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 19 August 2013 - 02:11 PM
Devils Advocate, on 19 August 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:
You know mechwarrior isn't real right? You're on the internet. I'm not even really devil's advocate.
#92
-
-
- The Hammer
- 47,187 posts
ForumWarrior
- Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 19 August 2013 - 02:22 PM
It's just funny how people want to use the "IRL" argument, without even realizing how incorrect their IRL examples are.
Can a .50 BMG pierce the armor of a modern MBT? No, though their are some areas of vulnerability that it CAN damage. And against Lightly Armored TArgets, it is very effective.
the 20mm Vulcan (GAU-4) likewise will do minimal damage to heavy combat armor, but against APC and LIGHT Tanks, is effective. But it is still best against thin skinned objects, like aircraft.
the 30mm GAU-8 will not penetrate the frontal glaces of a modern MBT but can score killing hits on the side rear and especially TOP locations.
Above that we get into things like the 40mm BOFORS, which again, are mostly effective for lighter armor.
That said, we then have to compare TYPES and thicknesses of armor. Not all modern combat vehicles carry Chobham Armour, nor do all carry the same THICKNESS of armor.
To "realistically" emulate weapons on armor, we would need to totally revamp the armor system in battletech, and things like Locusts and WOlfhounds would carry various quantities of splinter armor, mainly effective against light weapons and shrapnel, whilst mechs like the Thunderbolt and Atlas would have futuristics equivalents of Chobham. And then we would get the fun of deciding which guns could effect which types of armor, and then even HOW thick, as a 30mm GAU-8 might penetrate 69 mm of CHobham, but not 70mm (Though it actually would, given time. 69 mm is a SINGLE Projectile strike, I believe). Yet if you double that amount, then effectively the 30mm could NEVER penetrate.
Confused yet? OK. And that is the point. The Combat system in Battletech is a relatively GENERIC system of armor and weapons designed to facilitate and simplify a slow moving game. Autocannons cover a NUMBER of designs, from automatic to single shot, with calibers ranging from 30mm rapid fire AC/2s to 203mm single shot AC20s. All MEchs and vehicles use the same basic type of armor, just in varying thicknesses,hence the "point" system.
And by this system, the 20mm vulcan style MG which is the standard (though some mechs, like the PHX are listed as using some form of 50 caliber, though to infer that to be the sameas a 50 BMG, 1000 years from now is just silly) can and DOES do light damage to mech and tank armor. It needs a long time, or a large number of such guns to do credible damage, but against lightly armored objects, like LIGHT MECHS, APCs and Light Tanks and Aircraft, if can be a reasonable threat. And yes, eventually they can wear down and damage even an Atlas, though that Atlas pilot has to be asleep at the wheel for someone to be able to keep fire on him long enough to matter.
Which is, coincidentally, why the current MG is actually just about perfect. Not "true" to TT, but effective for it's mass. And that is the important part (as for true to TT<....eh. My LB-X solution is not true either, but would make it a much more useful gun)
Can a .50 BMG pierce the armor of a modern MBT? No, though their are some areas of vulnerability that it CAN damage. And against Lightly Armored TArgets, it is very effective.
the 20mm Vulcan (GAU-4) likewise will do minimal damage to heavy combat armor, but against APC and LIGHT Tanks, is effective. But it is still best against thin skinned objects, like aircraft.
the 30mm GAU-8 will not penetrate the frontal glaces of a modern MBT but can score killing hits on the side rear and especially TOP locations.
Above that we get into things like the 40mm BOFORS, which again, are mostly effective for lighter armor.
That said, we then have to compare TYPES and thicknesses of armor. Not all modern combat vehicles carry Chobham Armour, nor do all carry the same THICKNESS of armor.
To "realistically" emulate weapons on armor, we would need to totally revamp the armor system in battletech, and things like Locusts and WOlfhounds would carry various quantities of splinter armor, mainly effective against light weapons and shrapnel, whilst mechs like the Thunderbolt and Atlas would have futuristics equivalents of Chobham. And then we would get the fun of deciding which guns could effect which types of armor, and then even HOW thick, as a 30mm GAU-8 might penetrate 69 mm of CHobham, but not 70mm (Though it actually would, given time. 69 mm is a SINGLE Projectile strike, I believe). Yet if you double that amount, then effectively the 30mm could NEVER penetrate.
