50 replies to this topic

[razenWing]

Like in MW4, it's basically 3 machine guns bind together for 2 critical slots.

Now, before you go ape and scream how a Pir with 36 machine guns will ruin the game, here's the kicker.

A MG-Array is 100% worse in tonnage compares to regular machine guns.

So, a Clan Gun is .25 ton, to install a MG-Array, it's going to cost you 1 and a half ton. (and 2 slots)

(and of course, IS Array would unfortunately be a whopping 3 tons. But still 2 slots)

I see it for intermediate filler between AC2s and Machine Guns... something in between that weight that can pad some spots without being OP.


The concept is the same as the design for Heavy Lasers and MRMs. It's designed to pad the "in-between" weapon systems for mechs with limited hardpoints.

-------

Now, I ran some numbers using Pir-1 as a template. Those have 6 hardpoints on each side. A full XL and armor PIR will give you 9 tons of free tonnage. Divide that by 1.5 will give you 6 arrays, or 18 machine guns. But, you will then be left with no ammo. So realistically, you can only install 5 arrays for 15 mg guns with 1.5 tons of ammo.

Does it increase DPS? Yes, but the ammo cut is SUPER drastic, and you lose the 2 E hardpoints on the arms. (actually, it can be debated because 2 heavy medium is 20 damages compare to 0.75x3 per sec...) So, I think that's a good counter balance to potential abuse.

------

Well, what about it? Machine Gun Array time? No mech should ever have the excuse to have a gun that's not firing all the time. Forget upping the TTK, I say, down the TTK!!!!

Edited by razenWing, 03 February 2018 - 08:28 AM.

[FupDup]

We already have the MLX-G, which is canonically supposed to have MG arrays but were excluded. Instead, each individual MG from that array was given its own hardpoint.

And frankly, allowing quad MGs in a single hardpoint would be broken AF in the current system. Individual MGs would need to be utterly nerfed into the ground to make it workable, or alternatively PGI would have to design MG arrays such that they aren't as powerful as 2-4 regular MGs used together.

By the way, for tons and slots, you got it wrong. The "Array" item itself is 1 critslot for both factions and the same weight as an individual normal MG for that faction. For example, a Clan MG Array with 4 MGs will weigh 1.25 tons and take up 5 slots.

Note that arrays with only 2 or 3 MGs are also available.

Edited by FupDup, 03 February 2018 - 08:32 AM.

[Tarogato]

Actually, PGI usually sticks closer to the TT construction rules when it comes to mechs. So Machine Gun Arrays would be an add-on equipment. You have your normal machine guns equipped to the mech, and then you add in an extra item, the MG Array, which costs one extra slot and 0.5 tons, and it has the effect of ... nothing. Because all Machine Guns in MWO already have built-in MG array technology for free.

[FupDup]

Tarogato, on 03 February 2018 - 08:32 AM, said:

Actually, PGI usually sticks closer to the TT construction rules when it comes to mechs. So Machine Gun Arrays would be an add-on equipment. You have your normal machine guns equipped to the mech, and then you add in an extra item, the MG Array, which costs one extra slot and 0.5 tons, and it has the effect of ... nothing. Because all Machine Guns in MWO already have built-in MG array technology for free.

Well, the TT purpose of the array tech was to make all of your MGs hit the same location. MWO could translate this by having arrays reduce or remove your cone of fire from MGs. Maybe also boost range or something to make the array upgrade actually worth it.

Edited by FupDup, 03 February 2018 - 08:34 AM.

[Sjorpha]

If both clan and IS version were made 1.5 tons it could be used to bring some of the IS ballistic lights closer to the clan MG boats.

So 3 mgs at 1.5 tons for both factions sounds good.

(or just give the IS lights comparable hardpoint counts as the clan lights for a simpler fix.)

Edited by Sjorpha, 03 February 2018 - 08:38 AM.

[razenWing]

FupDup, on 03 February 2018 - 08:30 AM, said:

We already have the MLX-G, which is canonically supposed to have MG arrays but were excluded. Instead, each individual MG from that array was given its own hardpoint.

