65 replies to this topic

[Monky]

So machineguns shouldn't be viable for brawling

Got it.

[SmurfOff]

Monky, on 15 September 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

So machineguns shouldn't be viable for brawling

Got it.

Um, no, MG's should be friggin awesome for brawling. Basically a rapid fire small laser with no heat. What's not to love? It is just that the developer decided to remove any concept of long range combat, and turn everything into a pee-wee football game with both teams essentially doing spirals of death with torso twisting.

Essentially, game strategy is now focused on min/max build configurations, and zerg swarm tactics.

[aniviron]

Getting pretty tired of every machinegun thread getting derailed into discussions of infantry. There are no infantry in this game. There were MGs in TT before there were infantry. Nobody used MGs in TT because the range was terrible. There are MGs in this game but no infantry, and there are also no other ballistic weapons under six tons, which means light mechs need machineguns to do something useful. It's just good game balance.

You can go burn your TROs, they don't apply here. Lights and mediums need machineguns to have a function. And finally, for the last month or so, MGs have actually been in a state of reasonable balance. You no longer get derided as stupid for taking them, ever since they were changed to do more damage to structure they have a useful niche, and you could reasonably make a build that uses them even if you care about winning, at least a little. Do they still have some problems? Sure, but which weapon system in this game doesn't? They're fairly balanced, kinda fun to use, and there is finally a ballistic weapon for lights to use. I won't let you take that away from me because you are so tied to the rulebooks of a game only somewhat related to this one, where the MGs were most effective against a target that doesn't exist in this game. Stop it.

SmurfOff, on 15 September 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

The reason MG's are broken is due to the way PGI believes the game should be played. In TT, no one mounted MG's because most of the combat was at range, and a 3 hex weapon wasn't very useful. In MWO, the game is being heavily tilted into the "brawl" mentality, which is killing the game and driving every mech build to the "Flavor of the Month".

They gave us alpine to give us a sense of ranged combat, and then immediately nerfed all the ranged weapons so people can "brawl".

If it wasn't for the constant nerf hammers, no one would know what the MG damage was.

I don't.
What.

What were the last seven months of PPCs and Gauss rifles? For over half of a year they were indisputably the best weapons in the game, with the exception of the third LRMpocalypse which lasted all of three days. Do you consider everything under 900m brawling? Because if you do, I can understand why you think brawling has been too good for a long time. Otherwise, I just don't even.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Devils Advocate, on 15 September 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

Didn't the last patch drop their DPS to internals by 70%? Are we talking about two patches ago?

^^^this...OP is misinformed.

[MustrumRidcully]

Bruce13F4O, on 15 September 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

After the last Patch I'm trying to figure out why machine guns needed to do more damage per second. I'm seeing alot of mechs that are swapping out larger balistic weapons for machine guns for brawling. I'm sure that wasnt the intent when the damage was increased.

Why wouldn't that have been intended?

Machine Guns were useless. If people use them now, maybe they are no longer useless? That's a good thing.

Are you arguing they are overpowered? Or do you just think you see too many of them? If you think the latter, think of this - the MG is now basically the ballistic equivalent of the small and medium laser. It's now a ballistic weapon you can carry as a "side weapon" just like SLs and MLs.

Now think about how many mech builds you see that utilize MLs in some capacity!

[MustrumRidcully]

Lynx7725, on 15 September 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

Like I said, it was only good when boated extremely. I know my rules, thanks very much; I probably gamed with it longer than most. I also know most TT designs don't bother with MG if it's meant for a mech-vs-mech situation.

What 1.5 ton weapon system is worth it in the table top on its own? A single small laser and one heat sink are useless on their own ,too.

The specific challenge of the MG is that it's also a weapon that only delivers its damage potenital if you constantly hold down at your enemy. No time for maneuvering or torso twisting. It's the only weapon that is this extreme in that regard. So if you want to use an MG for more than crit-padding, you probably want to equip multiples of them , since other weapons don't require this type of tactic in the first place, and you'd be underutilizing their advantages over the MG.

[stjobe]

Bruce13F4O, on 15 September 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

After the last Patch I'm trying to figure out why machine guns needed to do more damage per second. I'm seeing alot of mechs that are swapping out larger balistic weapons for machine guns for brawling. I'm sure that wasnt the intent when the damage was increased.