Confused yet? OK. And that is the point. The Combat system in Battletech is a relatively GENERIC system of armor and weapons designed to facilitate and simplify a slow moving game. Autocannons cover a NUMBER of designs, from automatic to single shot, with calibers ranging from 30mm rapid fire AC/2s to 203mm single shot AC20s. All MEchs and vehicles use the same basic type of armor, just in varying thicknesses,hence the "point" system.
And by this system, the 20mm vulcan style MG which is the standard (though some mechs, like the PHX are listed as using some form of 50 caliber, though to infer that to be the sameas a 50 BMG, 1000 years from now is just silly) can and DOES do light damage to mech and tank armor. It needs a long time, or a large number of such guns to do credible damage, but against lightly armored objects, like LIGHT MECHS, APCs and Light Tanks and Aircraft, if can be a reasonable threat. And yes, eventually they can wear down and damage even an Atlas, though that Atlas pilot has to be asleep at the wheel for someone to be able to keep fire on him long enough to matter.
Which is, coincidentally, why the current MG is actually just about perfect. Not "true" to TT, but effective for it's mass. And that is the important part (as for true to TT<....eh. My LB-X solution is not true either, but would make it a much more useful gun)
#93
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 9,498 posts
Member
- LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 19 August 2013 - 02:32 PM
Bishop Steiner, on 19 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:
All MEchs and vehicles use the same basic type of armor
Which happens to be ablative, a type of armour we don't even have in real life. The closest thing we have is the heat-shield that protects certain spacecraft on re-entry into the atmosphere.
Which makes the comparisons to contemporary weapon effects on contemporary armour even sillier; BattleTech's 1000-years-in-the-future weapons fire at 1000-years-in-the-future armour that doesn't even have a contemporary equivalent.
It boggles the mind.
#94
-
-
- The Hammer
- 47,187 posts
ForumWarrior
- Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 19 August 2013 - 02:35 PM
stjobe, on 19 August 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:
Which happens to be ablative, a type of armour we don't even have in real life. The closest thing we have is the heat-shield that protects certain spacecraft on re-entry into the atmosphere.
Which makes the comparisons to contemporary weapon effects on contemporary armour even sillier; BattleTech's 1000-years-in-the-future weapons fire at 1000-years-in-the-future armour that doesn't even have a contemporary equivalent.
It boggles the mind.
Which makes the comparisons to contemporary weapon effects on contemporary armour even sillier; BattleTech's 1000-years-in-the-future weapons fire at 1000-years-in-the-future armour that doesn't even have a contemporary equivalent.
It boggles the mind.
Oh. You mean that same heat tile that is damaged if the Shuttle is exposed to HEAVY RAIN?!?!?!?!?!
#95
-
-
- 5,985 posts
Member
- LocationBay Area, California
Posted 19 August 2013 - 02:39 PM
Bishop Steiner, on 19 August 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:
Oh. You mean that same heat tile that is damaged if the Shuttle is exposed to HEAVY RAIN?!?!?!?!?!
Slightly different.
The Shuttle is covered in non-ablative insulating tiles.
Capsules were covered in ablative heat shielding which burned away, but was not vulnerable to rain (to my knowledge).
#96
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 9,498 posts
Member
- LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 19 August 2013 - 02:44 PM
Bishop Steiner, on 19 August 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:
Oh. You mean that same heat tile that is damaged if the Shuttle is exposed to HEAVY RAIN?!?!?!?!?!
Nope, not those, those weren't ablative, they used a ceramic material that had really low heat-transfer. They were much more advanced (and fragile) than the regular heat shield. There were also 31,000 of them, each one unique. It was one of the (many) reasons the Shuttle was very hard to maintain.
