121 replies to this topic

[martian]

JediPanther, on 29 October 2022 - 01:36 PM, said:

You know which light mech sucks the most? The one you play when you get a team that isn't a team. I know i'm the best dam light mech player in the game but even 1 dmg can not be op in any mech. I went through fifty of my current screenshots and pulled a small sample of what light mech play end score really is.

What really is op is when you ****** up and the light out played you.

I have noticed that some players, who complain loudly that light 'Mechs should be nerfed because they are OP and easy to play, play light 'Mechs very rarely or not at all.

EDIT:
Almost forgot: Good job in that "Fury".

Edited by martian, 29 October 2022 - 10:41 PM.

[Weeny Machine]

Curccu, on 29 October 2022 - 10:21 AM, said:

Afk or DC? it's known issue that disconnected mechs are sometimes not where they visually appear but hey those also do not shoot back and you can find out where that mech really locates, usually really close to visual appearance.



Issue must be your bad internet connection then. I have never seen damage not registering well on legged light mech.



But you gotta know difference of left and right to do that.... for some people it doesn't seem to be that easy.
Personally If I have high alpha mech (assault or heavy laser vomits for example) I just dump next alpha into head that they cannot twist behind that broken leg and they die by CT.

Sorry, I meant actually DC. However, the shots properly registered on the doll's CT and not ST or other parts. But as I said above, the thing to thrice the damage it would need to blow up. It was completely insane

Edit: This has nothing to do with lights. I am just saying that hitreg sometimes is wobbly at best

Edited by Weeny Machine, 29 October 2022 - 11:44 PM.

[Curccu]

Weeny Machine, on 29 October 2022 - 11:41 PM, said:

Sorry, I meant actually DC. However, the shots properly registered on the doll's CT and not ST or other parts. But as I said above, the thing to thrice the damage it would need to blow up. It was completely insane

Edit: This has nothing to do with lights. I am just saying that hitreg sometimes is wobbly at best

Yep that extreme case is about same as it was during knockdowns mech visually fell into different place where it actually was thus shooting grounded mech usually didn't do much damage as most of the shots missed still opponent fully.

[YueFei]

Whamhammer, on 28 October 2022 - 01:03 PM, said:

Batteltech has SPECIFICALLY pointed to machine guns having a primary purpose of anti-infantry; machine guns and flamers jobs are to take out infantry, and in a pinch, be added to anti-mech weapons against mechs and armor. The Pirahna's TRO SPECIFICALLY pointed the Pirahna's job as anti-infantry.Battletech machineguns are .5 tons (1/4 ton for Clan), for all of the equipment needed to mount and use them in a mech. Battletech only measured things in 1/2 tons until Clan Machine guns, and then later Proto-Mechs and their equipment.

The GAU8 is actually a CANNON, not a machine gun, the same as the M61. One leaves machinegun land, when going beyond the M2 .50 cal.

I have no idea what filled your head with what you posted, but its flat out wrong.

Battletech MGs weigh 0.5 tons.

The GAU-8 weighs roughly 0.28 tons.

The Battletech MG is bigger than the GAU-8.

Do I have to hold your hand to help you color in the rest of this coloring book?

[Akamia Terizen]

YueFei, on 01 November 2022 - 12:33 PM, said:

Battletech MGs weigh 0.5 tons.

The GAU-8 weighs roughly 0.28 tons.

The Battletech MG is bigger than the GAU-8.

Do I have to hold your hand to help you color in the rest of this coloring book?

That's mostly to do with how BT rounds equipment to the nearest half-ton, I'd wager, with vanishingly few items being rated 0 tons. Wham is correct despite this. BattleTech Machine guns are a dedicated anti-personnel weapon in the context of the setting; the fact they happen to work against BattleMech armor is kind of irrelevant. Remember, we're dealing with a universe that gives Square-Cube Law the finger, FTL travel is possible, mechs are somehow more useful than tanks, bigger cannons somehow don't shoot farther than smaller ones, and squads of infantry can do damage to BattleMech armor without actually carrying or using dedicated equipment for the task, at least in tabletop gameplay; fiction's a little bit unclear about that last one most of the time.

I'm not saying his points regarding the gameplay of MWO hold water, but at least on this matter, canon is absolutely on his side, comparisons to real world weapons notwithstanding.