The MG was nerfed slightly in the patch before last, and had no change last patch. What are you talking about?

hashinshin, on 15 September 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

Honestly I think PGI should just scrap the entire concept and just bring in Light Rifles and restat them to be a 1 ton ballistic weapon.

The only problem with that is that Light Rifles are unable to do damage to 'mechs and combat vehicles (they get a -3 damage reduction against targets with armour, and do 3 damage).

Lynx7725, on 15 September 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

It's an anti-infantry weapon.

No, it's not. In BT it does 2 damage vs 'mechs, just like the AC/2 or a single SRM. It's at worst a general-purpose weapon, but it has never, ever not done 2 damage vs 'mechs.

Lynx7725, on 15 September 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

MG was never intended to be anti-mech.

Yes, it was intended to be anti-'mech from the get-go - back when 'mechs were all the targets BT had, there were still MGs. And they did 2 damage to 'mechs then, and they still do 2 damage to 'mechs almost 30 years later.

SmurfOff, on 15 September 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

In TT, no one mounted MG's because most of the combat was at range, and a 3 hex weapon wasn't very useful.

In TT, the smart player knew the value of crits and loved having a couple of heat-less extra crit chances. And the smart player also knew that 2 damage was a very serious threat to light 'mechs, so loved having a couple of get-the-hell-off-me no-heat weapons to deter lights from getting closer than 3 hexes.

...

MGs - regardless of their status in BT - should be viable weapons in MWO. Currently they are slightly UP in dual mounts, quite effective in quad mounts, and possibly slightly OP in hexa-mounts on Jagers (but that may well just be the combination of dual large energy weapons to strip armour and six MGs to strip internals). I'd say they're as good as they're going to get (and it was a long, hard slog to get them there, so don't make me campaign for another nine months for a viable MG again...)

Furthermore, the latest adjustment to the MG was a slight nerf, so I don't even know what the OP is on about.

[OneEyed Jack]

Bruce13F4O, on 15 September 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

Basically my point is theres no penalty for constant fire, no heat, and one ton of ammo is 2000 rds. Sure it doesn't do a lot of damage by itself but every other weapon has some kind of penalty.

So, a 200 meter hard-capped range, Cone of Fire and having to be held on target constantly to achieve the tiny DPS it has isn't a penalty?

DocBach, on 15 September 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

I think they do a bit too much for a weapon that weighs half a ton - three tons of MG's does more DPS than a 14 ton AC/20 for no heat and a chance for more damage with criticals.

BZZZZZZzzzzzt!! Try again!
AC20 = DPS 5.0
MG = DPS 1.0

It takes 5 MGs, not 3, at 90 meters or less to match the DPS of a AC20. That requires 100% face time toward your target, and you'd probably still be missing a considerable amount of DPS, since the CoF means that you can be dead center of any but the largest mechs and still have some of the damage missing around them. Not to mention, said CoF means the damage is spread all over the place, and a significant portion will be uselessly hitting components that will have zero effect on the outcome, no matter how good of a shot you are.

By comparison, an AC 20 can do that DPS at 270 meters, and maintain considerable DPS for much further, while allowing the shooter to mitigate return fire by spreading damage or using cover. And a decent shot can usually put it on the location of choice on most mechs.

[Mr 144]

OneEyed Jack, on 16 September 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

It takes 5 MGs, not 3, at 90 meters or less to match the DPS of a AC20. That requires 100% face time toward your target, and you'd probably still be missing a considerable amount of DPS, since the CoF means that you can be dead center of any but the largest mechs and still have some of the damage missing around them. Not to mention, said CoF means the damage is spread all over the place, and a significant portion will be uselessly hitting components that will have zero effect on the outcome, no matter how good of a shot you are.

Ahhh...but a 6xMG + 2xERPPC -DD vs a 2xAC/20 + 2xML -DD at less than 90 meters? Somewhere around here I've done the complete math, along with shutdowns, cooldown, etc...and the MG Jager beats the 40 in a close range brawl as long as ~33% of MG fire is landed....works and tested in-game as well There's alot of reasons for this, chiefly XL in the 40 and a speed advantage in the MG with a standard, but you get the point...

[Modo44]

The MG is a good support weapon and crit/tonnage filler. Most people who call it "useless" do not understand its role and/or do not know that you aim it like a laser, without leading the target.