And frankly, allowing quad MGs in a single hardpoint would be broken AF in the current system. Individual MGs would need to be utterly nerfed into the ground to make it workable, or alternatively PGI would have to design MG arrays such that they aren't as powerful as 2-4 regular MGs used together.

By the way, for tons and slots, you got it wrong. The "Array" item itself is 1 critslot for both factions and the same weight as an individual normal MG for that faction. For example, a Clan MG Array with 4 MGs will weigh 1.25 tons and take up 5 slots.

Note that arrays with only 2 or 3 MGs are also available.

Right, that's the TT rule. But PGI is inventing its own lore with timeline and Roughnecks, so why can't a new Machine Array be just 3 guns and 2 slots?

Stop worrying about the rule of 1.25 tons of 4 guns.

Do you think a machine gun array of 1.5 tons and 3 guns would be a good idea? Outside of that, I don't care about some old strict rules that nobody is really adhering to anyways.

[FupDup]

razenWing, on 03 February 2018 - 08:36 AM, said:

Outside of that, I don't care about some old strict rules that nobody is really adhering to anyways.

PGI is adhering to most of them, and they call the shots around here.

[KingCobra]

razenWing, on 03 February 2018 - 08:27 AM, said:

Like in MW4, it's basically 3 machine guns bind together for 2 critical slots.

Now, before you go ape and scream how a Pir with 36 machine guns will ruin the game, here's the kicker.

A MG-Array is 100% worse in tonnage compares to regular machine guns.

So, a Clan Gun is .25 ton, to install a MG-Array, it's going to cost you 1 and a half ton. (and 2 slots)

(and of course, IS Array would unfortunately be a whopping 3 tons. But still 2 slots)

I see it for intermediate filler between AC2s and Machine Guns... something in between that weight that can pad some spots without being OP.


The concept is the same as the design for Heavy Lasers and MRMs. It's designed to pad the "in-between" weapon systems for mechs with limited hardpoints.

-------

Now, I ran some numbers using Pir-1 as a template. Those have 6 hardpoints on each side. A full XL and armor PIR will give you 9 tons of free tonnage. Divide that by 1.5 will give you 6 arrays, or 18 machine guns. But, you will then be left with no ammo. So realistically, you can only install 5 arrays for 15 mg guns with 1.5 tons of ammo.

Does it increase DPS? Yes, but the ammo cut is SUPER drastic, and you lose the 2 E hardpoints on the arms. (actually, it can be debated because 2 heavy medium is 20 damages compare to 0.75x3 per sec...) So, I think that's a good counter balance to potential abuse.

------

Well, what about it? Machine Gun Array time? No mech should ever have the excuse to have a gun that's not firing all the time. Forget upping the TTK, I say, down the TTK!!!!

It was a mistake putting machine guns in MWO unless we had Co-op missions to use them on infantry and vehicles.
In reality a 35-100 ton mech or tank would laugh off those machine guns bullets with the armor they have.

All PGI has done is make MWO more unrealistic and childlike by making machine guns so OP=overpowered its a joke really.

[FupDup]

KingCobra, on 03 February 2018 - 08:45 AM, said:

It was a mistake putting machine guns in MWO unless we had Co-op missions to use them on infantry and vehicles.
In reality a 35-100 ton mech or tank would laugh off those machine guns bullets with the armor they have.

All PGI has done is make MWO more unrealistic and childlike by making machine guns so OP=overpowered its a joke really.

Oh great, it's one of those posts again.

[KingCobra]

FupDup, on 03 February 2018 - 08:49 AM, said:

Oh great, it's one of those posts again.

Owe no we have a ********* in this thread again.


P.S machine guns were never a good idea in any BattleTech/MechWarrior title unless they were used for missions that involves infantry or light vehicles as they are used in MWO its just a lousy childlike joke you can see how immature the lords of MWO really are by allowing them to used at all.