In fact, to save oneself some sanity points, one should probably avoid making such comparisons in the first place, under most circumstances; BattleTech canon weapons versus real weapons is a flame war as old as the franchise itself.

Edited by Akamia Terizen, 01 November 2022 - 01:25 PM.

[YueFei]

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 01:09 PM, said:

That's mostly to do with how BT rounds equipment to the nearest half-ton, I'd wager, with vanishingly few items being rated 0 tons. Wham is correct despite this. BattleTech Machine guns are a dedicated anti-personnel weapon in the context of the setting; the fact they happen to work against BattleMech armor is kind of irrelevant. Remember, we're dealing with a universe that gives Square-Cube Law the finger, FTL travel is possible, mechs are somehow more useful than tanks, and squads of infantry can do damage to BattleMech armor without actually carrying or using dedicated equipment for the task, at least in tabletop gameplay; fiction's a little bit unclear about that last one most of the time.

I'm not saying his points regarding the gameplay of MWO hold water, but at least on this matter, canon is absolutely on his side, comparisons to real world weapons notwithstanding.

This has already been posted a few times before within this thread, but the original Battletech had MGs and no infantry to shoot them at, only other Mechs to shoot at. Battletech MGs are weapon that works against other Mechs. Does 2 damage to Mechs back then, and still does now.

MGs are extra deliciously effective at shredding infantry, but that doesn't make them anti-personnel weapons. If we want to make analogies to real life, 30mm auto-cannons are definitely anti-armor weapons. They'll absolutely shred infantry, of course (then again, what doesn't), but it's primary purpose is to take out armor.

Turning this discussion away from that tangent and back to this thread:
To reiterate, the original Battletech game had "MGs", and there wasn't even any infantry to shoot them at. Those MGs were intended to shoot Mechs and be effective at doing so. All you had was Mech on Mech combat.
MWO is a game based on Battletech which features Mech on Mech combat, and no infantry to shoot at. So... it shouldn't be surprising that MGs are effective anti-Mech weapons in MWO.

[Akamia Terizen]

YueFei, on 01 November 2022 - 01:27 PM, said:

This has already been posted a few times before within this thread, but the original Battletech had MGs and no infantry to shoot them at, only other Mechs to shoot at.

Honestly, what sort of fluff happened back in the Battledroids and BattleTech: Second Edition days is kind of immaterial. The franchise has moved on from those days. This isn't 1985 anymore. The canon says they're anti-infantry and has said so for decades now, so in the context of BattleTech, they are, no matter what real life anti-infantry weapons, vehicle-mounted or otherwise, have to say about it. We literally have an anti-personnel Gauss Rifle in the tabletop, capable of doing one point more damage to BattleMechs than the Machine Guns do. If this doesn't show you what the BattleTech universe considers "anti-infantry"/"anti-personnel", I don't know what will. BattleTech does not care about what our real world weapons do, or necessarily even about their intended purpose; if it did, the game would look very different today, for better or for worse.

I agree, though. It really should not be surprising that they are effective in MWO. With all the other odd quirks of the tabletop rules, it's not surprising to see them effective against BattleMechs also; I don't think there is a weapon that exists in the game that cannot damage BattleMechs or anything else with standard BAR-10 armor. Again, infantry using rifles meant for killing other infantry can do damage to that stuff just fine according to the rules*. Even if you were correct that shooting other ’Mechs is the primary purpose of the BattleTech Machine Gun, though, it does a much better job at fighting infantry.

* There might be certain tabletop spinoffs at the infantry scale – stuff where you play individual infantry troopers – that negate this idea, like possibly A Time of War. I do not own this rulebook. But infantry squads in Total Warfare scale (standard BattleTech) doing damage with weapons meant for their peers against BattleMechs is fully legal, if dangerously stupid to try in most circumstances.

Edited by Akamia Terizen, 01 November 2022 - 02:21 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 01:47 PM, said:

Honestly, what sort of fluff happened back in the Battledroids and BattleTech: Second Edition days is kind of immaterial.

Unless of course Machine Guns are as effective against Battle Mechs in the current system as they were during the times that you now want to call "immaterial".

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 01:47 PM, said:

The franchise has moved on from those days.

The table top part has moved on? It would appear that Machine Guns do the exact same 2 points of damage against Mechs - just like an AC/2 or a singular SRM - that they did when the game was introduced first.

