96 replies to this topic

[YueFei]

ScrapIron Prime, on 27 January 2022 - 11:01 AM, said:

Yes, let's get back to topic... discussing space magic tech weapons!

as for the volcanically weird stuff... here's a topic I just started in the Off Topic board. let's take that there so this doesn't get locked or redacted to death!

Yup, I've written my thoughts on the matter over in that thread.

Noodlejr, on 27 January 2022 - 08:24 PM, said:

I think think the biggest gripe with mgs is the face hugging. Many experienced players can utilize their nerves to stop mg rushes like that. What if instead of jams or heat for mgs cuz I could see “space magic” having some cooling or advanced feeds, make them like small lasers? Give them a burn duration as if they are fired in bursts not just one continuous feed? Damage might have to be upped to compensate but it would make the ankle biters have to strafe more instead of hug?

TLDR Make mgs a ballistic laserno heat and a CD up dmg

I think that what you're proposing would be a buff to MGs. As they are now, MGs need steady aim and are rather inefficient damage dealt (as in, a lot of the damage you deal will be splashed to adjacent hitboxes instead of the intended one, and will ultimately have zero contribution to the kill). With your proposed change, the MG user will be able to maneuver defensively more often without losing effective DPS, and they'll also be able to focus their damage better.

It would also be more difficult for those being shot at by "burst fire MGs" to defend themselves with good timing. As it is right now, you have a lot of margin for error. It's basically impossible to mistime when you twist back and shoot back against MGs. But if they are burst fire, then you have to be more careful in timing it so that when you expose yourself to shoot, you're not opening yourself up to eating a massive MG burst to the face.

[PocketYoda]

Kanil, on 26 January 2022 - 02:48 PM, said:

MGs have an anti-'mech role in tabletop, given that they do not generate heat. Backstabbing light 'mechs whose purpose in life is to jump behind another 'mech and dump all it's small guns into the rear and follow up with a kick get good use out of MGs -- consider the FS9-M Firestarter as a prime example. It jumps 6 to directly behind an enemy 'mech, fires it's ML, two SL, and two MGs. You can't really swap the MGs for anything else and end up with more damage while still being heat neutral, and if you were really optimizing the thing, it'd have like 4 small lasers and 7 MGs.

It's a very niche use yes, and a lot of stock builds use MGs in really stupid ways, sure. But they have a role, and situations where they are actually useful against other 'mechs.

Oddly enough, their purpose in TT is really similar to their purpose in MWO: shoving your light 'mech right behind someone and blasting away at their rear torso armor. Huh.

I said if it has no choice.. most light mechs don't.

[Noodlejr]

YueFei, on 27 January 2022 - 11:11 PM, said:

Yup, I've written my thoughts on the matter over in that thread.



I think that what you're proposing would be a buff to MGs. As they are now, MGs need steady aim and are rather inefficient damage dealt (as in, a lot of the damage you deal will be splashed to adjacent hitboxes instead of the intended one, and will ultimately have zero contribution to the kill). With your proposed change, the MG user will be able to maneuver defensively more often without losing effective DPS, and they'll also be able to focus their damage better.

It would also be more difficult for those being shot at by "burst fire MGs" to defend themselves with good timing. As it is right now, you have a lot of margin for error. It's basically impossible to mistime when you twist back and shoot back against MGs. But if they are burst fire, then you have to be more careful in timing it so that when you expose yourself to shoot, you're not opening yourself up to eating a massive MG burst to the face.

Would you think with a cool down and making them like a more splattery like an srm or mrm would be better balanced? So not laser accuracy but keep the spread cone so it “bursts” say 25 bullets can be adjusted by mg Rof quirks and stuff? So damage still will ultimately be ammo dependent?

Edit for clarity: Or possibly make them shoot longer bursts the more mgs equipped per mech? Boating them makes a long stream while only a couple will result in something closer to small laser?

Would very much like to hear your feedback!

Edited by Noodlejr, 28 January 2022 - 06:15 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

MPhoenix, on 27 January 2022 - 02:58 PM, said:

I think I've found where your issue is with..

You "thinking" is part of the actual problem here

MPhoenix, on 27 January 2022 - 02:58 PM, said:

well we'll stick to this thread/topic.