[Andi Nagasia]

if added i see PGI sticking more with TT,

MG-Arrays come in 2/3/4 and are the Weight/Crits of those MGs, +0.5Ton & 1Crit

InnerSphere MG-Arrays
IS-LMG-A2 = 1.5Tons 3Crits
IS-LMG-A3 = 2.0Tons 4Crits
IS-LMG-A4 = 2.5Tons 5Crits

IS-MG-A2 = 1.5Tons 3Crits
IS-MG-A3 = 2.0Tons 4Crits
IS-MG-A4 = 2.5Tons 5Crits

IS-HMG-A2 = 2.5Tons 3Crits
IS-HMG-A3 = 3.5Tons 4Crits
IS-HMG-A4 = 4.5Tons 5Crits

Clan MG-Arrays
C-LMG-A2 = 1.0Tons 3Crits
C-LMG-A3 = 1.5Tons 4Crits
C-LMG-A4 = 2.0Tons 5Crits

C-MG-A2 = 1.0Tons 3Crits
C-MG-A3 = 1.5Tons 4Crits
C-MG-A4 = 2.0Tons 5Crits

C-HMG-A2 = 1.5Tons 3Crits
C-HMG-A3 = 2.0Tons 4Crits
C-HMG-A4 = 2.5Tons 5Crits

[Iron Heel]

KingCobra, on 03 February 2018 - 08:45 AM, said:

In reality a 35-100 ton mech or tank would laugh off those machine guns bullets with the armor they have.
.

An M1A1 tank is 70 tons.
An array of .50cal MG firing DU/AP would absolutely damage it.
Badly in spots where the armor was thin or already weak or damaged.

I know, ot, Just sayin for clarity sake...

[FupDup]

KingCobra, on 03 February 2018 - 08:57 AM, said:

P.S machine guns were never a good idea in any BattleTech/MechWarrior title unless they were used for missions that involves infantry or light vehicles as they are used in MWO its just a lousy childlike joke you can see how immature the lords of MWO really are by allowing them to used at all.

You clearly haven't played any previous MW game, or have played them so long ago that you've forgotten.

For one thing, infantry didn't even exist in most PC MW games. There was Battle Armor (not the same thing as infantry) in MW3 and I think MW2, but they were basically coded as 10-ton Protomechs and were actually really damn hard to hit with MGs (slow projectile speed). Lasers were the best weapons against them because they were hitscan. Alternatively you could use lock-on missiles.

MW4 definitely had no infantry or Battle Armor until MekTek modded them in (once again, coded as tiny mechs). Nobody even played as them though outside of trolling online. Mounting MGs just to deal with them was stupid, you could just alpha strike them with any build for an instant kill.

In all MW games, Machine Guns were effective against mechs. MW3 in particular had extremely powerful MGs that could oneshot an Atlas through the front CT if you boated 16 of them.

The only MW "game" with MGs that sucked against mechs was MW:LL, and that's not even a proper game. That's just a community mod.

In Battletech/TT itself, the MG does the same damage as an AC/2, or 2 damage. Not amazing, but it can in fact damage mechs. This whole "anti-infantry only!" thing is a goddamn myth with zero canonical evidence to support it. Every version of the board game and every MW PC game has had MGs that damage mechs.

Edited by FupDup, 03 February 2018 - 09:10 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

KingCobra, on 03 February 2018 - 08:45 AM, said:

It was a mistake putting machine guns in MWO unless we had Co-op missions to use them on infantry and vehicles.
In reality a 35-100 ton mech or tank would laugh off those machine guns bullets with the armor they have.

All PGI has done is make MWO more unrealistic and childlike by making machine guns so OP=overpowered its a joke really.

well in TT MGs do 2damage even vs BattleMechs, which is the same as the AC2,
so why shuldnt MG be removed from MWO even though they do the same damage as an AC2?

[Bombast]

IS light Mechs are sure as **** ready for them.

[KingCobra]

FupDup, on 03 February 2018 - 09:03 AM, said:

You clearly haven't played any previous MW game, or have played them so long ago that you've forgotten.

For one thing, infantry didn't even exist in most PC MW games. There was Battle Armor (not the same thing as infantry) in MW3 and I think MW2, but they were basically coded as 10-ton Protomechs and were actually really damn hard to hit with MGs (slow projectile speed). Lasers were the best weapons against them because they were hitscan.