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 01:47 PM, said:

This isn't 1985 anymore.

Yet we're still talking 250kg to 1000kg of "Machine Gun" that do the same damage as ever and by their very nature are more akin to 20mm to 30mm gatling gun / rotary guns with the size and weight of small cars that suffer from the same range restrictions that all Battletech weapons suffer due to the necessity of being part of a table top environment that even at the 1:285 scale would require several meters of width and length to even remotely be able to simulate "real" weapons (including those mislabeled "Machine Guns").

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 01:47 PM, said:

The canon says they're anti-infantry and has said so for decades now, so in the context of BattleTech, they are, no matter what real life anti-infantry weapons, vehicle-mounted or otherwise, have to say about it.

With the caveat that within "canon" the term "anti-infantry" doesn't refer to systems that are exclusively used against infantry targets but instead means that the weapon in question does additional damage against infantry targets while retaining their base damage against Mech / Vehicle targets.

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 01:47 PM, said:

We literally have an anti-personnel Gauss Rifle in the tabletop, capable of doing one point more damage to BattleMechs than the Machine Guns do. If this doesn't show you what the BattleTech universe considers "anti-infantry"/"anti-personnel", I don't know what will.

We literally also have AC/2s and SRMs that deal the exact same amout of damage per bullet / missile against Battle Mechs - both of which do 1 point less that your "Anti-Personnel Gauss Rifle and the Heavy Machine Gun" against Battle Mechs. So if that doesn't say "anti Mech weapon" to you I - by the exact same fallacious reasoning as yours - don't know what will.

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 01:47 PM, said:

I agree, though. It really should not be surprising that they are effective in MWO.

Considering that they are ultimately less effective than weapons that are their equals in table top it's rather amusing that this whole "anti-infantry"-nonsense is still being touted on a regular basis.

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 01:47 PM, said:

Even if you were correct that shooting other ’Mechs is the primary purpose of the BattleTech Machine Gun, though, it does a much better job at fighting infantry.

As are Mirco and Small Pulse Lasers as well as Flamers in table top ... yet noone seems to constantly bring those up as being "anti-infantry" with regards to MW:O.

TL;DR: The whole "anti-infantry"-ramblings are just that: ramblings of people that want to justify the removal of a weapon that by its original source is capable of not just damaging infantry but the "kings of the battle field" just as good as the smallest auto-cannon and SRMs. So get over it ... preferably once and for all.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 01 November 2022 - 02:46 PM.

[Akamia Terizen]

Der Geisterbaer, on 01 November 2022 - 02:44 PM, said:

Unless of course Machine Guns are as effective against Battle Mechs in the current system as they were during the times that you now want to call "immaterial".

Frankly, you generally do not want to use machine guns against BattleMechs when you can use other weapons instead, especially on a table where combined arms are in play. The damage and effectiveness did not change; the context of the weapon itself did.

Of course, in the case of certain ’Mechs, when all you have is a hammer...

Der Geisterbaer, on 01 November 2022 - 02:44 PM, said:

The table top part has moved on? It would appear that Machine Guns do the exact same 2 points of damage against Mechs - just like an AC/2 or a singular SRM - that they did when the game was introduced first.

MGs do more damage to infantry; the other two weapon systems you mentioned do not.

Der Geisterbaer, on 01 November 2022 - 02:44 PM, said:

Yet we're still talking 250kg to 1000kg of "Machine Gun" that do the same damage as ever and by their very nature are more akin to 20mm to 30mm gatling gun / rotary guns with the size and weight of small cars that suffer from the same range restrictions that all Battletech weapons suffer due to the necessity of being part of a table top environment that even at the 1:285 scale would require several meters of width and length to even remotely be able to simulate "real" weapons (including those mislabeled "Machine Guns").

Not in dispute.

Der Geisterbaer, on 01 November 2022 - 02:44 PM, said:

With the caveat that within "canon" the term "anti-infantry" doesn't refer to systems that are exclusively used against infantry targets but instead means that the weapon in question does additional damage against infantry targets while retaining their base damage against Mech / Vehicle targets.

Sure, but as I mentioned before, in Total Warfare, literally every weapon in the game can hurt a BattleMech, including literally everything carried by infantry. Are you about to tell me that the various standard issue rifles in the BattleTech universe aren't primarily meant for shooting other infantry troopers?