I mean like the heat shield on the old Apollo capsules - it heats up and flakes off during re-entry, and the flaking off of the heated material exposes cooler material underneath, effectively shielding the astronauts inside from the searing heat (several thousand degrees).
'Mech armour is supposedly like that; when it takes a hit, a piece flakes off, protecting what's underneath it.
Edited by stjobe, 19 August 2013 - 02:45 PM.
#97
Posted 19 August 2013 - 02:57 PM
stjobe, on 19 August 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:
For someone having played as much TT as you have, you sure seem to be blissfully unaware of the importance of crits in TT. Through-armour crits and the dreaded one-shot-kill was what made MGs relevant to heavier 'mechs. Having a couple of heat-less extra crit-chances from MGs was often the difference between walking away from a fight or not, when 1 in 36 crit-rolls meant instant death for the target.
And, as you so rightly observe, MGs were eminently useful both mounted on and fired against light 'mechs.
The difference between TT's AC/2 and MG wasn't one of damage output, it was one of range, and the AC/2 paid with tonnage for its extremely long range. The MG with its range of 3 hexes was compensated by no heat and low tonnage.
In MWO, of course, the AC/2 has four times the damage output of the MG, making it hard to justify asking for the MG to be "like a short-ranged AC/2" even though that's what it should be. I'll just be happy that it's not useless any more and hope for no nerfs; I actually think it's in a good place right now - situationally powerful.
And, as you so rightly observe, MGs were eminently useful both mounted on and fired against light 'mechs.
The difference between TT's AC/2 and MG wasn't one of damage output, it was one of range, and the AC/2 paid with tonnage for its extremely long range. The MG with its range of 3 hexes was compensated by no heat and low tonnage.
In MWO, of course, the AC/2 has four times the damage output of the MG, making it hard to justify asking for the MG to be "like a short-ranged AC/2" even though that's what it should be. I'll just be happy that it's not useless any more and hope for no nerfs; I actually think it's in a good place right now - situationally powerful.
No no no. I do understand. hat is different from what I am worrying about though.
#98
-
-
- The Guide
- 23,384 posts
Welcoming Committee
Posted 19 August 2013 - 03:51 PM
One thing I should note...
Tabletop, an all powerful anti-battlemech "MG" did 2 damage in 10 seconds. 2 damage and 10 seconds.
At the original firing rate, MWO's MGs did 0.4 damage per second and over 10 seconds, they did 4 damage. 4 damage in 10 seconds.
Twice as powerful in MWO as they are in tabletop, against twice as much armor. Identical results.
"But that isn't enough!"
Then they upgraded it. MWO's upgraded MGs did 0.8 damage per second and over 10 seconds they did 8 damage. 8 damage in 10 seconds.
4 times as powerful versus tabletop, against twice as much armor. That's double the results. These are insanely powerful MGs apparently.
But that still wasn't enough. You want more.
Now it does 1 damage per second, 10 damage over 10 seconds for a half ton MG with no heat generation, and does around 2.65 damage average per second against internals, plus the occasional random chance for a single bullet to spike 3 damage on top of that...
That's 10 damage per 10 seconds against armor. 26.5 damage per 10 seconds against internal structure.
Versus tabletop's 2 damage over 10 seconds. Seriously. The damn thing does 26.5 damage in 10 seconds to your body, plus or minus as that's an average!
If the crit chances for the 3 damage single bullet spike were set to 100% it'd do 300 damage to the enemy's weapons and 145 damage in 10 seconds to your internal structure.
But that still isn't enough!
What more do you want? To load the damn thing with AC/20 rounds? Hate to tell you this, but you already have a 0.5 ton AC/4! If you take the firing rate of the AC/5 and deal 4 damage per interval you actually have slightly lower dps compared to a machine gun!!! You just have to do a little work to bring it to full effectiveness.
Let's take that realistic number for a second.
4 MGs. 106 damage in 10 seconds. That's with the average damage to internal components.
6 MGs. 159 damage in 10 seconds. That's with the average damage to internal components.
Why don't you guys actually try using a machine gun before crying? Strip some armor and then spray.
Actually it is.