[MustrumRidcully]

Mr 144, on 16 September 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:

Ahhh...but a 6xMG + 2xERPPC -DD vs a 2xAC/20 + 2xML -DD at less than 90 meters? Somewhere around here I've done the complete math, along with shutdowns, cooldown, etc...and the MG Jager beats the 40 in a close range brawl as long as ~33% of MG fire is landed....works and tested in-game as well There's alot of reasons for this, chiefly XL in the 40 and a speed advantage in the MG with a standard, but you get the point...

That sounds okay to me. Two 65t mech, one with an optimum combat range of 90m, the other with an optimum combat range of 270m, the shorter range mech does indeed beat the longer range mech in close range combat.

[stjobe]

To those that are still clinging to the old "MGs are anti-infantry!" canard, I have a video for you. I found it in S3ditions thread "Fully interactive mechlab" (which I encourage you to have a look at, he's building a 3D mechlab you can walk around in and outfit your 'mech!):



How's that for a sense of scale?

That's a 60-feet tall machine; don't you think it would be ridiculous to put a modern-day man-portable MG on that? Don't you think anything mounted on that, weighing in at 500kg and firing 0.5kg rounds is something a bit more powerful than an "anti-infantry" weapon?

[Wascot]

Mr 144, on 16 September 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:

Ahhh...but a 6xMG + 2xERPPC -DD vs a 2xAC/20 + 2xML -DD at less than 90 meters? Somewhere around here I've done the complete math, along with shutdowns, cooldown, etc...and the MG Jager beats the 40 in a close range brawl as long as ~33% of MG fire is landed....works and tested in-game as well There's alot of reasons for this, chiefly XL in the 40 and a speed advantage in the MG with a standard, but you get the point...

Would be a rather phyrric victory if you eat 2 alphas for 100dmg from that beast, but I suppose a win is a win. Also did you factor in override to your equation? I mean if one of you is going to die and the other end up rather crippled, then may as well blow yourself up to secure the kill!

[Mr 144]

MustrumRidcully, on 16 September 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

That sounds okay to me. Two 65t mech, one with an optimum combat range of 90m, the other with an optimum combat range of 270m, the shorter range mech does indeed beat the longer range mech in close range combat.

me too but ranges do get a bit mucky. The MG build has decent range with the 2xERPPCs beating the 40 in the long game...a good shot with the 40 beats it at short to mid range...and the MG build again dominates at extreme close range....neat it's the exact same chassis to compare too Ghost heat hurt the 40 build, while the heat nerf to PPCs hurt the MG build, so the real world scenarios still hold up...I actually think there's a sort of balance right now between an onbonxious spam build...and a omg pin-point build, which is cool. I personally don't want a MG buff, as any more and this build becomes too obnoxious. I think you were in that thread where I did the hit for hit breakdown on why it works.

Wascot, on 16 September 2013 - 03:32 AM, said:

Would be a rather phyrric victory if you eat 2 alphas for 100dmg from that beast, but I suppose a win is a win. Also did you factor in override to your equation? I mean if one of you is going to die and the other end up rather crippled, then may as well blow yourself up to secure the kill!

No, I didn't factor overides...but I did factor coolshots. And oh yeah...showdown at noon style pyrich victory for sure. There's alot of things that can sway the battle on both builds before 90 meter engagement occurs. As both are poster child builds for different styles...I'm gonna call that balanced

Edited by Mr 144, 16 September 2013 - 03:38 AM.

[King Picollo]

They're great for finishing people off once the armour is stripped.

I've seen a Jagger with twin UAC5's and twin MG's tear through an entire team, the UAC's strip the armour and the MG's finish off in seconds.

[Victor Morson]

Lynx7725, on 15 September 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

MG was never intended to be anti-mech. I don't have an issue with the current implementation since my understanding of the situation both lore and implementation is that it isn't supposed to be anti-mech. I also don't have an issue if PGI wants it to become anti-mech, but then they'd have to scrub the entire current setup and redo.

Why do people keep parroting this?

Some really, really brutal designs in TT are MG boats. MGs are lightweight, 0 heat weapons that are honestly borderline OP when configured on the right light 'mechs. Everyone hates them because a lot of 'mechs have just two, with a ton of ammo, and the fluff declares them anti-infantry.

