127 replies to this topic

[sneeking]

they are great for been irritating and getting attention, a flamer stacks more psychological bonus when combined with the already inflammatory ratta tatt tat plink plunk noises.

jump out from behind a rock machine gun three or four marching enemy and then bum hug the big guy and flame right out from between his legs, when he looks down n sees that its all on

those guys have just had their attention fully diverted and I guarantee they arnt marching in formation any more

sure, you will take second lowest match score but satisfaction value cannot be underestimated.

[qki]

riiiiight. Because weapons are only fired at max range. If you insist on keeping to the boardgame interpretation of "mini ac2", then hitting anything beyond 90m is impossible, and 60-90m range is usually a 12 roll (1/36 chance) anyway.


See, that's the problem. In the boardgame, all weapons have the same, 10 second cooldown, and range is a MAJOR factor, since it is used to calculate to hit rolls.

In MW games - not so much. And for the record - you can very well fire a MG at a cat at close range, so your horribly exaggerated, and purely hypothetical example (commando at 120m) has no place on he battlefield.

The MG doesn't have to work the same as the other 90% poptart weapons. Even assuming perfect marksmanship with the lasers, a MG is still a viable alternative.

As long as you understand what that alternative means. It is not a replacement damage dealer, but a weapon meant to take advantage of exposed internals. And the 6MG Jager with a pair of can openers is hardly the only loadout worth considering. A fast light that will distract the enemy, and prey on the damaged ones can be just as much of an asset to the team, as a Jenner F packing 6 lasers and pulling its weight in "regular" damage.

Historically (and lorewise), MGs are an anti infantry weapon, and a zero-heat peashooters, akin to a Mech-sized Remington 95, not a main gun. And the light (or even heavy - Whammy and Thud for example) machines that use them, have a Legitimate weapon, if only of limited use.

Most importantly, the light mechs, that cannot realistically mount any serious ballistic weapons, have a viable alternative to leaving all those hardpoints empty.


Seriously people - the 4MG spider is a trial mech right now. Give it a proverbial shot. Stay back, poking the enemy from long range (and odd angles) with the laser, and if you see them damaged, dash in (not at all costs obviously), and try to focus fire on the exposed location (contrary to all the "but RNG" whine, it DOES work).

Play smart, not just twitchy.

[stjobe]

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

your horribly exaggerated, and purely hypothetical example (commando at 120m) has no place on he battlefield.

Take one of your MG 'mechs, drop on the training grounds. Find a Commando and position yourself 120m from it. Fire your MG(s). Observe where damage is done on the paperdoll. "Horribly exaggerated" my sweet behind.

If the MG spread is such a non-factor, would you like the same spread added to other weapons? I can't see you saying no to such a minor change?

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Even assuming perfect marksmanship with the lasers, a MG is still a viable alternative.

Assuming perfect marksmanship with both lasers and MGs, the MG comes up short due to its spread. A certain percentage of your shots will not hit where you aim, another percentage will miss the target completely unless you're butt-humping it.

And furthermore, there's a world of difference between hitting with an instant-damage weapon like an AC, walking in and holding a short-duration beam on target like with lasers, and having to never go off-target at all like with the MG. The more instant the damage, the easier the task gets.

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

As long as you understand what that alternative means. It is not a replacement damage dealer, but a weapon meant to take advantage of exposed internals. And the 6MG Jager with a pair of can openers is hardly the only loadout worth considering. A fast light that will distract the enemy, and prey on the damaged ones can be just as much of an asset to the team, as a Jenner F packing 6 lasers and pulling its weight in "regular" damage.

Distracting the enemy doesn't pay, and a 6ML JR7-F has no problems racking up the damage. Whereas the LCT-1V with its single ML and 4xMG will have a very hard time just staying alive long enough for his "viable" "alternative" weapons - that incidentally comprises 75% of his total weapon weight and 80% of his total number of weapons - to be allowed to come into play. I understand you have no issue with consigning lights to the scavenger role only, but I'd like for them to be a bit more than that.

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Historically (and lorewise), MGs are an anti infantry weapon

Let me just stop you right there, because that's just plain wrong. MGs are, and have always been, anti-'mech weapons that are also very effective against infantry. They are not in any way, shape, or form just anti-infantry. They deal as much damage to a 'mech as an AC/2 in TT, and while there are weapons that have negative damage modifiers when shooting at 'mechs, the MG isn't one of those weapons.

