31 replies to this topic

[RangerGee412]

Just the sound, everything else is cool. Love the sounds in MWO but the machine gun needs a heavier firing sound to it.

[R Razor]

I could get behind this..........currently they sound a lot like an old Trabant trying to climb the A3 hill out of Wurzburg.

[N a p e s]

Topic title took me by surprise.

Personally, I think they already sound great considering what they're doing.

[MeiSooHaityu]

The MGs look wrong too IMO. They should look like a rotoray barrel autocannon similar to what jet fighters carry (like the appearance of the vulcan cannon on an A-10 Warthog). They shouldn't look like assault rifles poking out.

[EyeOne]

Sounds like (pun intended) you need a sub. They sound quite heavy actually.

MeiSooHaityu, on 10 June 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

The MGs look wrong too IMO. They should look like a rotoray barrel autocannon similar to what jet fighters carry (like the appearance of the vulcan cannon on an A-10 Warthog). They shouldn't look like assault rifles poking out.

Well, technically multi barreled guns aren't machine guns.

Edited by EyeOne, 10 June 2014 - 08:15 AM.

[Randodan]

More like a .50 cal, eh?

[Lily from animove]

It indeed soudns a bit like shooting pennies.

[RangerGee412]

I would like it to sound like either a 50 cal with a higher fire rate, or like a GAU8 slowed down a bit.

[ktKAPS]

I was about to say heck NO until I realized it was the sound and in that case two thumbs up.

[stjobe]

EyeOne, on 10 June 2014 - 08:14 AM, said:

Well, technically multi barreled guns aren't machine guns.

Yes they are. There's no limit on the number of barrels on machine guns. The criteria is that they
* fire bullets, not shells.
* are fully automatic.

That's it, no limit on method of operation (gas-driven, electrically powered, or even hand-cranked) or number of barrels.

[Mott]

I say buff their sound (i have great headphones and the MGs still sound like a class of children all firing spitball peashooters at once) and buff their performance.

FFS, .30, .40 and .50 cal machineguns today have better effective max range than 125m... at the very least MWO MGs should reach out effectively to 200m.

[anonymous161]

How about a heavy machine gun for the clans? Does more damage and sounds more bad ass...if they were to have done that I would have kept the clan package but alas I decided to refund due to them being a joke.

[R Razor]

Mott, on 10 June 2014 - 09:14 AM, said:

FFS, .30, .40 and .50 cal machineguns today have better effective max range than 125m... at the very least MWO MGs should reach out effectively to 200m.

Effective against soft targets...........not against heavily armored vehicles such as oh, I don't know, Abrams MBT's or Atlas D-DC's.

[Bobzilla]

Darth Bane001, on 10 June 2014 - 09:16 AM, said:

How about a heavy machine gun for the clans? Does more damage and sounds more bad ass...if they were to have done that I would have kept the clan package but alas I decided to refund due to them being a joke.

It'd be funny if they took the cone off the Clan MG. There's your pinpoint.

[Mott]

R Razor, on 10 June 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

Effective against soft targets...........not against heavily armored vehicles such as oh, I don't know, Abrams MBT's or Atlas D-DC's.

I'm not talking about kill power. Simply range. I don't think they should hit any heavier in-game than they currently do - they're intended as a low power, high ROF crit-seeker; perfect.

But a generally a .50 cal BMG's round has nearly identical velocity and energy at 100 yards to what it does at 200 yards. The MWO (and TT?) limits are laughable. What it does at 120m in MWO it should easily be doing at 200m.

[Ryvucz]

Kind of inside a walking death machine behind tons of metal and ballistic glass.

Not sure how accurate you want it to sound, try ejecting while firing it?

Might sound like what you are expecting.

[R Razor]

Mott, on 10 June 2014 - 09:48 AM, said:

I'm not talking about kill power. Simply range. I don't think they should hit any heavier in-game than they currently do - they're intended as a low power, high ROF crit-seeker; perfect.

But a generally a .50 cal BMG's round has nearly identical velocity and energy at 100 yards to what it does at 200 yards. The MWO (and TT?) limits are laughable. What it does at 120m in MWO it should easily be doing at 200m.

Ahh but the MG's in this game are not supposed to be the equal of today's Machine guns.........keep in mind that they are scaled to reflect the target they are shooting at.........maybe at 300 yards they lack the ability to do more than scratch the paint on a battlemech due to the armor composition of said mech? A .50 BMG at 200 yards isn't going to do much more than make a lot of noise and scuff a lot of paint off of any modern Main Battle Tank after all, so why should these be different?

[Mott]

R Razor, on 10 June 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

so why should these be different?

You continue to miss my point. My fault i suppose. I'll try to clarify.

At any range, all an MG should be doing to a well armored mech is scratching the paint. I'm not disagreeing with that.

However, they exist as high ROF internal crit-seekers when a mech is busted open. So once your mech has been cracked open and has exposed internals and components, there is absolutely no reason that my MGs that can tear you a new one at 100m can't also tear you a new one at 200m (with slightly reduced accuracy).

Edited by Mott, 10 June 2014 - 10:04 AM.

[R Razor]

Mott, on 10 June 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

You continue to miss my point. My fault i suppose. I'll try to clarify.

At any range, all an MG should be doing to a well armored mech is scratching the paint. I'm not disagreeing with that.

However, they exist as high ROF internal crit-seekers when a mech is busted open. So once your mech has been cracked open and has exposed internals and components, there is absolutely no reason that my MGs that can tear you a new one at 100m can't also tear you a new one at 200m (with slightly reduced accuracy).

Okay I reckon I can agree with that logic......although I'm not sure I'd want to see that happen, too many Embers running around having surprise sex with folks as it is.

Edited by R Razor, 10 June 2014 - 10:08 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Mott, on 10 June 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

At any range, all an MG should be doing to a well armored mech is scratching the paint. I'm not disagreeing with that.

Not really though. The autocannon (MG) in an A-10 is designed to tear armored vehicles apart. It isn't called a tank buster for nothing. I am considering an aircraft autocannon like this an MG because it isn't a ballistic "shelled" cannon like an artillery piece or something you would find in a turret of a tank.

Even if you don't want to count an autocannon like the Vulcan cannon as an MG, sniper rifles like the Barrett 50 cal. are designed to fire a round that can punch through light armor. It wouldn't be far off to say a MG in 3050 could fire rapid armor piercing shells that could do at least SLasers type damage to armor.

There is nothing about the MG in this game that I find unfair. If there was one thing they could add, it would be a small and steady increase in heat buildup over continous firing of the MGs (similar to the heat crawl a flamer causes when continously used). It would simulate the heat buildup in the barrel..kind of...sort of