If you "think" that'll help that's fine by me

MPhoenix, on 27 January 2022 - 02:58 PM, said:

'I', 'I told you', 'established facts', etc.

The problem seems to be your insistence that your input is inherently unquestionable, incontrovertible and the final say on a topic.

Well, the personal pronoun 'I' would appear to be perfectly suited whenever referencing things that 'I' actually expressed. No instance of me using that pronoun would indicate that 'I' consider my 'input' as being inherently unquestionable, inctrovertible or represents the 'final say' on a topic.You are free to try to ...

• ... refute any claim that 'I' (supposedly) made. For example you could try to find all instances of BT and MechWarrior games were machine guns could jam / produced heat vs. the all the instances where they didn't and still don't do so in order to disprove my claim that it's an (historically) established fact that in those games machine guns normally do not jam / produce heat
  
• ... disprove any fact that 'I' mentioned. Since the prior bullet point by extension already dealt with the thing that I called an 'established fact' how about you disprove the facts that
  
  • BT / MechWarrior games (table top and otherwise) are heavily abstracted with regards to what they simulate as part of the expierence
    
  • the BT universe puts more emphasis on the "fiction" part within the terminology "science-fiction" than the "science" part
    
  • the BT / MechWarrior games are traditionally stronger shaped by the playability considerations of the original table top war game than by both the abstraction or the fiction
• ... inform me on where my (actual) statements of opinion you 'think' are logically incorrect. 'I' might then gladly point out to you why your opinion on that is false

MPhoenix, on 27 January 2022 - 02:58 PM, said:

Sorry, your opinion means the world to you and precisely **** to the rest of the world, just like mine and everyone else's.

Luckily this debate largely doesn't really revolve around my opinions.

MPhoenix, on 27 January 2022 - 02:58 PM, said:

Believe me, just because you've posted something doesn't mean I won't continue to contemplate, theorize and just simply enjoy the act of extrapolating the real life possibilities of sci-fi/fantasy tools, weapons and such.

Oh, I have certainly understood that you deliberately choose to ignore whatever doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions.

MPhoenix, on 27 January 2022 - 02:58 PM, said:

If you can't handle the fact that someone doesn't hold your opinion and gospel fact there's a great tool that is easy to use.

A lesson on the logic function called implication ( A->B ): Whenever you derive a conclusion B from a false permise A you get a logically true but semantically worthless statement. I can absolutely deal with the fact that you don't hold - what you believe to be - my 'opinion and gospel' as fact but I certainly appreciate the surely unintended irony of you trying to educate me on what the "my" problems are when it comes to expressing certain things and you now doing exactly that. ~laugh~

Subsequently I have no reason to use that "easy to use" tool. Actually that tool would be detrimental for me because - due to my formed opinion on your reasoning skills - my personal interest has shifted to amusing myself ... even if that amusement comes at your expense and most likely even without your remotest understanding as to why 'I' am amused or how it is at your expense.

MPhoenix, on 27 January 2022 - 02:58 PM, said:

It's called the 'BACK' button on your browser. Click it and go on about your day, you'll find yourself a much happier person.

Maybe you should consider following your own advise there.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 28 January 2022 - 09:00 AM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Kanil, on 26 January 2022 - 02:48 PM, said:

Oddly enough, their purpose in TT is really similar to their purpose in MWO: shoving your light 'mech right behind someone and blasting away at their rear torso armor. Huh.

And don't forget to KICK the target when you're there. Force a pilot roll, make them fall down.

For all the talk of "melee would solve the problem of light mechs" talk around here... it really wouldn't. Give a light mech a chance of knocking down an assault from behind and the problem gets WORSE. Sneak up to point blank, shoot, kick, back-up, shoot again, then run the F away. Folks would still rage.

[YueFei]

Noodlejr, on 28 January 2022 - 06:12 AM, said:

Would you think with a cool down and making them like a more splattery like an srm or mrm would be better balanced? So not laser accuracy but keep the spread cone so it “bursts” say 25 bullets can be adjusted by mg Rof quirks and stuff? So damage still will ultimately be ammo dependent?

First you said that the main gripe with MGs is "face hugging". Here you suggest adding more spread ala SRMs/MRMs, but that is not going to help at all in any "face hugging" scenario. SRMs and MRMs are pinpoint weapons when you make "contact shots" (all damage will go into one hitbox).