It has survived almost 30 years of rules revisions where there's been ample time to remove the 'mech damage if they were not intended to damage 'mechs, but in the latest revision of the rules they still do 2 damage to 'mechs.

If the MG had followed the same rules as the other weapons did in the conversion from TT, they would have 2 damage per shot and fire twice per second (if they followed the AC/2 rules), or do somewhere between 3 and 5 DPS like all the other ballistics. They would also have a range of 90m and a max range of 270m, and no extra crit chance or bonus crit damage.

For some reason PGI decided to make them "useless against armour" - there's a dev quote somewhere using those exact words - when they weren't in TT, but it's important to remember that this is a PGI invention - in every other incarnation of the BattleTech Universe the 'mech-mounted MG is a fully functional anti-'mech weapon.

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Most importantly, the light mechs, that cannot realistically mount any serious ballistic weapons, have a viable alternative to leaving all those hardpoints empty.

And that's what I'm trying to get through to you - it is exactly these ballistic lights that need the MG to be viable both against armour and internals - because they don't have much other choice in weaponry and their non-MG loadouts are severely limited.

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Seriously people - the 4MG spider is a trial mech right now. Give it a proverbial shot. Stay back, poking the enemy from long range (and odd angles) with the laser, and if you see them damaged, dash in (not at all costs obviously), and try to focus fire on the exposed location

By all means do. Then try the same with a SDR-5D; you can strip the ECM if you want for a more fair comparison.

Then drop a few matches in a LCT-1V, and compare with a few in a LCT-3M; see which one you get better results in. For a final encore, compare and contrast the CDA-3C with the CDA-2A in a couple of drops each.

In all these cases the only difference between the two variants is that one is dependent on the MG whereas the other isn't.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

The op must ne new.

The MG was awesome back be4 they upped the damage and nurfed the crits. But ppl QQed about wanting more damage because they did not bother to learn how to use the MG properly. So the upped the damage and lowered the crits. But that’s typical here. People don’t want to learn how to use something and when and where to use it at its most effective. Instead they just pew pew *drool* pew pew.

I want my MG crits back!

Edited by Funkadelic Mayhem, 02 December 2013 - 04:14 PM.

[stjobe]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 02 December 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

The MG was awesome back be4 they upped the damage and nurfed the crits.

I think you're misremembering something, because they haven't both raised damage and lowered the crit multiplier at the same time.

We've had six variants of the MG (changes between versions marked with an asterisk):

MG Mk. I - The original
Base damage: 0.04
Crit multiplier: 0
Base crit damage: 0.04
Crit chance: 25-14-3%
Bonus IS damage: 0%
Introduced: 2012-05-22
Retired: 2013-02-19
Days in active service: 273

MG Mk. II - First crit version
Base damage: 0.04
* Crit multiplier: 12.5
* Base crit damage: 0.5
* Crit chance: 39-22-6%
Bonus IS damage: 0%
Introduced: 2013-02-19
Retired: 2013-05-21
Days in active service: 91

MG Mk. III - First buffed version
* Base damage: 0.08
Crit multiplier: 12.5
* Base crit damage: 1.0
* Crit chance: 36-20-5%
Bonus IS damage: 0%
Introduced: 2013-05-21
Retired: 2013-06-18
Days in active service: 28

MG Mk. IV - Second buffed version
* Base damage: 0.1
Crit multiplier: 12.5
* Base crit damage: 1.25
Crit chance: 36-20-5%
Bonus IS damage: 0%
Introduced: 2013-06-18
Retired: 2013-08-06
Days in active service: 49

MG Mk. V - The "lost" version
Base damage: 0.1
Crit multiplier: 12.5
Base crit damage: 1.25
Crit chance: 36-20-5%
* Bonus IS damage: 15%
Introduced: 2013-08-06
Retired: 2013-08-20
Days in active service: 14

MG Mk. VI - The current version
Base damage: 0.1
* Crit multiplier: 9
* Base crit damage: 0.9
* Crit chance: 31-17-4%
Bonus IS damage: 15%
Introduced: 2013-08-20
Retired: In service
Days in active service: 105 as per 2013-12-03

The "lost" version, MG Mk V, was live for just one patch cycle, the two weeks between August 6th and August 20th 2013.