A small laser does 3 damage in 3 seconds.
An MG does 1 damage in 1 second, which is 3 damage, in 3 seconds, followed by (when armor is gone) 2.65 damage per second, or 7.95 to Structure (internal health) per 3 seconds.
Edit for the silly:
A small laser actually does 3 damage in 0.75 seconds -- but it takes 2.25 seconds after 0.75 seconds to fire again.
Thus 3 damage per 3 seconds.
Tabletop, an all powerful anti-battlemech "MG" did 2 damage in 10 seconds. 2 damage and 10 seconds.
At the original firing rate, MWO's MGs did 0.4 damage per second and over 10 seconds, they did 4 damage. 4 damage in 10 seconds.
Twice as powerful in MWO as they are in tabletop, against twice as much armor. Identical results.
"But that isn't enough!"
Then they upgraded it. MWO's upgraded MGs did 0.8 damage per second and over 10 seconds they did 8 damage. 8 damage in 10 seconds.
4 times as powerful versus tabletop, against twice as much armor. That's double the results. These are insanely powerful MGs apparently.
But that still wasn't enough. You want more.
Now it does 1 damage per second, 10 damage over 10 seconds for a half ton MG with no heat generation, and does around 2.65 damage average per second against internals, plus the occasional random chance for a single bullet to spike 3 damage on top of that...
That's 10 damage per 10 seconds against armor. 26.5 damage per 10 seconds against internal structure.
Versus tabletop's 2 damage over 10 seconds. Seriously. The damn thing does 26.5 damage in 10 seconds to your body, plus or minus as that's an average!
If the crit chances for the 3 damage single bullet spike were set to 100% it'd do 300 damage to the enemy's weapons and 145 damage in 10 seconds to your internal structure.
But that still isn't enough!
What more do you want? To load the damn thing with AC/20 rounds? Hate to tell you this, but you already have a 0.5 ton AC/4! If you take the firing rate of the AC/5 and deal 4 damage per interval you actually have slightly lower dps compared to a machine gun!!! You just have to do a little work to bring it to full effectiveness.
Let's take that realistic number for a second.
4 MGs. 106 damage in 10 seconds. That's with the average damage to internal components.
6 MGs. 159 damage in 10 seconds. That's with the average damage to internal components.
Why don't you guys actually try using a machine gun before crying? Strip some armor and then spray.
Joseph Mallan, on 19 August 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:
On TT it is a joke weapon unless mounted by the dozen. AC2s are also a PoS on TT. 2 points of damage only scare lights and Mechs with thin armor on the TT game. A MG should be a ballistic version of a small laser.
Actually it is.
A small laser does 3 damage in 3 seconds.
An MG does 1 damage in 1 second, which is 3 damage, in 3 seconds, followed by (when armor is gone) 2.65 damage per second, or 7.95 to Structure (internal health) per 3 seconds.
Edit for the silly:
A small laser actually does 3 damage in 0.75 seconds -- but it takes 2.25 seconds after 0.75 seconds to fire again.
Thus 3 damage per 3 seconds.
Edited by Koniving, 19 August 2013 - 04:02 PM.
#99
Posted 19 August 2013 - 03:52 PM
Koniving, on 19 August 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:
One thing I should note...
Tabletop, an all powerful anti-battlemech "MG" did 2 damage in 10 seconds. 2 damage and 10 seconds.
At the original firing rate, MWO's MGs did 0.4 damage per second and over 10 seconds, they did 4 damage. 4 damage in 10 seconds.
Twice as powerful in MWO as they are in tabletop, against twice as much armor. Identical results.
"But that isn't enough!"
Then they upgraded it. MWO's upgraded MGs did 0.8 damage per second and over 10 seconds they did 8 damage. 8 damage in 10 seconds.
4 times as powerful versus tabletop, against twice as much armor. That's double the results. These are insanely powerful MGs apparently.
But that still wasn't enough. You want more.
Now it does 1 damage per second, 10 damage over 10 seconds for a half ton MG with no heat generation, and does around 2.65 damage average per second against internals, plus the occasional random chance for a single bullet to spike 3 damage on top of that...