Der Geisterbaer, on 01 November 2022 - 02:44 PM, said:

We literally also have AC/2s and SRMs that deal the exact same amout of damage per bullet / missile against Battle Mechs - both of which do 1 point less that your "Anti-Personnel Gauss Rifle and the Heavy Machine Gun" against Battle Mechs. So if that doesn't say "anti Mech weapon" to you I - by the exact same fallacious reasoning as yours - don't know what will.

Again, those other weapons lack bonus damage against infantry, so I'm not sure why you're bringing them up at all...

Machine guns, flamers, AP Gauss rifles, even the small pulse laser... These weapons fill a role in a BattleMech's arsenal that other weapons do not. That AC/2 may be just as effective against BattleMech armor as a machine gun, but it's definitely not the right tool for shooting infantry. At least, not if you want them dead fast...

Der Geisterbaer, on 01 November 2022 - 02:44 PM, said:

TL;DR: The whole "anti-infantry"-ramblings are just that: ramblings of people that want to justify the removal of a weapon that by its original source is capable of not just damaging infantry but the "kings of the battle field" just as good as the smallest auto-cannon and SRMs. So get over it ... preferably once and for all.

Not a position I hold; you must have me confused with someone else. I don't want MGs to go away; I use them somewhat frequently myself, I find them quite nice. But to call them "not anti-infantry" is canonically false.

Edited by Akamia Terizen, 01 November 2022 - 04:10 PM.

[Blood Rose]

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 03:00 PM, said:

Frankly, you generally do not want to use machine guns against BattleMechs when you can use other weapons instead, especially on a table where combined arms are in play. The damage and effectiveness did not change; the context of the weapon itself did.

Of course, in the case of certain ’Mechs, when all you have is a hammer...

If your in range then you use them because 0 heat damage is amazing

Quote

MGs do more damage to infantry; the other two weapon systems you mentioned do not.

Someone introduce this [hard gamer word that would get me banned] to Flechette shells and Inferno/Frag warheads

Quote

Sure, but as I mentioned before, in Total Warfare, literally every weapon in the game can hurt a BattleMech, including literally everything carried by infantry. Are you about to tell me that the various standard issue rifles in the BattleTech universe aren't primarily meant for shooting other infantry troopers?

Its usually accepted that those small arms are toting underbarrel launchers, rifle grenades, or in the case of lasers, are turned up to 11

Quote

Machine guns, flamers, AP Gauss rifles, even the small pulse laser... These weapons fill a role in a BattleMech's arsenal that other weapons do not.

Small, fast firing, point blank holdout weapons for when enemy armour gets into knife fighting range?

[Der Geisterbaer]

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 03:00 PM, said:

Frankly, you generally do not want to use machine guns against BattleMechs when you can use other weapons instead, especially on a table where combined arms are in play.

Ah, so now we're straight to more fallacious reasoning, where you try to plead special cases by referncing particular gaming situations.
Hint: It's advisabe to use any available weapon system where applicable and "combined arms" actually still isn't the default table top setting. A zero heat attack is a zero heat attack and as pointed out before it actually does the same damage as an AC/2, a singular SRM and - prepare to be exicted - 1 point more than a singular LRM.

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 03:00 PM, said:

The damage and effectiveness did not change; the context of the weapon itself did.

No, that's you telling yourself that it did. I can still play a good old 3025 stock mech game without any vehicles and infantry just as I could in the oiriginal game of Battle Droids and every edition ever since.

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 03:00 PM, said:

Of course, in the case of certain ’Mechs, when all you have is a hammer...

... your arguments don't become any less fallacious (or incorrect), so - ironically - it's you who trying to turn this into an "everything becomes a nail" situation.

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 03:00 PM, said:

MGs do more damage to infantry; the other two weapon systems you mentioned do not.

You might want to recheck the sources you yourself brought forth (Total Warfare): Small Pulse Lasers and Micro Pulse Lasers do receive the same damage modifier of 2D6 as machine guns do.

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 03:00 PM, said:

Not in dispute.