Edit: Added some readability to the versions and added some data (crit chances and time in game).

Edited by stjobe, 03 December 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

stjobe, on 02 December 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

I think you're misremembering something, because they haven't both raised damage and lowered the crit multiplier at the same time.

Le Sigh
where did i say "same time"?

[Amsro]

qki, on 02 December 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

riiiiight. Because weapons are only fired at max range. If you insist on keeping to the boardgame interpretation of "mini ac2", then hitting anything beyond 90m is impossible, and 60-90m range is usually a 12 roll (1/36 chance) anyway.


See, that's the problem. In the boardgame, all weapons have the same, 10 second cooldown, and range is a MAJOR factor, since it is used to calculate to hit rolls.

In MW games - not so much. And for the record - you can very well fire a MG at a cat at close range, so your horribly exaggerated, and purely hypothetical example (commando at 120m) has no place on he battlefield.

The MG doesn't have to work the same as the other 90% poptart weapons. Even assuming perfect marksmanship with the lasers, a MG is still a viable alternative.

As long as you understand what that alternative means. It is not a replacement damage dealer, but a weapon meant to take advantage of exposed internals. And the 6MG Jager with a pair of can openers is hardly the only loadout worth considering. A fast light that will distract the enemy, and prey on the damaged ones can be just as much of an asset to the team, as a Jenner F packing 6 lasers and pulling its weight in "regular" damage.

Historically (and lorewise), MGs are an anti infantry weapon, and a zero-heat peashooters, akin to a Mech-sized Remington 95, not a main gun. And the light (or even heavy - Whammy and Thud for example) machines that use them, have a Legitimate weapon, if only of limited use.

Most importantly, the light mechs, that cannot realistically mount any serious ballistic weapons, have a viable alternative to leaving all those hardpoints empty.


Seriously people - the 4MG spider is a trial mech right now. Give it a proverbial shot. Stay back, poking the enemy from long range (and odd angles) with the laser, and if you see them damaged, dash in (not at all costs obviously), and try to focus fire on the exposed location (contrary to all the "but RNG" whine, it DOES work).

Play smart, not just twitchy.

I have all 3 spiders, and while the 5K is fun and a great trolling mech it is simply outclassed by the 5D.

The cone of fire on the machine gun makes it comical outside of 50 meters.

[Artgathan]

Another key point not to forget in this discussion is the opportunity cost of MGs.

Consider that's 66% of a mech's health is it's armor. Therefore, by bringing an MG you are picking a weapon that will only be "useful" 33% of the time.

So - it does 1 DPS against armor, and 2 DPS again internals. This gives it an average DPS of 1.32 - NOT an average DPS of 1.5.

[General Taskeen]

I think I said I wanted the MG to do damage to armor and not internals like... a lot. As in like, a new firing mechanic. Its too much to ask though, just toooo much.

Doesn't get through to the Devs. Still worst MG in any Mech game. Worst than TT. Do I try to use it, just because it shoots boolets? Yeah. And that's why I don't post for more MG changes - its the Devs baby. If you are reading this Dev person, you know its true.

Edited by General Taskeen, 02 December 2013 - 07:02 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

To be honest I do enjoy the continuous fire mechanic, and don't really want to see it as a burst fire weapon. That said the spread should be reduced by half (but still eave it in).
The easiest fix is to simply up the damage against armour a bit. Buffing the MG isn't going to end up being the next UAC5 apocolypse. MG's are more than balanced by thier range.

And before anyone says anything about 0 heat again, I'd like to point out that the heat generated by most Autocannons outside of the AC2, AC20(ghost heat) and UAC5 is completely negligable. My dual AC5 hawk with only 10 HS has never had any troubles with heat at all.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 02 December 2013 - 07:39 PM.

[Deathlike]

Is it just me, or was it qki or someone else that advocated that SHS was better than DHS?

I simply remember the arguments stemming from that thread of fail because "it felt better" for the person in question that 4 SHS on the feet of a mech "felt better" than straight DHS.... despite the #s bearing out that DHS was better across the board.

[qki]

It might have been me, if you insist on removing your brain from the conversation. I never said SHS were better than DHS, but I did, and i DO INSIST, that you don't need DHS on every mech.

Not really willing to open that can of worms again, but you people need a serious helping of L2P. Really. Learn the damn game, then come back and QQ about it.