What is the problem you're trying to solve, or the additional gameplay/counter-play options you're trying to introduce?

Quote

Edit for clarity: Or possibly make them shoot longer bursts the more mgs equipped per mech? Boating them makes a long stream while only a couple will result in something closer to small laser?

This is a non-starter because it would require engineering to overhaul things. The only thing on the table right now is basically XML edits. But even if we imagine it is feasible to implement today, why nerf MGs like this? They don't seem overpowered to me, and I never use them, so I have no bias in this (if anything you would think I have an opposite bias against MGs, since I only ever get shot by them).

Again, what's the goal you're trying to achieve here?

[Noodlejr]

YueFei, on 28 January 2022 - 10:41 AM, said:

First you said that the main gripe with MGs is "face hugging". Here you suggest adding more spread ala SRMs/MRMs, but that is not going to help at all in any "face hugging" scenario. SRMs and MRMs are pinpoint weapons when you make "contact shots" (all damage will go into one hitbox).

What is the problem you're trying to solve, or the additional gameplay/counter-play options you're trying to introduce?



This is a non-starter because it would require engineering to overhaul things. The only thing on the table right now is basically XML edits. But even if we imagine it is feasible to implement today, why nerf MGs like this? They don't seem overpowered to me, and I never use them, so I have no bias in this (if anything you would think I have an opposite bias against MGs, since I only ever get shot by them).

Again, what's the goal you're trying to achieve here?

OP wanted to try to argue for jams or overheating on the mgs, I was offering a way to try to implement a somewhat realistic way of IRL GAU’s and what not shooting not a steady stream but also implement a feasible in game solution.

The idea of it being a “laser” with spread or hit cone (like it already has and srms too) is to simulate a burst of machine gun fire, quick “CD” or reload too encourage less face hugging more hit and run or strafing for lights. I also mentioned that maybe the duration of the “burn” would be calculated based off amount of machine guns mounted. Load up your piranha to the gills with mgs and you will have a longer “burn” like a large laser maybe. Have a couple thrown in and it could be closer to a small pulse or small duration.

Machine guns don’t likely need a nerf atm imo but it’s a topic of discussion and I just thought try to offer what alteration I could think of to offer. Thanks for the reply!

[DaZur]

Just a note... MG fire does have a notable cone of fire, particularly at the furthest extent of their respective range.

That said, when MG are deployed in our present play mechanics, they are typically deployed at point blank range mitigating virtually all COF.

... And to whom ever inferred MG fire requires accuracy and aiming... You're daft. It's all about keeping the mech in the crosshair and pouring it on until it pops.

[Curccu]

DaZur, on 28 January 2022 - 11:49 AM, said:

... And to whom ever inferred MG fire requires accuracy and aiming... You're daft. It's all about keeping the mech in the crosshair and pouring it on until it pops.

For some reason my experience tells me "It's all about keeping the mech in the crosshair and pouring it on until it pops." while running 140-160 KPH requires accuracy and aiming, that's why ****** light pilots don't do anything in PIR-1 except die sadly without almost any damage.

Same with all MG lights vs other lights requires quite a of good aiming to keep that crosshair on some flea trying to dodge your dps stream.

And yes I do not leg hump, I do stay close/very close but do not collide on purpose ever.

edit: typo fail

Edited by Curccu, 28 January 2022 - 02:43 PM.

[LordNothing]

ScrapIron Prime, on 25 January 2022 - 07:42 PM, said:

The PPC has a bit more technobabble behind it to back it up. From Sarna:

The Particle Projector Cannon (or PPC) is an energy weapon, firing a concentrated stream of protons or ions at a target with damage resulting from both thermal and kinetic energy.^[4] Despite being an energy weapon, it does produce recoil. The lethality of the weapon rivals that of higher-caliber autocannons; just three shots from a PPC will vaporize nearly two tons of standard military-grade armor.^[5] Targets hit by multiple, simultaneous PPCs can also suffer electrical side-effects, such as overloaded computer systems or targeting sensors.^[6] The ion beam also extends to much farther ranges than autocannon fire

So its protons. Therefore its done with magnets. Its been described as a lightning bolt, a small shock wave, or an "energy charge". That last one is presumably what we're using in MWO because they wanted an energy weapon that didn't energy like the other energies. or something.

ppcs may actually have a basis in reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER

though i suspect the developers were battletech nerds. some of them may actually be here, but aren't at liberty to discuss it.