It's most definitely under dispute considering that machine guns as alleged anti-infantry weapons are often compared to real world machine guns like the M60 and similar actual infantry weapons that clock in well below 50kgs even in "heavy" versions whereas the Battletech machine guns "somehow" clock in in weights that seem to be "on par" with weapon systems like a Vulcan or the GAU-8 Avenger and "surprisingly" enough are designed to target armored vehicles including main battle tanks of the era that they were introdruced in and not surprisingly will alos devestate infantry should they end up in the kill zones of those systems. Yet noone in their right mind will call either a Vulcan or a GAU-8 an "anti-infantry" weapon ... and that's before we have left reality behind to enter suspension of disbelief for a fictional setting with stomping robots that are used to duke it out in "close quarters" on battlefields of 2 maps that represent less than 0.5km²

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 03:00 PM, said:

Sure, but as I mentioned before, in Total Warfare, literally every weapon in the game can hurt a BattleMech, including literally everything carried by infantry.

And guess what? That's because even with "combined arms" Battletech is still a game that revolves around killing Mechs. It's an abstraction specifically made for that very purpose. The problem with your ill-fated attempts concerning "machine guns" still is that those "machine guns" as sibngular weapons systems (as opposed to aggregated infantry weapons) do the same damage as other "dedicated" anti-mech weapons and did so ever since before infantry was conceived as part of the gameplay. What's even worse: Your entire argument where you plead the special case of combined arms is null and void as far as MW:O is concerned because MW:O just like the original Battletech simply doesn't have infantry (or other Non-Mech combat vehicles) under player control and the machine guns here do what they do in table top as well: They friggin' damage Battle Mechs (albeit actually in a less effective manner than their table top counterparts).

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 03:00 PM, said:

Are you about to tell me that the various standard issue rifles in the BattleTech universe aren't primarily meant for shooting other infantry troopers?

No, I'm instead going to tell you that this strawman fallacy in question form just brought you further into fallacy territory and also demonstrates that you're confusing various concepts (including damage abstraction) for the sake of retaining your "Battletech machine guns are anti-infantry weapons" fantasy.

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 03:00 PM, said:

Again, those other weapons lack bonus damage against infantry, so I'm not sure why you're bringing them up at all...

No, those other weapons share the + 2D6 modifier (or even a +4D6 bonus in case of the flamer). So you being unsure as to why I'm bringing those up: You clearly don't know what you're talking about but pretend to be an expert on how BT allegedly has "moved on". Go back to you Total Warffare book. A page somwhere around 210 to 220 should help you to get your enlightenment about "Burst Fire Weapons Versus Infantry"

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 03:00 PM, said:

Machine guns, flamers, AP Gauss rifles, even the small pulse laser... These weapons fill a role in a BattleMech's arsenal that other weapons do not.

They fill those roles in addition to their primary function: Destroying Battle Mechs.

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 03:00 PM, said:

That AC/2 may be just as effective against BattleMech armor as a machine gun, but it's definitely not the right tool for shooting infantry. At least, not if you want them dead fast...

Which is entirely besides the actual point: This is about "machine guns" being "anti-mech" weapons in both table top and MW:O and not about "weapon X" not being a "good anti-infantry weapon" in table top. Now you're trying to move goal-posts. Makes me wonder which fallacy you'll employ next.

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 03:00 PM, said:

Not a position I hold; you must have me confused with someone else.

You are trying to sell them off as anti-infantry weapons in a context where infantry is not of any concern and in an attempt to counter arguments surrounding machine guns and how they always worked (and still work) in table top. So you'll have to accept that I put you in the exact same category of people that my original TL;DR: referenced ... and no, I'm not confusing you with anyone. I'm actively putting you in that very box, because

Akamia Terizen, on 01 November 2022 - 03:00 PM, said:

I don't want MGs to go away; I use them somewhat frequently myself, I find them quite nice. But to call them "not anti-infantry" is canonically false.

... nobody actually called them "not anti-infantry" in the sense that they don't do extra damage in certain scenarios when playing the table top but most definitely aren't "just anti-infantry" weapons but full fledged "anti-mech" weapons - that do the same and more damage as more dedicated anti-mech weapons on a per shot / per missile basis. So this isn't about saying "not anti-infantry" being "canonically false" but rather about saying "not anti-mech" is "canonically false" ... and you would have been better off with accepting that as I suggested before. I just won't expect you to embrace that now that you also demonstrated your own lack of knowledge concerning other such "anti-infantry" weapons

[Akamia Terizen]

Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:

Ah, so now we're straight to more fallacious reasoning, where you try to plead special cases by referncing particular gaming situations.
Hint: It's advisabe to use any available weapon system where applicable and "combined arms" actually still isn't the default table top setting. A zero heat attack is a zero heat attack and as pointed out before it actually does the same damage as an AC/2, a singular SRM and - prepare to be exicted - 1 point more than a singular LRM.