MW4 definitely had no infantry or Battle Armor until MekTek modded them in (once again, coded as tiny mechs). Nobody even played as them though outside of trolling online. Mounting MGs just to deal with them was stupid, you could just alpha strike them with any build for an instant kill.

In all MW games, Machine Guns were effective against mechs. MW3 in particular had extremely powerful MGs that could oneshot an Atlas through the front CT if you boated 16 of them.

The only MW "game" with MGs that sucked against mechs was MW:LL, and that's not even a proper game. That's just a community mod.

In Battletech/TT itself, the MG does the same damage as an AC/2, or 2 damage. Not amazing, but it can in fact damage mechs. This whole "anti-infantry only!" thing is a goddamn myth with zero canonical evidence to support it. Every version of the board game and every MW PC game has had MGs that damage mechs.

The reason I have personally never liked machine guns in this IP of games which I have played them all even TT is there so unrealistic and childlike ruins the immersion of the games they were put into the original designers of this IP were a unrealistic bunch of people I met a few back in the day from FASA and Activision.

Plus your wrong I watched M60 on the battlefield take thousands of machine gun rounds and it hardly scratched the paint so why would a 35-100 ton mech take any damage? unless its armor was totally gone?

[Kanil]

FupDup, on 03 February 2018 - 09:03 AM, said:

In Battletech/TT itself, the MG does the same damage as an AC/2, or 2 damage. Not amazing, but it can in fact damage mechs. This whole "anti-infantry only!" thing is a goddamn myth with zero canonical evidence to support it. Every version of the board game and every MW PC game has had MGs that damage mechs.

Yep! In TT, MGs do good damage, they're just really short ranged. It's almost as if PGI's more or less got this one right...

[FupDup]

KingCobra, on 03 February 2018 - 09:11 AM, said:

The reason I have personally never liked machine guns in this IP of games which I have played them all even TT is there so unrealistic and childlike ruins the immersion of the games they were put into the original designers of this IP were a unrealistic bunch of people I met a few back in the day from FASA and Activision.

Plus your wrong I watched M60 on the battlefield take thousands of machine gun rounds and it hardly scratched the paint so why would a 35-100 ton mech take any damage? unless its armor was totally gone?

What does a man-portable M60 have to do with a gigantic 500-kilogram (1102 American pounds) gun mounted on a Battlemech more than a thousand years into the future? The MGs equipped on our mechs in MWO are nearly as heavy as the car you drive to work.

Edited by FupDup, 03 February 2018 - 09:14 AM.

[KingCobra]

Andi Nagasia, on 03 February 2018 - 09:04 AM, said:

well in TT MGs do 2damage even vs BattleMechs, which is the same as the AC2,
so why shuldnt MG be removed from MWO even though they do the same damage as an AC2?

Im sorry Andi but TT was very unrealistic in its game play and design I know first hand playing it in tournaments back in the day.

MWO should be the pinnacle of this IP series as far as realism and simulation not some unrealistic childlike game play with machine guns as a meta weapon of unbalanced power.

FupDup, on 03 February 2018 - 09:14 AM, said:

What does a man-portable M60 have to do with a gigantic 500-kilogram (1102 American pounds) gun mounted on a Battlemech more than a thousand years into the future? The MGs equipped on our mechs in MWO are nearly as heavy as the car you drive to work.

I guess you don't know what a M60 is?

[FupDup]

KingCobra, on 03 February 2018 - 09:17 AM, said:

I guess you don't know what a M60 is?

It's this thing, right?



That thing is not anywhere near the size of the MGs mounted on our Battlemechs in MWO. Googles says that the M60 weighs about 10.5 kilos. The mech-mounted Inner Sphere Machine Gun is 47.6 times heavier than it.

The problem that these kind of arguments always boils down to is the name "machine gun." The makers of BT chose a crappy name for something that weighs as much as a small car. People then go on to make statements that this weapon should be crappy solely because of its name rather than its technical specifications.


EDIT: I thought you were talking about the M60 gun, not the M60 tank. Still, I'm pretty sure that the tank you observed was only being shot at by man-portable guns as small as the M60 machine gun or even smaller than that.

Edited by FupDup, 03 February 2018 - 09:27 AM.