171 replies to this topic

[Caelroigh Blunt]

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.

[Pyrrho]

You have barked up a tree which has been being barked up since the dawn of... well, in which universe do you want to have this boring old conversation?

[Rippthrough]

Since I don't feel like going through this **** again, for the 900th time, you're wrong. /thread

Edited by Rippthrough, 17 August 2013 - 02:50 PM.

[Xanquil]

Having seen a T80 destroyed by a m19 fully automatic grenade launcher, and having holes punched into my APC by less than a .50cal, I can tell you for a fact that you are wrong. And a .50cal can indeed damage an Abrams it just takes it just takes a lot of amo or a lucky hit to take one out with one.

[Mcgral18]

Not to mention the fact that the MWO MG would be more like the Gau-8 Avenger, shooting 30MM rounds. AKA, a tank hunter. It will take down armor just fine, though apparently we get a crit seeking weapon.

[Lord Ikka]

You know, if it was a real-world discussion, you would be right. Machine guns should not be able to damage 100-ton walking tanks. However, it is a fictional universe, and even in the first book of the Gray Death Legion trilogy you will see Grayson take out an enemy Mech by blasting its cockpit with MG fire. Leave real-world out of it.

MGs are not OP in this game. They are specifically designed to destroy internal components after other weapons have stripped armor. Even with their updated damage MGs do crap damage to a component with armor, but they are deadly when armor is gone. Having 20mm armor-piercing bullets bouncing around in your components would suck, so it makes sense.

Edit: MG mm changed per Strum Wealth's info. Thanks!

Edited by Lord Ikka, 17 August 2013 - 07:34 PM.

[MonkeyCheese]

Lord Ikka, on 17 August 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

MGs are not OP in this game. They are specifically designed to destroy internal components after other weapons have stripped armor.

Quote for the truth

/thread

[Hexenhammer]

This is like complaining about how superman's powers make no sense but batman is totally logical.

[OneEyed Jack]

How can anyone be so dense as to see "MG: 0.5 tons" (metric, btw) and still be willing to suggest publicly that it bears any resemblance to a .50 cal?

[Strum Wealh]

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.

Most BT references for the Machine Gun give it as a 20mm weapon, making it more similar to the M61 Vulcan (Gatling-type weapon that uses a 20mm x 102mm cartridge) or the M39 Cannon (revolver-type weapon that uses a 20mm x 102mm cartridge), than to the 0.50 caliber M2 Browning (which uses a 12.7mm x 99mm cartridge).

Mcgral18, on 17 August 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

Not to mention the fact that the MWO MG would be more like the Gau-8 Avenger, shooting 30MM rounds. AKA, a tank hunter. It will take down armor just fine, though apparently we get a crit seeking weapon.

Lord Ikka, on 17 August 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

You know, if it was a real-world discussion, you would be right. Machine guns should not be able to damage 100-ton walking tanks. However, it is a fictional universe, and even in the first book of the Gray Death Legion trilogy you will see Grayson take out an enemy Mech by blasting its cockpit with MG fire. Leave real-world out of it.

MGs are not OP in this game. They are specifically designed to destroy internal components after other weapons have stripped armor. Even with their updated damage MGs do crap damage to a component with armor, but they are deadly when armor is gone. Having 30mm armor-piercing bullets bouncing around in your components would suck, so it makes sense.

MGs are 20mm weapons (and fire bullets, which are by definition solid and non-explosive projectiles); 30mm weapons (especially those that fire explosive shells rather than bullets) are AC/2s.

That is, the MG would be equivalent to the M61 or the M39 (sans the bullet vs shell issue), while the GAU-8 would be the equivalent of a RAC/2 (with the standard, non-rotary AC/2 being more similar to the ADEN cannon, the DEFA cannon, or the MK 108 cannon).

Edited by Strum Wealh, 17 August 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[Drasari]

Well you are correct, in some way; the MG does crap damage against armor but once it is stripped......well thats when the fun begins.

So it sounds like to me, that it's doing exactly what you think it should.

[Lord Ikka]

This current version of the MG is the first time it's actually been useful. Ever since Closed Beta MGs were a joke, only useful for "maybe" distracting a newer player by hitting their cockpit. Now they have a use- destroying via crits enemy components. They are still not OP, as even a Jagermech with 6 MGs has to have other weapons to actually do the necessary damage to an enemy's armor before the MGs do a lot of damage.

[MnDragon]

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.