I don't think you understand what special pleading is or how it applies. This is not special pleading. I'm looking at what canon is telling me, and canon is telling me that they are an anti-infantry weapon that just happens to be useful against armored targets like BattleMechs. They certainly weren't made explicitly to fight BattleMechs, because they canonically predate them. These are pre-spaceflight weapons being used in BattleTech's modern day. The Mackie, and therefore the BattleMech, was post-spaceflight.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with CGL. Take it up with WizKids. Take it up with the people who used to work for FASA at the time. I didn't make this up.

Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:

No, that's you telling yourself that it did. I can still play a good old 3025 stock mech game without any vehicles and infantry just as I could in the oiriginal game of Battle Droids and every edition ever since.

No one said you couldn't. What does this have to do with the machine gun or any other anti-infantry weapon in the game? Just because there is no infantry on your table and they are still fully usable, that doesn't mean they aren't an anti-infantry weapon in the context of the tabletop game and fictional universe as a whole. Especially since we have literally every weapon in the game hurting BattleMechs when at least some of them realistically shouldn't at all, such as those infantry rifles I keep bringing up. I'm not remotely arguing that the BattleMech Machine Gun should be among those weapons, but you're arguing a position that comes off as absolutely preposterous to me.

Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:

... your arguments don't become any less fallacious (or incorrect), so - ironically - it's you who trying to turn this into an "everything becomes a nail" situation.

There is no logical fallacy in my reasoning I can find. Maybe you'd like to demonstrate for me?

Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:

You might want to recheck the sources you yourself brought forth (Total Warfare): Small Pulse Lasers and Micro Pulse Lasers do receive the same damage modifier of 2D6 as machine guns do.

I know.

Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:

It's most definitely under dispute considering that machine guns as alleged anti-infantry weapons are often compared to real world machine guns like the M60 and similar actual infantry weapons that clock in well below 50kgs even in "heavy" versions whereas the Battletech machine guns "somehow" clock in in weights that seem to be "on par" with weapon systems like a Vulcan or the GAU-8 Avenger and "surprisingly" enough are designed to target armored vehicles including main battle tanks of the era that they were introdruced in and not surprisingly will alos devestate infantry should they end up in the kill zones of those systems. Yet noone in their right mind will call either a Vulcan or a GAU-8 an "anti-infantry" weapon ... and that's before we have left reality behind to enter suspension of disbelief for a fictional setting with stomping robots that are used to duke it out in "close quarters" on battlefields of 2 maps that represent less than 0.5km²

You will notice at no point have I personally ever made those comparisons, and in fact, actively discouraged making them, precisely because such discussions lead nowhere productive. This very conversation is evidence of that fact.

Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:

And guess what? That's because even with "combined arms" Battletech is still a game that revolves around killing Mechs. It's an abstraction specifically made for that very purpose. The problem with your ill-fated attempts concerning "machine guns" still is that those "machine guns" as sibngular weapons systems (as opposed to aggregated infantry weapons) do the same damage as other "dedicated" anti-mech weapons and did so ever since before infantry was conceived as part of the gameplay. What's even worse: Your entire argument where you plead the special case of combined arms is null and void as far as MW:O is concerned because MW:O just like the original Battletech simply doesn't have infantry (or other Non-Mech combat vehicles) under player control and the machine guns here do what they do in table top as well: They friggin' damage Battle Mechs (albeit actually in a less effective manner than their table top counterparts).

Nonetheless, it remains one reason among others that I am unconvinced that the BattleMech Machine Gun is dedicated as anti-BattleMech in the context of the BattleTech universe today, no matter what the origins of the game were. The fact that it can damage BattleMechs is not an issue in my mind; given everything else, I would be more surprised if it didn't.

Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:

No, I'm instead going to tell you that this strawman fallacy in question form just brought you further into fallacy territory and also demonstrates that you're confusing various concepts (including damage abstraction) for the sake of retaining your "Battletech machine guns are anti-infantry weapons" fantasy.