That's 10 damage per 10 seconds against armor. 26.5 damage per 10 seconds against internal structure.
Versus tabletop's 2 damage over 10 seconds. Seriously. The damn thing does 26.5 damage in 10 seconds to your body, plus or minus as that's an average!
If the crit chances for the 3 damage single bullet spike were set to 100% it'd do 300 damage to the enemy's weapons and 145 damage in 10 seconds to your internal structure.
But that still isn't enough!
What more do you want? To load the damn thing with AC/20 rounds? Hate to tell you this, but you already have a 0.5 ton AC/4! If you take the firing rate of the AC/5 and deal 4 damage per interval you actually have slightly lower dps compared to a machine gun!!! You just have to do a little work to bring it to full effectiveness.
Let's take that realistic number for a second.
4 MGs. 106 damage in 10 seconds. That's with the average damage to internal components.
6 MGs. 159 damage in 10 seconds. That's with the average damage to internal components.
Why don't you guys actually try using a machine gun before crying? Strip some armor and then spray.
Actually it is.
A small laser does 3 damage in 3 seconds.
An MG does 1 damage in 1 second, which is 3 damage, in 3 seconds, followed by (when armor is gone) 2.65 damage per second, or 7.95 to Structure (internal health) per 3 seconds.
Tabletop, an all powerful anti-battlemech "MG" did 2 damage in 10 seconds. 2 damage and 10 seconds.
At the original firing rate, MWO's MGs did 0.4 damage per second and over 10 seconds, they did 4 damage. 4 damage in 10 seconds.
Twice as powerful in MWO as they are in tabletop, against twice as much armor. Identical results.
"But that isn't enough!"
Then they upgraded it. MWO's upgraded MGs did 0.8 damage per second and over 10 seconds they did 8 damage. 8 damage in 10 seconds.
4 times as powerful versus tabletop, against twice as much armor. That's double the results. These are insanely powerful MGs apparently.
But that still wasn't enough. You want more.
Now it does 1 damage per second, 10 damage over 10 seconds for a half ton MG with no heat generation, and does around 2.65 damage average per second against internals, plus the occasional random chance for a single bullet to spike 3 damage on top of that...
That's 10 damage per 10 seconds against armor. 26.5 damage per 10 seconds against internal structure.
Versus tabletop's 2 damage over 10 seconds. Seriously. The damn thing does 26.5 damage in 10 seconds to your body, plus or minus as that's an average!
If the crit chances for the 3 damage single bullet spike were set to 100% it'd do 300 damage to the enemy's weapons and 145 damage in 10 seconds to your internal structure.
But that still isn't enough!
What more do you want? To load the damn thing with AC/20 rounds? Hate to tell you this, but you already have a 0.5 ton AC/4! If you take the firing rate of the AC/5 and deal 4 damage per interval you actually have slightly lower dps compared to a machine gun!!! You just have to do a little work to bring it to full effectiveness.
Let's take that realistic number for a second.
4 MGs. 106 damage in 10 seconds. That's with the average damage to internal components.
6 MGs. 159 damage in 10 seconds. That's with the average damage to internal components.
Why don't you guys actually try using a machine gun before crying? Strip some armor and then spray.
Actually it is.
A small laser does 3 damage in 3 seconds.
An MG does 1 damage in 1 second, which is 3 damage, in 3 seconds, followed by (when armor is gone) 2.65 damage per second, or 7.95 to Structure (internal health) per 3 seconds.
I love you man!
#100
-
-
- 5,985 posts
Member
- LocationBay Area, California
Posted 19 August 2013 - 03:55 PM
Koniving, on 19 August 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:
Spoiler
They're finally in a good place, or near it, after such monstrous buffs because...
Every other weapon increased it's DPS by a factor of 2-20 compared to TT, no other weapon had a cone added, and every other weapon deals either instantaneous damage or burst damage, MG and flamer are the only weapons that must be held on target 100% of the time to reach full theoretical DPS.
5 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users
