50 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

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

Whatever opinions are like A-h**** everyone has one but some are just bad opinions to start with.

And your right letting OP lights run around with machine guns and even face tanking a assault is good gaming design.

A light's ability to "face tank" an assault (which itself is debatable) is an entirely separate subject from the offensive power of MGs.

Would you be happier if MGs no longer instantly critted out your weapons systems, and instead just dealt reliable flat damage? I would be.

[KingCobra]

FupDup, on 03 February 2018 - 11:15 AM, said:

A light's ability to "face tank" an assault (which itself is debatable) is an entirely separate subject from the offensive power of MGs.

Would you be happier if MGs no longer instantly critted out your weapons systems, and instead just dealt reliable flat damage? I would be.

If you want my personal opinion IF MWO had been designed right from the beginning Machine guns would not have been used on mechs except for Co-op missions where you with your teammate or team was using them against gun infrantry light vehicles or gun emplacment then they would have had a genuine purpose in MWO.

Not some super meta weapon that can kill anything including assaults its just childish game design like most things that have been done in MWO from day 1.

[FupDup]

KingCobra, on 03 February 2018 - 11:21 AM, said:

If you want my personal opinion IF MWO had been designed right from the beginning Machine guns would not have been used on mechs except for Co-op missions where you with your teammate or team was using them against gun infrantry light vehicles or gun emplacment then they would have had a genuine purpose in MWO.

Not some super meta weapon that can kill anything including assaults its just childish game design like most things that have been done in MWO from day 1.

One page ago I already addressed why anti-infantry MGs would actually not be worthwhile to use against infantry if they even existed in this game. I'll copypaste it here for convenience:

Spoiler

FupDup, on 03 February 2018 - 09:41 AM, said:

And really, just for the sake of argument, I'm going to also tackle the "proper missions" angle. Let's assume that PGI did add tiny little infantry dudes to shoot at. Equipping MGs solely to deal with them would be a useless waste of tonnage. Why?

1. For one, MG spread against a tiny target means that a lot of your bullets are going to miss, making the weapon horribly inefficient for that duty.

2. For two, infantry in Battletech are incredibly weak. The strongest weapon that a soldier can use (as far as I'm aware) in BT is a single-shot SRM2 launcher (which would be an utter joke against a mech) that has a max range of 90 meters. Once he fires that one shot, that's all he gets and has to run back to base to grab another weapon (if that's even available).

3. Speaking of weak infantry, even a Dire Wolf going in reverse can outrun BT infantry (they go like 10 kph tops). Combine that with their very short ranged weapons and it will be very hard for them to actually get anything done against mechs.

4. Lasers, with their MWO duration mechanic, would be very good for sweeping over squads of dudes and don't have any spread problem. Just mount a few Medium Lasers, put them on chainfire, and start mowing down all the little ants. No MGs required.

TL;DR: Nobody is going to waste their tonnage to deal with infantry units that can't even pose a threat against mechs, and can be just killed in other ways like sweeping a laser beam over them.

[Kaeb Odellas]

KingCobra, on 03 February 2018 - 11:21 AM, said:

If you want my personal opinion IF MWO had been designed right from the beginning Machine guns would not have been used on mechs except for Co-op missions where you with your teammate or team was using them against gun infrantry light vehicles or gun emplacment then they would have had a genuine purpose in MWO.

Not some super meta weapon that can kill anything including assaults its just childish game design like most things that have been done in MWO from day 1.

Again, Battlemech machine guns are not solely anti-infantry weapons. They existed in the tabletop game and did damage to mechs.

Plus, no one in their right minds would bring a half-ton weapon (1 ton with ammo) just to kill infantry. It's like lugging a flamethrower around wherever you go for killing mosquito. It's moronic.

[razenWing]

FupDup, on 03 February 2018 - 11:15 AM, said:

A light's ability to "face tank" an assault (which itself is debatable) is an entirely separate subject from the offensive power of MGs.