I don't think you know what a strawman is. I did not say that was a position you held; I was asking if it was. Clearly, it isn't.

Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:

No, those other weapons share the + 2D6 modifier (or even a +4D6 bonus in case of the flamer). So you being unsure as to why I'm bringing those up: You clearly don't know what you're talking about but pretend to be an expert on how BT allegedly has "moved on". Go back to you Total Warffare book. A page somwhere around 210 to 220 should help you to get your enlightenment about "Burst Fire Weapons Versus Infantry"

The weapons I mentioned all have the modifier, yes. That was precisely why I mentioned them. They are anti-infantry weapons in the context of the BattleTech universe. The weapons you mentioned did not. They are not anti-infantry.

Look, dude, if you're going to seriously argue that a BattleMech-scale weapon that literally has "anti-personnel" in its name (AP Gauss) is not primarily intended for that role, then please never talk to me about logical fallacies again. I will not hear it from you.

Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:

Which is entirely besides the actual point: This is about "machine guns" being "anti-mech" weapons in both table top and MW:O and not about "weapon X" not being a "good anti-infantry weapon" in table top. Now you're trying to move goal-posts. Makes me wonder which fallacy you'll employ next.

I'm not moving any goal posts. I don't know what you thought the goal posts were, but when I entered the conversation, I kept my goal posts consistent. Again, you have me confused with someone else.

Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:

You are trying to sell them off as anti-infantry weapons in a context where infantry is not of any concern and in an attempt to counter arguments surrounding machine guns and how they always worked (and still work) in table top. So you'll have to accept that I put you in the exact same category of people that my original TL;DR: referenced ... and no, I'm not confusing you with anyone. I'm actively putting you in that very box, because

Because you have me confused with someone else. I don't agree with Whamhammer, okay? The machine gun stays, working as it always has. It's not a problem to me. What is a problem is the idea that it isn't an anti-infantry weapon in the context of BattleTech. Bringing real life weapons into the discussion is a fallacy of its own. BattleTech is not real. It doesn't obey real life's rules. Stop it.

And don't talk to me about strawmen when you are trying to force me to defend a position I don't hold. If anyone is erecting strawmen here, it is you.

Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:

... nobody actually called them "not anti-infantry" in the sense that they don't do extra damage in certain scenarios when playing the table top but most definitely aren't "just anti-infantry" weapons but full fledged "anti-mech" weapons - that do the same and more damage as more dedicated anti-mech weapons on a per shot / per missile basis. So this isn't about saying "not anti-infantry" being "canonically false" but rather about saying "not anti-mech" is "canonically false" ... and you would have been better off with accepting that as I suggested before. I just won't expect you to embrace that now that you also demonstrated your own lack of knowledge concerning other such "anti-infantry" weapons

I don't think you have any right to tell me what I would have been "better off" accepting. Between the two of us, I think you're barking up the wrong tree to begin with.

Good day.

Edited by Akamia Terizen, 02 November 2022 - 10:12 PM.

[caravann]

The small lasers need to have an increase of heat. The game try to make diversity of weapons but ER lasers and lasers is just lasers while the ER had extended range. Machineguns are fairly balanced by being used on Jagermech and king crab.

Small lasers deal too much damage compared with low heat and has been ranted by DATA for months showing how every time he put on small lasers they outgun every other weapon in heat that the solution is to increase cool down on small lasers. It doesn't change the damage on the weapon by increasing the small laser cool down, it reduce the three in a row shots of light mechs.

Increased cool down on small laser would promote ER small lasers which has increased heat. Range doesn't have as much impact compared to heat in short range.

Small lasers being lower in heat with increased cool down would make them run even cooler as it will take longer for the small lasers to cycle shots. Small lasers would still have the one shot impact while unable to rely on DPS to deal internal damage.

Internal damage from small lasers is reduced as the target gains response time and players would be promoted to use ER lasers which increase heat and make the opponent obtain an advantage as the mech is overheating. Small lasers would be down voted and instead be replaced with micro pulse or small pulse which means weapons who deal higher amount of heat or deal lower amount of damage and demand a higher amount of hard points.