"The Bradley is equipped with the M242 25 mm chain gun as its main weapon. The M242 has a single barrel with an integrated dual-feed mechanism and remote feed selection.^[3] The gun contains ammunition in two ready boxes of 70 rounds and 230 rounds each for a total of 300 ready rounds and carries 600 rounds in storage (in the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle variant) or 1200 stowed rounds (in the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle variant). The two ready boxes allow a selectable mix of rounds such as the M791 APDS-T (Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot (with) Tracer), and M792 HEI-T (High Explosive Incendiary (with) Tracer) rounds. The tungsten APDS-T rounds proved highly effective in Desert Storm being capable of knocking out many Iraqi vehicles including several kills on T-55 tanks. There have even been reports of kills against Iraqi T-72 tanks at close range.^{[citation needed]} Subsequent ammunition developments resulted in the M919 APFSDS-T (Armor-Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot with Tracer) round, which contains a finned depleted uranium penetrator similar in concept to armor piercing munitions used in modern tanks. The M919 was used in combat during the 2003 invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom"...Need I say more???

[Lil Cthulhu]

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Gun
Technical specifications Heat 0 Damage 2 Minimum Range 0

Damage 2

Damage 2

Damage 2

Damage 2

[Monky]

If only they hadn't decided to call them machineguns in the first place, threads like this could have been avoided

Light AC or something would make more sense with their function.

[Bullseye69]

According to smurfy's weapon chart

Machine guns do 1 DPS per second has no cool down and no heat.

That means a jagermech with 6 machine guns does 6dps per second.

That means for 10 seconds of fire it did 60 points of damage and fired 60 bullets.

60 points of every 10 seconds for 60 seconds is 360 points of damage in a minute.

360 points of damage for 2 minutes is 720 points of damage.

I don't know nay mech that has 720 points of armor on any place so machine gun 720 bullets used, one dead enemy mech.

The mech still has 1280 rounds of ammo left on that one ton he spent for 2000 rounds.

I just constructed a jagermech with full armor, 300 stock engine 6 machine guns and 2 er ppc plus 6000 round of machine gun ammo with case the rest of the weight was double heat sink and had a non speed tweak of over 73 kph. The only down side i see on that mech as far as the machine guns is that it only has 3 tons of ammo and that is only 6000 rounds.
Which means it can fire from start of match and barring destruction fire for 15 minutes straight without running out of ammo and at games end still have 600 round of ammo left. That is if smurfy's damage chart is right and it only does 1 damage a second from 1 machine gun multiplied by the 6 machine guns you have , that a lot of damage for any mech especailly one that faster than a lot of assault and some heavys.

[Monky]

Bullseye69, on 17 August 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

According to smurfy's weapon chart

Machine guns do 1 DPS per second has no cool down and no heat.

That means a jagermech with 6 machine guns does 6dps per second.

That means for 10 seconds of fire it did 60 points of damage and fired 60 bullets.

60 points of every 10 seconds for 60 seconds is 360 points of damage in a minute.

360 points of damage for 2 minutes is 720 points of damage.

I don't know nay mech that has 720 points of armor on any place so machine gun 720 bullets used, one dead enemy mech.

The mech still has 1280 rounds of ammo left on that one ton he spent for 2000 rounds.

I just constructed a jagermech with full armor, 300 stock engine 6 machine guns and 2 er ppc plus 6000 round of machine gun ammo with case the rest of the weight was double heat sink and had a non speed tweak of over 73 kph. The only down side i see on that mech as far as the machine guns is that it only has 3 tons of ammo and that is only 6000 rounds.
Which means it can fire from start of match and barring destruction fire for 15 minutes straight without running out of ammo and at games end still have 600 round of ammo left. That is if smurfy's damage chart is right and it only does 1 damage a second from 1 machine gun multiplied by the 6 machine guns you have , that a lot of damage for any mech especailly one that faster than a lot of assault and some heavys.

MG's go through ammo at a much greater rate than you're suggesting, it's about 8 bullets per second per MG (supposed to be 10 but that isn't what is being measured in live). Also, each bullet contributes a portion of that 1 DPS, it's not 1 damage per bullet.

Edited by Monky, 17 August 2013 - 06:06 PM.

[General Taskeen]

Must we inform every person that doesn't know anything about Battle Tech?

MG's are not hand held guns on Mechs. They do damage, actually, they do the same damage as AC/2 in Battle Tech, unreal right?

Please play MW3 or 4 before posting that an MG does not damage a Battle Mech.

Edited by General Taskeen, 17 August 2013 - 06:07 PM.

[One Medic Army]

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.

Replace "Machine gun" with "Automatic 20mm firearm"

Now stop b****ing.

[Sephlock]

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.

And I was in such a good mood before I read this nonsense, too .

Edited by Sephlock, 17 August 2013 - 06:36 PM.