Would you be happier if MGs no longer instantly critted out your weapons systems, and instead just dealt reliable flat damage? I would be.

You guys read about my proposed change and saw how a mech like PiR cannot abuse the new MG-Array (if going by my rule) precisely because of what you two have mentioned, right?

If anything, this heavier MGs are designed FOR heavy mechs. Especially those heavymechs with very few hardpoints to have a 2nd, or 3rd option on their offensive rosters... like how a real tank would.

See, this game is all distorted with the heat penalty and other junk rules that your offensive capabilities as a mech, basically maxed out with 6 ERM + 2 LpL. You can carry that in a medium. That's f-ing pathetic and certainly not the Mechwarrior games that existed before this.

So alternative to that, without rewriting rules as to how the system exist today (keeping ghost heat and stuff) is to have enough of varieties of weapons that can fill in those gaps. As a weapon platform expand, and you maxed out a primary weapon system due to PGI's moronic rules, you get the chance to expand on the 2ndary or tertiary systems, whereas smaller mechs can only pick and choose. That's what truly will justify what Assault mechs are supposed to be. They are mother f-ing walking destruction with lots and lots of gravies.

----------

Gameplay wise, as I showed already, it's not the lights like PiR that have dedicated MG groups that will benefit, but heavier platforms with odd hardpoints, and give them options that can take advantage of the tonnage penalty.

Mechs like MIIC-4. I mean, WTF is that solo CT B hardpoint going to do? 1 single UAC2s? How many people simply dump that hardpoint because of how junk it is? However, with my propose Machine Array, now you turn those 2 odd points including RT B... or hell, even just the CT point into 3 to 6 machine guns. Now those hardpoints are mother f-ing serviceable.

That's the purpose of filler weapons.

On the record, I totally agree with you on that we should have those different array of weapon types. But with PGI's commitment right now, that's simply not realistic to introduce a new weapon system with new sound, graphics, and physics.

MG-Array is different though. If they want, they can get this sucker deployed within 48 hours. Nothing about the MG-Array require brand new codes. Everything is in game already.

---------

That's kinda the changes that I know PGI doesn't listen to me, but I have maintained that they should do ever since topic 1 of my postings. Small but very readily appliable changes that can instantly be released with sort of impact.

Lord knows I want to see Spiral Canon, Plasma Rifle, or Hamahamaka from Dragon Balls. But I understand those are just not realistic to implement at this moment. Had PGI taken an iota of my advice, we should be getting monthly micro patches that adds little bit of exciting new features every month. I am sure that's helluva lot more engaging to retain players than "Here's a super secret map we are working on. But... before it's released, here's 8 months of blank, go buy more mechpacks."

Edited by razenWing, 03 February 2018 - 12:55 PM.

[Requiemking]

FupDup, on 03 February 2018 - 11:15 AM, said:

A light's ability to "face tank" an assault (which itself is debatable) is an entirely separate subject from the offensive power of MGs.

Would you be happier if MGs no longer instantly critted out your weapons systems, and instead just dealt reliable flat damage? I would be.

Also, thats not a Light. Thats a Cicada, and that Awesome is running a terribad build.

[Spheroid]

I don't really see anything new to discuss here. It is widely agreed that any MGA implantation would function as some sort of artemis for machine guns and provide effective dps equal to that surrendered to the mass of the equipment.

Tonnage and slots are so tight on the fielded machinegun boats that existing meta would see almost no change. Look to see MGAs added on things like the Viper C or maybe the right arm of the loyalty Griffin. Its really not the game changer people hope of it.

I suppose you could turn a Jager-DD into an 8B equivalent, but that is somewhat a waste of the chassis IMHO. You could also upgrade the Arrow, but Blackjacks are kind of weak right now so I don't know if the additional abilities would prompt me to take it over another medium.

