36 replies to this topic

[Ljusdahl]

Brother MEX, on 04 May 2015 - 03:29 AM, said:

Actually the FLAMERS are supposed to be the weakest weapon in the game !

MG & Flamers are Anti-infantry-weapons, and do little damage to a mech.

Right. Anti-infantry weapons in a game without infantry.

[Burktross]

Hotthedd, on 04 May 2015 - 03:10 AM, said:

Lets compare apples to apples:

The Small Laser deals 10 damage over 10 seconds, but it also costs 6 heat over that 10 seconds.

Every weapon in the game does too much damage, and the PPFLD weapons compound that problem.

But I thought your argument was for more MG ammo? It already gets 10 times the ammo. Comparing it to an energy weapon is irrelevant to your argument.

I myself never even chimed in on the MG ammo debate, merely its current effectiveness.

[Twilight Fenrir]

Machine gun ammo is already 10 TIMES the TT value... 200 rounds per ton is how it's supposed to be... 2K rounds/ton is plenty. Just put at least one ton of ammo per machine gun, and you'll be good for the whole match.

[Vlad Striker]

MG have incredible rate of destruction critical slots equipment so no whining pls.

[Threat Doc]

Brother MEX, on 04 May 2015 - 03:29 AM, said:

MG & Flamers are Anti-infantry-weapons, and do little damage to a mech.

Yes, but they still do much more damage than they should.

Wildstreak, on 04 May 2015 - 04:07 AM, said:

I would have thought by now people would be tired of the cone of fire spreading damage.

There's no CoF... it's your imagination. If there were a CoF, the damage would be spread a whole lot more; there is no CoF, it's just how movement and skill works in this game that causes the spread. If you're moving at full speed, and your enemy is moving at full speed, you can't hope to hit in the same place all the time, even if you were truly elite.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Twilight Fenrir, on 04 May 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

Machine gun ammo is already 10 TIMES the TT value... 200 rounds per ton is how it's supposed to be... 2K rounds/ton is plenty. Just put at least one ton of ammo per machine gun, and you'll be good for the whole match.

Not exactly. Yeah 2,000 is listed, but that deals 160 damage per ton. P&P was at 400 damage per ton with 200 listed.

So we'd actually need 5,000 listed to deal 400 damage per ton at the current 0.08 and that does not include the ~50% other Ballistic weapons got!

[Ljusdahl]

Kay Wolf, on 04 May 2015 - 02:41 PM, said:

Yes, but they still do much more damage than they should.

There's no CoF... it's your imagination. If there were a CoF, the damage would be spread a whole lot more; there is no CoF, it's just how movement and skill works in this game that causes the spread. If you're moving at full speed, and your enemy is moving at full speed, you can't hope to hit in the same place all the time, even if you were truly elite.

There is definitely a CoF in the training grounds.

[Nightmare1]

I would like their damage to be adjusted back to the 0.10 value that it used to be. They were a lot more fun back then. Now they're just kind of "Meh."

[Threat Doc]

Nightmare1, they are just kind of meh, because they're SUPPOSED to be kinda meh! They're an anti-personnel weapon, though they could be used also against other Light 'Mechs. They're not supposed to be for main line combat.

[Nightmare1]

Kay Wolf, on 05 May 2015 - 04:07 PM, said:

Nightmare1, they are just kind of meh, because they're SUPPOSED to be kinda meh! They're an anti-personnel weapon, though they could be used also against other Light 'Mechs. They're not supposed to be for main line combat.

I recognize that, but they should be useful enough to warrant equipping. Take the LCT-1V for example. It has one energy hardpoint and four ballistic hardpoints. Running a quad MG build should be viable with that Mech.

Perhaps it would be better to use the quirk system to balance MGs for Lights. Maybe there's a way to quirk the number of rounds per ton on certain chassis that are limited to using it. I really don't know. What I do know, is that they used to be a nice niche weapon for pilots who didn't have a lot of choice. Now they're a, "Well, it's all I can run on this Mech so I might as well sell the Mech," kind of weapon.

[Kenyon Burguess]

Kay Wolf, on 05 May 2015 - 04:07 PM, said:

Nightmare1, they are just kind of meh, because they're SUPPOSED to be kinda meh! They're an anti-personnel weapon, though they could be used also against other Light 'Mechs. They're not supposed to be for main line combat.

"The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers, while still being effective at damaging BattleMechs." in TT they do 2 damage to mechs. that's quite a bit when boated by lights, against lights. mwo should have given them a lot more punch.