[Curccu]

LordNothing, on 28 January 2022 - 05:14 PM, said:

ppcs may actually have a basis in reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER

though i suspect the developers were battletech nerds. some of them may actually be here, but aren't at liberty to discuss it.

Seems to be slight difference in speed of the real thingy (3000 km/s) vs PPCs not even mentioning MW2 blue hover plasma balls...

[LordNothing]

Curccu, on 29 January 2022 - 03:30 AM, said:

Seems to be slight difference in speed of the real thingy (3000 km/s) vs PPCs not even mentioning MW2 blue hover plasma balls...

aye, its nuts. skunkworks level stuff. if you ever wondered why lockheed martin funded fusion research. they are developing ppcs and mech engines. so makie coming soon ™.

[PocketYoda]

LordNothing, on 29 January 2022 - 06:23 AM, said:

aye, its nuts. skunkworks level stuff. if you ever wondered why lockheed martin funded fusion research. they are developing ppcs and mech engines. so makie coming soon ™.

Its about time.

[YueFei]

Noodlejr, on 28 January 2022 - 11:10 AM, said:

OP wanted to try to argue for jams or overheating on the mgs, I was offering a way to try to implement a somewhat realistic way of IRL GAU’s and what not shooting not a steady stream but also implement a feasible in game solution.

The idea of it being a “laser” with spread or hit cone (like it already has and srms too) is to simulate a burst of machine gun fire, quick “CD” or reload too encourage less face hugging more hit and run or strafing for lights. I also mentioned that maybe the duration of the “burn” would be calculated based off amount of machine guns mounted. Load up your piranha to the gills with mgs and you will have a longer “burn” like a large laser maybe. Have a couple thrown in and it could be closer to a small pulse or small duration.

Machine guns don’t likely need a nerf atm imo but it’s a topic of discussion and I just thought try to offer what alteration I could think of to offer. Thanks for the reply!

In terms of comparisons with real life, the GAU-8 can actually dump its entire ammo load in a single continuous trigger pull. Pilots don't tend to do that because it's overkill, inefficient, and shortens barrel life, but that's something that only comes into play in longer time frames. It certainly isn't going to cause it to jam up in a single sortie.

Warning, digression follows:

• MWO abstracts away the requirements/consequences of long-term maintenance on a campaign, so every time we fight all our kit is in pristine condition. I mean, if MWO were really more like a true MMORPG, with logistics and fuel and whatnot to worry about, maybe that kind of consideration could come into play. That might be appropriate for something like Faction Play (although it seems it will probably never reach that kind of depth), but it should never be a factor in Quick Play.
  
• If it were up to me and I had the engineering resources, I'd have separated QP and FP in the first place, so that each was its own little "universe" and with separate economies. QP would be as we have it now, instantly-repaired and re-armed mechs. I'd have made FP use completely separate C-Bills system, take logistics into consideration, so each battle has greater consequence, and the mechs would not simply magically repair and re-arm instantly for the next fight.
  
• I'd also have made it so that FP matches could be dynamically joined by players. So numbers would count, and every shot matters. Even if you lose a fight, if you manage to damage the enemy before going down, that damage would carry over. And any friendly reinforcements on your side could drop into the on-going battle and take advantage of the damage you've dealt. This would promote a larger healthier population, since everyone knows their contribution matters, even in defeat. And larger numbers of less skilled players can tip the balance and win out against a smaller number of better players. The matches "instances" would still be limited to 12v12 concurrently, except that as one pilot is defeated (and their mech hauled off to be repaired), another player could then dynamically take their place and join the fray. Players with their mechs shot out from under them, or queued up waiting to join, could spectate through friendly mechs' PoVs, help make call-outs, etc. No 3rd person eye-in-the-sky spectating though!
  
• FP being a separate economy means people wouldn't be able to just farm QP C-Bills to spend on FP mechs/items/equipment/supplies. FP would have actual logistical limits in terms of what is produced, how much fuel / reaction mass is available to transport mechs into battle, etc.
  
• Anyways, end of digression...

