236 replies to this topic

[Alek Ituin]

Metus regem, on 09 March 2015 - 09:40 AM, said:

No it wasn't... it made me very, very sad, to lose a fresh WHM-6R to a Locust 1V, due to a lucky hit.

...

You're just making it more interesting. Losing a fresh Heavy to a Light as bad as a the Locust? Damn those through armor crits, but that's still funny. It also seems like the MG was kind of useful in TT... Wish it was useful in MWO.

[Bluttrunken]

DarthHias, on 09 March 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:

Machine Gun Arrays would really be nice, but unfortunately not until 3068...

http://www.sarna.net...chine_Gun_Array

Man, I love the Dakka Sound of Clan MG's as it is but 2-3 of these arrays. That would be heaven.

Boot up some Punk or Grindcore, load up your MG arrays, and just have plain fun.

[Metus regem]

Alek Ituin, on 09 March 2015 - 09:56 AM, said:

...

You're just making it more interesting. Losing a fresh Heavy to a Light as bad as a the Locust? Damn those through armor crits, but that's still funny. It also seems like the MG was kind of useful in TT... Wish it was useful in MWO.

2 damage, no heat and a range of 1/2/3 (s/m/l)... put it on something fast like a Locust and good luck hitting it...

The Locust got with in 2 hexs of my WHM6-R, so my PPC's were giving me an extra +2 to hit, it ran a crap ton, I was looking at needing 14's on 2d6 to hit the stupid thing with the PPC's everything else needed 12's or 13's.... It needed 8's with the MG's to hit my Warhammer...

[Hawk819]

Machine guns are the poor man's Autocannon. Instead of nerf n smurf, I'd go this way. If said `Mech, say JagerMech, has Machine guns, then it should be allowed to mount them. However, the JagerMech does not mount Machine Guns and should not have them at any given time in the game.

It boils down to this: note to all newbs, use your brain not a hat rack. Stop being afraid of Heat, Ghost Heat, etc. and mount those bigger guns and not the smaller ones. I'm tired of running into Johnny on the spot who thinks himself a genius when he mounts more 2 Machine guns on his `Mech. Hell, I did it with the KGC-000 (using six) and a guy told me I wasting the damn thing by using Machine guns. And ya know, he was right. It's total waste of a good `Mech.

I've some mount AC and UAC 5's together and they do more damage combined than MGs do. So get with the program. Watch for builds on the YouTube channel, there's plenty of them. And start playing smarter not harder. Sheesh.

As for what I said before on the JagerMech. `Mechs that do not have Machine Guns in the first place should not be allowed to mount them unless the Tech Readout says differently. PERIOD. I've said this before. And I'll keep saying it.

[Jetfire]

Hawk819, on 09 March 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

Machine guns are the poor man's Autocannon. Instead of nerf n smurf, I'd go this way. If said `Mech, say JagerMech, has Machine guns, then it should be allowed to mount them. However, the JagerMech does not mount Machine Guns and should not have them at any given time in the game.

It boils down to this: note to all newbs, use your brain not a hat rack. Stop being afraid of Heat, Ghost Heat, etc. and mount those bigger guns and not the smaller ones. I'm tired of running into Johnny on the spot who thinks himself a genius when he mounts more 2 Machine guns on his `Mech. Hell, I did it with the KGC-000 (using six) and a guy told me I wasting the damn thing by using Machine guns. And ya know, he was right. It's total waste of a good `Mech.

I've some mount AC and UAC 5's together and they do more damage combined than MGs do. So get with the program. Watch for builds on the YouTube channel, there's plenty of them. And start playing smarter not harder. Sheesh.

As for what I said before on the JagerMech. `Mechs that do not have Machine Guns in the first place should not be allowed to mount them unless the Tech Readout says differently. PERIOD. I've said this before. And I'll keep saying it.

I am curious if this is your view of all weapons systems and if not why it would specifically apply to MG's?

[Simbacca]

Or another solution may be to keep the MGs current damage (yes, I too noticed the effectiveness drop after they were nerfed due to the hitreg fix many months ago) BUT increase its rate of fire.

[Jon Gotham]

VixNix, on 24 December 2014 - 05:16 AM, said:

I think MG's should do nothing until armor is gone...

Depends on what caliber they are though.....I'm decent caliber shells would still make many holes....

[Kain Demos]

Mcgral18, on 24 December 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

Both are nice options. CoF removal would also allow the use of MG range modules; since as it stands the Cone just keeps getting bigger, so the extra range is...minimally effective.

Bring the DPS back to one and remove the COF and I would be happy.

[Alek Ituin]

We need HMG's and Light AC's to bridge the Ballistic Gap.

[Herodes]

Hawk819, on 09 March 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

It boils down to this: note to all newbs, use your brain not a hat rack. Stop being afraid of Heat, Ghost Heat, etc. and mount those bigger guns and not the smaller ones. I'm tired of running into Johnny on the spot who thinks himself a genius when he mounts more 2 Machine guns on his `Mech. Hell, I did it with the KGC-000 (using six) and a guy told me I wasting the damn thing by using Machine guns. And ya know, he was right. It's total waste of a good `Mech.

I beg to differ. I run a few KGC builds that are Laser and SRM based brawlers and they use 4 MGs in addition to that. That makes a very fine zero heat weapon with some dps and crit chances while cooling down. It keeps the enemy under constant fire and costs nearly no tonnage and crit space. Perfect. And in the laste game where every Mech is open in some locations ... MGs are heaven.