In reality they do that so the MG ammo makes ammo explosions happen a lot. It's a nerf.

Ignore the fluff. The bottom line is the core stats for the MG make it a devastating 0.5 ton weapon; if you had a light in 3025 running 6+ of them off just 1 ton of ammo, it would be one of the most effective anti-light 'mechs out there.

Edited by Victor Morson, 16 September 2013 - 03:41 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Victor Morson, on 16 September 2013 - 03:40 AM, said:

Why do people keep parroting this?

Some really, really brutal designs in TT are MG boats. MGs are lightweight, 0 heat weapons that are honestly borderline OP when configured on the right light 'mechs. Everyone hates them because a lot of 'mechs have just two, with a ton of ammo, and the fluff declares them anti-infantry.

In reality they do that so the MG ammo makes ammo explosions happen a lot. It's a nerf.

Ignore the fluff. The bottom line is the core stats for the MG make it a devastating 0.5 ton weapon; if you had a light in 3025 running 6+ of them off just 1 ton of ammo, it would be one of the most effective anti-light 'mechs out there.

I think the TT practical limtitation is the turn-based system and movement.

You want to hunt a light with a short range weapon, you basically need to win initiative or you can forget about shooting the gun at a light at all. And even then, you might need to be fast enough to catch up. 3 hexes really isn't much range. Sure, many lights have low range weapons, so they ar enot generally far away from you - but 4+ hex distance is possible.

But when you can get in close range with your MG, it is definitely very powerful, and its heat less nature means it makes an excellent side weapon - you don't need to worry about your sustainability.

Unfortunately, I think, all those advantages and considerations are really neutered by ammo explosions. They happen to easy and deal too much damage, and it's also what basically makes all auto-cannons and missile based weapons too risky. You can probably find a few competitive ballistic weapons in TT that are as powerful or more than energy weapons, but damn it, that ammo explosion really makes them too risky for my taste.

But I am of the opinion that BT is too luck-based in the first place for a strategy game.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 16 September 2013 - 05:09 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Victor Morson, on 16 September 2013 - 03:40 AM, said:

Why do people keep parroting this?

Some really, really brutal designs in TT are MG boats. MGs are lightweight, 0 heat weapons that are honestly borderline OP when configured on the right light 'mechs. Everyone hates them because a lot of 'mechs have just two, with a ton of ammo, and the fluff declares them anti-infantry.

To my memory there is One Clan second line Mech and some Solaris 7 Gladiator Mechs that are Machine gun boats.

Quote

The Piranha was developed by Clan Diamond Shark shortly before the Battle of Tukayyid to combat Inner Sphere conventional infantry and light vehicles.

The MG in BattleTech is for softer targets. Boating 12 of them is what makes the Piranha dangerous to another Mech. Proving as always boating makes anything dangerous.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 16 September 2013 - 04:54 AM.

[Curccu]

stjobe, on 16 September 2013 - 03:19 AM, said:

To those that are still clinging to the old "MGs are anti-infantry!" canard, I have a video for you. I found it in S3ditions thread "Fully interactive mechlab" (which I encourage you to have a look at, he's building a 3D mechlab you can walk around in and outfit your 'mech!):



How's that for a sense of scale?

That's a 60-feet tall machine; don't you think it would be ridiculous to put a modern-day man-portable MG on that? Don't you think anything mounted on that, weighing in at 500kg and firing 0.5kg rounds is something a bit more powerful than an "anti-infantry" weapon?

You should already realize that these MG haters don't/won't have ANY "sense" in this matter, because MG = anti-infantry weapon.

[OneEyed Jack]

To respond to your horribly formatted quote from the BT Wiki (note, it's a freaking Wiki), MGs get a bonus vs infantry and... I guess they're cheap enough to waste on shooting at light vehicles (?)(Not really sure of the reasoning there). So, if you're going to build a mech, with mech weapons, to combat infantry, it only makes sense to use weapons that are particularly effective vs infantry. That doesn't make it a purpose-built anti-infantry weapon.

If you look on YouTube, there's video of a US Army unit calling in support from an A-10 to fire on an infantry position. It makes maybe a 1-second burp and pretty much wipes out the target infantry unit. It was not built to shoot at infantry.