Since you brought up the heat sink question, you have two (equally comical, and equally wrong) arguments here. Some people dismissed SHS as utterly useless, because DHS allow you to sustain dps longer (thereby implying that the only effective way to play is to apply constant fire), and now some other clueless dude is dismissing all that, because apparently, the ability to fire a burst and then go do something else is way superior.


Really? Make up your mind people. And no - I'm not going to play into your re***ded example and fire at a commando from 120 meters away, to "prove" the machinegun is useless. You know what I'm going yo do? I'm gona park 50m behind an atlas, and tear it apart in 13 seconds flat. Where is your god now?

Get this already - ideal conditions exist only on paper, and on the battlefield, the best you can do with that paper, is wipe your ***.
Tactics people - they effing work. Don't try to play your MG mech the same way you would play a laser mech - that DOESN'T work. But play to your strengths, and it's a whole different game. But i guess some people are too busy pretending to be good, that they never learn.

Use the damn trial spider. Didn't get the same results as with your "optimal" laser build? How about you try and figure out what YOU did wrong there, instead of starting with the assumption that you did everything perfect, and it's the weapon that is to blame?


I'm telling you right now. I am nowhere near being an elite pilot, but if I can get good results with the MG spider, then there are only two possible situations: either you can do it too, or you suck at playing this game, plain and simple.

[stjobe]

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

Since you brought up the heat sink question, you have two (equally comical, and equally wrong) arguments here. Some people dismissed SHS as utterly useless, because DHS allow you to sustain dps longer (thereby implying that the only effective way to play is to apply constant fire), and now some other clueless dude is dismissing all that, because apparently, the ability to fire a burst and then go do something else is way superior.

The ability to fire a burst and then "go do something else" (meaning torso twist to spread incoming damage) during the weapon cooldown is way superior to having to constantly be on-target or lose DPS. Unless you want to claim torso-twisting does not increase survivability, of course. It in no way contradicts that DHS help you sustain DPS longer, the two are wholly unrelated.

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

And no - I'm not going to play into your re***ded example and fire at a commando from 120 meters away, to "prove" the machinegun is useless.

It's not to "prove the machinegun is useless", it's to prove that the spread is very real and very large - which you seem to ignore, repeatedly dismissing it as no big deal. Again, would you care to have the same spread on ACs and lasers? If not, why not?

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

You know what I'm going yo do? I'm gona park 50m behind an atlas, and tear it apart in 13 seconds flat. Where is your god now?

At least the numbers are in the right ballpark as compared to the other poster that claimed it took 2 seconds to kill an Atlas with MGs - he must have been channelling the 6MG Spider God...

Given a stock D-DC with 20 rear side torso armour, 4xMG takes 5 seconds to strip the armour, and another 5.2 seconds or so to destroy the internals. If you try to go through the rear center torso, you would need a bit more than 13 seconds to do it (7.5s to go trough the armour and 7.75s to go through the internal structure, so 15.25 seconds).

And that's if you manage to stay on-target for those 11-15 seconds, and you're close enough that the spread doesn't put half your damage on the adjoining torso sections. That Atlas better be sleeping.

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

Get this already - ideal conditions exist only on paper, and on the battlefield, the best you can do with that paper, is wipe your ***.

Exactly. The "ideal conditions" where the MG gets it theoretical DPS is on paper only; that's why it needs a slight buff, like the removal of its spread.

[EnigmaNL]

The MG is fine as it is, I really like it. When I run around in my Spider with 4MG's it can take out a lot of 'mechs that are already damaged which is what it should be like in my opinion.

Spread is fine as well, it forces people to get closer.

[qki]

The 13 seconds is to kill an undamaged atlas with an alpha strike from behind. 1 ML and 4MG. Killing an atlas with no rear armour, using just the mgs is about 6 seconds.

2 seconds is either very distorted perception of time for some people, or a very damaged atlas.

Numbers aside - what makes you think you should be able to hit stuff with pinpoint accuracy at 120m? Going by the TT values, hitting a target 3 hexes (90m) away is usually a 12 roll (assuming 4 gunnery, +2 move and +4 range mod, enemy movement puts you in the 11-13 range), and if your target is moving at 90 kph, then it's imposible to hit, even if you are technically in range.