[Wraith 1]

If you look at the RVN-4X, Pirate's Bane or the Huginn, most people won't even bother putting anything in their ballistic hardpoints. The JM6-DD has excessive ballistic hardpoints for its tonnage, yet you'll still see more DDs backing their main armament with lasers than MGs.

0.5 tons + ammo for 100% heat-neutral firepower, and they still aren't worth the tonnage for mechs that have any other option.

Would boosting their DPS to the same level as the IS small laser really be that big of a deal?

[Threat Doc]

Wraith 1, on 05 May 2015 - 04:55 PM, said:

Would boosting their DPS to the same level as the IS small laser really be that big of a deal?

Yes, I'm afraid it would. They're a harsh enough weapon, as-is. Make them any more powerful, and they would be as over-effective as ECM was most recently. I'm sorry, my feeling is it over-balances the game.

Now, think about this for a second... PGI most likely had things in mind at the time the hard points were assigned to these 'Mechs, and their uses just haven't been realized fully, if at all, yet.

[Saiphas Cain]

I'm not advocating higher damage. Usually if I'm using them at all I'm using a brace of 3-4 minimum. What I'm citing is how fast light mechs ( which most frequently have low tonnage but multiple ballistics available for them ) run out of ammo for them. Sure, 1 ton per MG would probably be fine, but that's 4 tons of ammo for the 4MG locust. That's 20% of your mechs tonnage just in ammunition just to expect to last a match. Compare that with my atlas using 1 AC/20 and 3SRM6 wherein the AC/20 usually gets 3 tons of ammo for 21 rounds. 3 tons of ammo on a 100 ton mech is 3% of that mechs tonnage in ammunition VS 20% on a locust for MG ammo. While the Atlas obviously has more tonnage to spare, I would say that the AC/20 has much more concentrated damage output than the MG, and the TTK hitting a target with an AC/20 is going to be far superior to hitting a target with MG's. The AC/20 obviously pays for it in terms of tonnage but keep in mind when comparing to TT that the MG in TT carries 200 rounds per ton and fires 1 round per 10 second round dealing 2 damage rather than firing 100 rounds in 10 seconds dealing 8 damage IF they all hit. It's not a very good comparison considering a single ton of MG ammo in tabletop, regardless of the number of MG's equipped, is generally sufficient for several matches. As for the claims of being a murderous weapon at short ranges, I feel it's merely adequate. It still has the problem of distinctly not chewing through armor with any kind of alacrity and a very high Time To Kill.

[Burktross]

Kay Wolf, on 05 May 2015 - 04:07 PM, said:

Nightmare1, they are just kind of meh, because they're SUPPOSED to be kinda meh! They're an anti-personnel weapon, though they could be used also against other Light 'Mechs. They're not supposed to be for main line combat.

Let me quote fuppy duppy.

FupDup, on 20 November 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

I'd just sweep my DoT lasers over infantry to kill them just as dead.

Seriously though. MGs in Battletech, at least the mech-sized varieties, were in fact meant to damage mech armor. I don't know why, I don't care why. All I care is that it serves the role of a lightweight, close-range ballistic and making them useless would reduce the quality of game balance.

FASA's only mistake here was naming them Machine Guns in the first place. If they had used the name "Micro Autocannon" or something, nobody would be trying to push the anti-infantry agenda. FASA just sucks at making weapon names.

[Saiphas Cain]

Micro Autocannon. Nice. I like that name. Machinegun isn't a very apt description considering the "Ma' Deuce" is an 84lb weapon and IS MG's go for 1,100 lbs.

[Ragtag soldier]

Twilight Fenrir, on 04 May 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

Machine gun ammo is already 10 TIMES the TT value... 200 rounds per ton is how it's supposed to be... 2K rounds/ton is plenty. Just put at least one ton of ammo per machine gun, and you'll be good for the whole match.

yeah, but it takes ten rounds to match the damage of the tabletop. which makes sense, since in battletech the machineguns are firing burst-mode by default. so it's the right amount of rounds, just handled with more granularity.

Saiphas Cain, on 07 May 2015 - 06:00 PM, said:

Micro Autocannon. Nice. I like that name. Machinegun isn't a very apt description considering the "Ma' Deuce" is an 84lb weapon and IS MG's go for 1,100 lbs.

it's not the gun itself, it's the gun(s, a 'mech machinegun is actually sometimes a couple of guns mounted together and treated as one for simplicity) the recoil compensation, cooling jacket, and the system for moving it on target.

more importantly, autocannon are smooth-bore cannon that all fire explosive shells.