Well, it's not that burst-fire-style MGs would necessarily be bad, but... we already have lasers (in particular, pulse & micro lasers) that play in that style, for that skirmishing or quick in-and-out hit&runs. So if we changed MGs to be more like lasers, I feel this wouldn't add variety, but instead reduce variety. Unless there's some other mechanics that can be used so that MGs are still differentiated from other weapons and have a style unto themselves? I think with creativity and more time to think about it, we might come up with something... but again don't get your hopes up, because we're limited to XML changes at this stage of the game's lifecycle.

Edited by YueFei, 29 January 2022 - 03:55 PM.

[Weeny Machine]

ScrapIron Prime, on 28 January 2022 - 10:06 AM, said:

And don't forget to KICK the target when you're there. Force a pilot roll, make them fall down.

For all the talk of "melee would solve the problem of light mechs" talk around here... it really wouldn't. Give a light mech a chance of knocking down an assault from behind and the problem gets WORSE. Sneak up to point blank, shoot, kick, back-up, shoot again, then run the F away. Folks would still rage.

I can see it already...flea ninja kicks an Atlas to the knee pit and the fatty goes down. The whine thread on this forum would be LEGENDARY

[caravann]

Nuke bullets

a.k.a Uranium depleted rounds

A.k.a = armor piercing bullets

primitive gauss machinegun = Railgun

[Curccu]

caravann, on 01 February 2022 - 03:28 AM, said:

primitive gauss machinegun = Railgun

Except Gauss/Coilgun != Railgun

But here is primitive gauss machinegun for you https://e-shotgun.com/ , mech might not get massive damage from it.

[caravann]

Curccu, on 01 February 2022 - 03:49 AM, said:

Except Gauss/Coilgun != Railgun

But here is primitive gauss machinegun for you https://e-shotgun.com/ , mech might not get massive damage from it.

machineguns using armor piercing simulate pulse laser. coilgun hit the surface multiple amount of times. each hit pushes material away which makes it break down, this is why tanks need firepower to push the material away. The coilgun in order work need a nuclear reaction of 1,21 gigawatts.

Tanks , all tanks ever existed had the weakness of structural damage from taking numbers of hits that during WW2 the allies didn't upgrade their gun turrets because the gunnery mounted was enough to hit weak spots. most destruction was made by disable the tank by hitting the wheels or the turret.

[ScrapIron Prime]

caravann, on 01 February 2022 - 07:28 AM, said:

machineguns using armor piercing simulate pulse laser. coilgun hit the surface multiple amount of times. each hit pushes material away which makes it break down, this is why tanks need firepower to push the material away. The coilgun in order work need a nuclear reaction of 1,21 gigawatts.

Tanks , all tanks ever existed had the weakness of structural damage from taking numbers of hits that during WW2 the allies didn't upgrade their gun turrets because the gunnery mounted was enough to hit weak spots. most destruction was made by disable the tank by hitting the wheels or the turret.

True, but tanks in Battletech take WAY more crits than battlemechs do. Mechs are just made tougher. Mech armor is steel backed by super-tech diamond monofilament backed by a bulky support structure. One assumes that tanks are not using the support structure and that treads (or hover skirts/fans) are inherently more vulnerable.

https://www.sarna.ne...echnology#Armor

Edited by ScrapIron Prime, 01 February 2022 - 08:47 AM.

[Kanil]

Nomad Tech, on 28 January 2022 - 05:26 AM, said:

I said if it has no choice.. most light mechs don't.

Okay, but a light 'mech that does have a choice will go with MGs, because they're actually good weapons for the backstabber role in TT. I said the most "optimized" Firestarter backstabber would have 4 SLs (to get to 10 heat) then as many MGs as it can carry (7). You can put MLs on instead, but then you'd overheat. You can put SLs on as well, but again you'd overheat. If you want to be heat neutral to maximize your DPS, you're gonna be running MGs... and if you're not heat neutral, then you're gonna be worse than a 'mech that is after like two turns.

This idea that in TT MGs are useless against 'mechs and never an optimal choice is just flat out wrong. Are they niche? Yes, they're largely limited to light 'mechs that want to get behind other 'mechs to attack their weak rear armor. But in that niche, they are an entirely valid choice.

... which again, also describes MGs in MWO.

Edited by Kanil, 01 February 2022 - 01:16 PM.