11 replies to this topic

[razenWing]

Taking a real life example... the Phalanx system used to protect most, if not all, American sailors at sea is basically just an upward shooting machine guns with auto-tracking.

Now, I am not saying that you should get automatic AMS for installing machine guns, what I AM saying is that because the 2 systems are highly similar (especially in a "fictional real world" setting) where they would probably share the same feeder and/or weapon mount platform, AMS slot should be MG-mountable and vice versa.

Cause let's be real. MGs only share characteristics with other ballistics in terms of "using ammunition." Other than that, they don't share the same quirk pattern. They don't fire the same way. They don't have the same heat penalty. By all means, MG is not a ballistic in gameplay sense. It honestly shares a lot more similarity with AMS system than anything.

So I say, let's just split them out as a 4th unique weapon type and disallowed MGs to be installed on ballistic slots (in fact, we should also split flamer out in case we do get plasma based weapon further down the line) This might require re-work on mechs ranging from Locusts and Atli (Atlas..es?). But I think it can ultimately change some characteristics of some mechs and make them more unique.

(It's also a good way for PGI to simultaneously buff MGs while simultaneously de-buff any potentially OP threat by converting only certain ballistic slots into MG/AMS slots such as 6 MG Spiders as of now)

Edited by razenWing, 17 January 2017 - 04:51 PM.

[Mcgral18]

MGs are actually lasers, implementation wise

Just without a finite duration. Same as Flamers
AMS...may be like that?



I'd use it to grab extra MGs where appropriate which...hm...well, I think the Arrow might be the only contender where I'd use MGs and an AMS compatible chassis (Viper C doesn't have the AMS, does it)


I wouldn't use it as 7 AMS systems, that would be a terrible waste of ammo

[Bud Crue]

I'd just like the ability to shoot down missiles with weapons (other than the "weapon" of AMS). If I see em coming and I don't have cover sometimes I try anyway; futile as it is.

[razenWing]

Bud Crue, on 17 January 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

I'd just like the ability to shoot down missiles with weapons (other than the "weapon" of AMS). If I see em coming and I don't have cover sometimes I try anyway; futile as it is.

Here you go!

https://youtu.be/lRCpXTPrdw4?t=1m35s

[RestosIII]

For some reason I thought that, at least in fluff, AMS could fire at nearby mechs at their own height level? I could be mixing it up with a different universe's equipment though. Probably am.

[Johnny Z]

RestosIII, on 17 January 2017 - 05:36 PM, said:

For some reason I thought that, at least in fluff, AMS could fire at nearby mechs at their own height level? I could be mixing it up with a different universe's equipment though. Probably am.

That would be really cool.

[Carl Vickers]

Johnny Z, on 17 January 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

That would be really cool.

Nah, all it would allow, is you to call more hax when you get gibbed by an auto aiming AMS machine gun.

Edited by Carl Vickers, 17 January 2017 - 05:43 PM.

[razenWing]

Anyways, to get back on topic, I think rather than just shooting mechanics, you guys are overlooking the overarching implication.

Mainly, if PGI is willing to diversify weapon type, imagine the possibility of flamer or PPC as their own groups. How unique would each mech be if we are going to get 4-5 weapon types per mech?

(Lore players' dream scenario)

[The6thMessenger]

I don't mind sharing MG ammo and AMS ammo at least. But it's a nice idea if you can also shoot with the AMS manually.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 17 January 2017 - 06:02 PM.

[Alex Morgaine]

All the Gauss/ac mechs using machine gun spots suddenly finding their Mechs invalid (a couple o mine would be). So much salt we'd be preserved like mummies.

[Johnny Z]

Carl Vickers, on 17 January 2017 - 05:43 PM, said:

Nah, all it would allow, is you to call more hax when you get gibbed by an auto aiming AMS machine gun.

Lose another alt? Or a team mate this time?

Edited by Johnny Z, 17 January 2017 - 06:47 PM.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

While I see where you're coming from, you really need to take a hard look at which 'Mechs come stock with which weapons before tossing out proposals to banish MGs and Flamers to unique hardpoint types. Some 'Mechs would become totally unable to mount anything besides those weapons (Ember, MLX-A), while others which are current meta darlings (Warhammer, for one) would instantly fall out of favor due to losing their strongest hardpoints. Other 'Mechs have terrible hardpoints to begin with and their only redeeming quality is their ability to break away from their stock loadouts to mount larger ballistics in place of their MGs (looking at you, VND-1X) or lasers/PPC in place of a flamer (looking at you, Adder) which would otherwise utterly cripple them.

And yes, we do know what happens when even a single weapon slot comes with a limitation like that. The Adder had that locked flamer in its CT for two solid years, and it was one of the worst 'Mechs in the game right up until the moment that single E slot was unlocked for use with lasers. It was not the extra half-ton that saved the Adder, it was not being forced to only have a flamer on that hardpoint. Gaining that single E slot where there was only a flamer before turned the Adder from a pile of moose dung into an actual credible threat. Many other 'Mechs with similarly low hardpoint counts, or bad hardpoint locations, come stock with MGs or flamers which have to be gotten rid of before the chassis can be optimized against other 'Mechs that have more advantages than they do (high mounts, more hardpoints, etc).

Weapon type restrictions of this kind do nothing to help the game. All they do is make the good 'Mechs better by virtue of making the bad 'Mechs worse.

With that said, I agree that MGs should be able to shoot down missiles.