I don't see it coded anytime soon either. If this game survives long enough look to see it included with LACs and HAGs.

Edited by Spheroid, 03 February 2018 - 02:34 PM.

[KingCobra]

Kaeb Odellas, on 03 February 2018 - 12:51 PM, said:

Again, Battlemech machine guns are not solely anti-infantry weapons. They existed in the tabletop game and did damage to mechs.

Plus, no one in their right minds would bring a half-ton weapon (1 ton with ammo) just to kill infantry. It's like lugging a flamethrower around wherever you go for killing mosquito. It's moronic.

You don't understand what BattleTech/Mechwarrior infantry was portrayed to be.
(
As old as war itself, Infantry are the foot soldiers of any military force. Underestimated and under-appreciated in the eyes of their so-called betters, many a campaign is often won or lost due to the actions of the "poor bloody infantry" while BattleMech and AeroSpace Fighter pilots win the glory. Their training, equipment, battlefield role and organization can vary wildly, allowing them to fulfill a number of disparate goals. The ability of even the poorest Periphery state or pirate band to field large formations of infantry ensures their use throughout known space, from the Inner Sphere to the Kerensky Cluster.^[1][2][3]
The advent of Battle Armor has also seen a renewed interest in the use of infantry. Though superior in many ways to their unarmored brethren, their sheer expense and unsuitability for a number of roles sees the continued use of "conventional" infantry.<sup>[3])

Which included Battle Armor units and power armor units.</sup>

Edited by KingCobra, 03 February 2018 - 02:36 PM.

[Mcgral18]

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

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?

Two things wrong with your statement
Does the M60 equip many tons of Ablative armor? Different to modern stuff

Were the rounds fired at it from weapons weighting 500-1000 Kilograms?


I'm guessing no, to both of those.
Your personal anecdote ignores important details

[Kanil]

KingCobra, on 03 February 2018 - 02:32 PM, said:

You don't understand what BattleTech/Mechwarrior infantry was portrayed to be...

... and you don't understand what BattleTech machineguns are portrayed to be. Their damage per ton is identical to an SRM rack. They're effective anti-'mech weapons in BattleTech and it is completely reasonable for them to be effective anti-'mech weapons in MechWarrior.

Perhaps their ability to crit out components is excessive in MWO, but they should be perfectly capable of tearing apart a 'mech's armor and structure no differently than a missile or laser is.

Edited by Kanil, 03 February 2018 - 07:01 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

KingCobra, on 03 February 2018 - 02:32 PM, said:

You don't understand what BattleTech/Mechwarrior infantry was portrayed to be.
(
As old as war itself, Infantry are the foot soldiers of any military force. Underestimated and under-appreciated in the eyes of their so-called betters, many a campaign is often won or lost due to the actions of the "poor bloody infantry" while BattleMech and AeroSpace Fighter pilots win the glory. Their training, equipment, battlefield role and organization can vary wildly, allowing them to fulfill a number of disparate goals. The ability of even the poorest Periphery state or pirate band to field large formations of infantry ensures their use throughout known space, from the Inner Sphere to the Kerensky Cluster.^[1][2][3]
The advent of Battle Armor has also seen a renewed interest in the use of infantry. Though superior in many ways to their unarmored brethren, their sheer expense and unsuitability for a number of roles sees the continued use of "conventional" infantry.<sup>[3])

Which included Battle Armor units and power armor units.</sup>

No, battle armor doesn't count as conventional infantry.



That's the actual depiction of conventional infantry on the Sarna page.

Your Sarna quote says it right there. Most of the infantry you see fielded in the Inner Sphere is going to be your standard unpowered foot soldier. Maybe clanners can afford to field only elementals, but most IS factions certainly can't afford to outfit every lowly grunt with battle armor.

It certainly doesn't take something on the scale of the GAU-8 to kill a lowly grunt. Heck, it shouldn't take a GAU-8 to kill battle armor either.