[That Dawg]

Table top game from 25 years ago STILL being compared to a fanciful first person shooter
when the TT game was going on in 1985 the concept, the thought of turning it into some 3D "game" you'd play sitting at a desk was literally incomprehensible...now, some are demanding it adhere to the rules of a board game where the concept of physics, heat, geometry were PLASTIC dolls?
oh brother

[GeneralArmchair]

Probably because the TT game has more depth than the team death match game we are playing now.

[RedDevil]

We're playing Quake now.

[Burktross]

reddevil, on 11 March 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

We're playing Quake now.

Pssh, I wish it was as effective as the quake MG

[wanderer]

Airmanator, on 09 March 2015 - 09:52 AM, said:

The MG was horrible in TT, a literal deathtrap because you could never shoot off your ammo in time before having your ammo explode. Get that weak sauce out of here.

Which, in part is why they added the rapid-fire rule in Tactical Operations. Sure, your MGs generated heat, but you'd go through a dozen shots at a time with a pair of MGs in one round.

Alek Ituin, on 09 March 2015 - 10:29 AM, said:

We need HMG's and Light AC's to bridge the Ballistic Gap.

Light, medium, heavy rifles. Gap fixed, and they're available already in 3050 (heck, they're retrotech like the rocket launcher).

[Alek Ituin]

wanderer, on 11 March 2015 - 10:04 PM, said:

Light, medium, heavy rifles. Gap fixed, and they're available already in 3050 (heck, they're retrotech like the rocket launcher).

Do you plan on removing their damage penalties VS Mechs? Otherwise, they're simply not worth the tonnage.

[RedDevil]

MG Ammo WAS a death trap in TT. First turn on slower mechs was usually ammo dumping the MG. On backstabbers, multiple MG's were awesome. The bigger weapons opened up holes, and the MG's were for crit hunting.

[Mcgral18]

Alek Ituin, on 12 March 2015 - 06:41 AM, said:

Do you plan on removing their damage penalties VS Mechs? Otherwise, they're simply not worth the tonnage.

I think it would add a unique flavour to the weapon, being able to damage IS more than armour, without any crits being taken into account.

Of course, not 0 damage like the light rifle would have. Don't know what would be appropriate.


Light rifle is 3 damage for 3 tons, with a 360M unbuffed range and unbuffed 18 rounds per ton. It could be doubled and still not meet the current AC number of ~150.

Perhaps just -1 damage to armour, which makes the LR a better AC2, though likely with a lower RoF and shorter range.


At 8 tons and 3 crit slots, the King Crab could mount 6 Heavy Rifles for (without reduction) 48 PP FLD, for the same heat as 6 MLs. Only a ton per gun makes it run dry fast, though it does have a pair of MLs as backup. A 540M range makes it reasonably ranged.

It could add something different to the game. An IS only weapon.

[Alek Ituin]

Mcgral18, on 12 March 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

I think it would add a unique flavour to the weapon, being able to damage IS more than armour, without any crits being taken into account.

Of course, not 0 damage like the light rifle would have. Don't know what would be appropriate.


Light rifle is 3 damage for 3 tons, with a 360M unbuffed range and unbuffed 18 rounds per ton. It could be doubled and still not meet the current AC number of ~150.

Perhaps just -1 damage to armour, which makes the LR a better AC2, though likely with a lower RoF and shorter range.


At 8 tons and 3 crit slots, the King Crab could mount 6 Heavy Rifles for (without reduction) 48 PP FLD, for the same heat as 6 MLs. Only a ton per gun makes it run dry fast, though it does have a pair of MLs as backup. A 540M range makes it reasonably ranged.

It could add something different to the game. An IS only weapon.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but I feel there needs to be less emphasis on PPFLD weaponry. Which is why I'd want HMG's and MG Arrays over Rifles any day.

Smaller, high RoF weapons should dominate the low tonnage end of the Ballistic spectrum, ramping up to large single shot cannons at the high tonnage end. But that's not to say things like Light AC's, modified ProtoMech AC's, and Rifles would be entirely unwelcome. I'd actually look forward to ProtoMech AC's, assuming of course they're MUCH shorter ranged than their higher tonnage counterparts. Something to let Lights have Ballistic options, you know?

Edited by Alek Ituin, 12 March 2015 - 09:22 AM.

[FupDup]

Alek Ituin, on 12 March 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but I feel there needs to be less emphasis on PPFLD weaponry. Which is why I'd want HMG's and MG Arrays over Rifles any day.

Smaller, high RoF weapons should dominate the low tonnage end of the Ballistic spectrum, ramping up to large single shot cannons at the high tonnage end. But that's not to say things like Light AC's, modified ProtoMech AC's, and Rifles would be entirely unwelcome. I'd actually look forward to ProtoMech AC's, assuming of course they're MUCH shorter ranged than their higher tonnage counterparts. Something to let Lights have Ballistic options, you know?

For Clan Protomech ACs, the "default" stats are...

PAC/2
Damage: 2
Heat: 1
Range: 600m
Tonnage: 3.5
Slots: 2

PAC/4
Damage: 4
Heat: 1
Range: 450m
Tonnage: 4.5
Slots: 3

PAC/8
Damage: 8
Heat: 2
Range: 300m
Tonnage: 5.5
Slots: 4

Cooldown times are something PGI can make up. I'd assume that they would start by basing them off of existing ACs, with the PAC/2 mimicking the AC/2, the PAC/4 being a wee bit faster than the AC/5, and the PAC/8 being a little faster than the AC/10. Velocities would probably use a similar formula. Ammo per ton would be near 150 damage per ton, to keep to the current ballistics formula.

They would/should probably be burst-fire like other Clan ACs to keep them in line (because of their relatively high damage per tonnage ratios, compared to most other ballistics).

Edited by FupDup, 12 March 2015 - 10:13 AM.