So much for the math.


And there seems to be a misunderstanding here - I'm not saying the MG doesn't have spread. While I was at it, I did fire at the 120m away commando (shots all over the place). I'm saying that it doesn't matter all that much, because once you get within 60-70 meters (and that's not difficult in a fast mech), the picture changes dramatically. Now, the target fills most of your screen, and you don't need to hammer away for very long - 6 seconds isn't that long, given the fatlas is on a 3 sec cooldown with his guns.

If you can accept that the MG is not meant to be a replacement, or a straight up competition for the lasers, and use it the way it is supposed to be used (a very close range weapon), the situation changes.


I'm not saying either way is better, but both fire+cooldown and continous fire mechanics have their pros and cons.

If you attack from behind, or other odd angle, where the target is unable to fire back, then it doesn't matter if you twist or not - there is no return fire. In this case, 1s burn, 3s cooldown, and another 1s burn to do 18 damage total has to compete with a good 2s burst (doing 16 damage to internals - easily doable vs slower targets), and generating far less heat.

What I left out of this example, was the fact that using a large laser, this can be done from 500m away, and with the MG you need to get in much closer, and the numbers are only true if the target area has no armour on it.

And that's the key here - instead of trying to use both weapons in the same way, you play to your strengths. Generally, you can say that the extra range of the LL makes it superior, because you can do this from any range, but once you factor in the actual battlefield, the line is blurry.


Just like the pointless DHS debacle - there is no doubt they are superior to SHS (they are supposed to be for crying out loud), but it's just not always relevant. I've posted loadouts using SHS, and always some jerk would show up, repost the design with DHS and use that as "proof" of his superiority, completely missing the point (that I didn't need to cool down faster, just fast enough). Same here. MGs have spread when fired at extreme range, and yes, they require you to track the target, which, at first glance, SEEMS much worse than the fire and forget nature of the laser, but in some cases it is irrelevant. The trick, is playing those cases, and that requires a different approach (and some people are not flexible enough for that).

[stjobe]

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Numbers aside - what makes you think you should be able to hit stuff with pinpoint accuracy at 120m?

The fact that all other direct-fire weapons sans the Flamer and LBX is pin-point accurate out to their max range?

In effect, what I'm asking is "why the special treatment for the MG?". It could be the ballistic equivalent of the Small Laser that ballistic lights are in such dire need of, but instead the devs in their infinite wisdom decided to screw ballistic lights over and make the MG a "crit weapon" - a niche that's not really needed, and if they absolutely have to have it they could have used the LBX for instead - a much saner choice. The MG needs to be a viable damage-dealer, or ballistic lights will forever be sub-par.

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Going by the TT values, hitting a target 3 hexes (90m) away is usually a 12 roll (assuming 4 gunnery, +2 move and +4 range mod, enemy movement puts you in the 11-13 range), and if your target is moving at 90 kph, then it's imposible to hit, even if you are technically in range.

There's no to-hit roll in MWO - except for the MG. The spread needs to go, or alternatively be implemented for all other direct-fire weapons.

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

And there seems to be a misunderstanding here - I'm not saying the MG doesn't have spread.

No, you just told me to "stop with the RNG gibberish" when I brought it up.

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

While I was at it, I did fire at the 120m away commando (shots all over the place). I'm saying that it doesn't matter all that much

So you would be okay with the same spread on all the other direct-fire weapons then?

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

If you can accept that the MG is not meant to be a replacement, or a straight up competition for the lasers, and use it the way it is supposed to be used (a very close range weapon), the situation changes.

I can't accept that because the MG needs to be the ballistic equivalent of the Small Laser or ballistic lights are toast.

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

I'm not saying either way is better, but both fire+cooldown and continous fire mechanics have their pros and cons.

There is no "pro" with continuous-fire.

The best fire mechanic is instant-damage (and I'd like to see that removed as well, but that's for another thread). The second best is beam/burst duration and cooldown, and a distant third is continuous-fire. Continuous-fire negates any attempt at defensive maneuvering and forces you to expose one aspect of yourself to the enemy at all times or you will lose DPS.

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

MGs have spread when fired at extreme range

No, they have spread when fired at what's supposed to be their "effective" range. 8-10m radius at 120m is not "extreme range".

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

and yes, they require you to track the target, which, at first glance, SEEMS much worse than the fire and forget nature of the laser, but in some cases it is irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant in contrived theoretical situations like that sleeping Atlas you talked about earlier.

There's no getting around it; ballistic lights need a viable damage-dealing MG, and they don't currently have it. Fortunately, we're almost there and all that would be needed at this point would be to remove the spread from the MG and it would most likely be okay.

[qki]

I told you to stop the gibberish, because that's what it is. You keep asking for an "equivalent weapon", so that ballistic lights can do exactly the same thing that energy lights are doing, only with bullets.

And I say, that's wrong. Use the MG for what it is, and stop judging everything by one, very narrow, standard.


You come up behind a heavy, who is most likely in tunnel vision mode, and it takes him a good while to react. Meaning that it doesn't matter if your weapon is shot+cooldown, or a 2-3 second stream of lead. The on and off nature of continous fire is a pro. Somehow, people had no problem using lightning guns and chainguns against the pinpoint, insta-damage railgun.

It really depends on the battlefield conditions, but you have your head set on your "perfect math logic" that I can easily disprove with a single foray into the battlefield. So I say again - learn to play instead of trolling the forums with long posts about things you haven't got the slightest clue about.

[Joseph Mallan]

StJobe I will agree with qki on one point. A machine gun should not be Pin Point damage. A rapid fire weapon is anything besides accurate.

[stjobe]

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

I told you to stop the gibberish, because that's what it is.

MGs have RNG spread, what is gibberish about that? A spread that makes sure that you won't hit what you aim at, which in turn artificially lowers the effective DPS from the already low 1.0 it theoretically has. The continuous-fire mechanic further lowers the effective DPS in any real game situation where you're firing at moving target while maneuvering yourself.

The only gibberish here is you saying that the spread isn't a big deal (and refusing to acknowledge that you wouldn't accept the very same spread on any other direct-fire weapon).

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

You keep asking for an "equivalent weapon", so that ballistic lights can do exactly the same thing that energy lights are doing, only with bullets.

For ballistic lights, there is either that or forever relegate them to non-combat roles. And if you haven't noticed, there are no non-combat roles in MWO.

There is no other ballistic weapon for the LCT-1V, the SDR-5K, or the CDA-3C to mount except the MG, and they have a severe lack of non-ballistic hard points. Do you like the SDR-5V? Do you think it's a combat-effective 'mech? Do you think it's a fun 'mech to play? To Master? Without a viable MG, ballistic lights are little better than the SDR-5V.

qki, on 03 December 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

And I say, that's wrong. Use the MG for what it is, and stop judging everything by one, very narrow, standard.

The only thing I've asked for in this thread is the removal of the RNG spread from MGs. You seem to think the spread is no big deal, so why not remove it then? What purpose does it serve? What benefit does it bring to the MG? What point is there to keep it?

Joseph Mallan, on 03 December 2013 - 04:18 AM, said:

StJobe I will agree with qki on one point. A machine gun should not be Pin Point damage. A rapid fire weapon is anything besides accurate.

And still you want your AC/20 to be pin-point accurate; something that's described in lore as "basically a giant machine gun", firing "100-shot bursts". Where's the consistency, Joe?

As for rapid-fire weapons not being accurate, I could smack you over the head with a coaxial MG or a rapid-fire naval cannon, but I think you really know better and you're just stuck on the name "machine gun", conjuring up images of Rambo and his one-handed M60s.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 03 December 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

And still you want your AC/20 to be pin-point accurate; something that's described in lore as "basically a giant machine gun", firing "100-shot bursts". Where's the consistency, Joe?

Cause to me it is a Cannon more than a big honking Machine gun. I can work with that. A Machine gun is firing 40 rounds for every one my AC20 does. And if the Machine gun is going to be a DpS weapon, like lasers, then its damage should be treated like a laser... including a cool down. There are rules for firing a Machine Gun the way we do in MW:O, and those rules include a Machine Gun generating heat for mashing the trigger the way we do in MW:O. So if we want to fire a MG the way it is being fired now, take the negative with the positive. Look it up if you don't know the TT (advanced)rules for what we are seeing n MW:O. MGs should be building heat the way we are using them here.

Also as it is being done here... Auto cannons are not rapid fire in the least... well the AC2 may be at the low end of present day ACs.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 December 2013 - 07:48 AM.