Medium lasers and ER small lasers is promoted which means an increase of heat and a reduce of mechs who rely on close impact to hit the target. Players will shoot from a further range which reduce anxiety of dealing with players pushing other players in a corner of the map as both sides are given space from each other.

Small lasers taking a too much space on how players make their mechs that mechs like the flea is pretty much build around small lasers. The machine guns have ammo bins which can be destroyed by critical hits and reduced in ammo to balance.

[Curccu]

caravann, on 03 November 2022 - 12:07 AM, said:

The small lasers need to have an increase of heat. The game try to make diversity of weapons but ER lasers and lasers is just lasers while the ER had extended range. Machineguns are fairly balanced by being used on Jagermech and king crab.

Small lasers deal too much damage compared with low heat and has been ranted by DATA for months showing how every time he put on small lasers they outgun every other weapon in heat that the solution is to increase cool down on small lasers. It doesn't change the damage on the weapon by increasing the small laser cool down, it reduce the three in a row shots of light mechs.

Increased cool down on small laser would promote ER small lasers which has increased heat. Range doesn't have as much impact compared to heat in short range.

Small lasers being lower in heat with increased cool down would make them run even cooler as it will take longer for the small lasers to cycle shots. Small lasers would still have the one shot impact while unable to rely on DPS to deal internal damage.

Internal damage from small lasers is reduced as the target gains response time and players would be promoted to use ER lasers which increase heat and make the opponent obtain an advantage as the mech is overheating. Small lasers would be down voted and instead be replaced with micro pulse or small pulse which means weapons who deal higher amount of heat or deal lower amount of damage and demand a higher amount of hard points.

Medium lasers and ER small lasers is promoted which means an increase of heat and a reduce of mechs who rely on close impact to hit the target. Players will shoot from a further range which reduce anxiety of dealing with players pushing other players in a corner of the map as both sides are given space from each other.

Small lasers taking a too much space on how players make their mechs that mechs like the flea is pretty much build around small lasers. The machine guns have ammo bins which can be destroyed by critical hits and reduced in ammo to balance.

We are clearly not playing same game because small lasers are hardly seen on battlefield, I see 10 MG mechs for every small laser mech easily probably 20 is closer to truth.

IF IS would have some 30 tonner with 16 E hardpoints I could agree that small lasers would be OP in that case but we don't 30ton-IS-laserboat

[Darian DelFord]

caravann, on 03 November 2022 - 12:07 AM, said:

The small lasers need to have an increase of heat. The game try to make diversity of weapons but ER lasers and lasers is just lasers while the ER had extended range. Machineguns are fairly balanced by being used on Jagermech and king crab.

Small lasers deal too much damage compared with low heat and has been ranted by DATA for months showing how every time he put on small lasers they outgun every other weapon in heat that the solution is to increase cool down on small lasers. It doesn't change the damage on the weapon by increasing the small laser cool down, it reduce the three in a row shots of light mechs.

Increased cool down on small laser would promote ER small lasers which has increased heat. Range doesn't have as much impact compared to heat in short range.

Small lasers being lower in heat with increased cool down would make them run even cooler as it will take longer for the small lasers to cycle shots. Small lasers would still have the one shot impact while unable to rely on DPS to deal internal damage.

Internal damage from small lasers is reduced as the target gains response time and players would be promoted to use ER lasers which increase heat and make the opponent obtain an advantage as the mech is overheating. Small lasers would be down voted and instead be replaced with micro pulse or small pulse which means weapons who deal higher amount of heat or deal lower amount of damage and demand a higher amount of hard points.

Medium lasers and ER small lasers is promoted which means an increase of heat and a reduce of mechs who rely on close impact to hit the target. Players will shoot from a further range which reduce anxiety of dealing with players pushing other players in a corner of the map as both sides are given space from each other.

Small lasers taking a too much space on how players make their mechs that mechs like the flea is pretty much build around small lasers. The machine guns have ammo bins which can be destroyed by critical hits and reduced in ammo to balance.

The vast majority of the problem with small lasers is peoples situational response, and lack of response when being fired upon. As one of those players who uses small lasers, it amazes me how many times I can shoot someone in the back before they turn around. Especially snipers. To be effective your less than what 200 meters? Well within the range of seismic.

Edited by Darian DelFord, 03 November 2022 - 03:13 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Ding Toast is Ready, on 03 November 2022 - 06:09 AM, said:

The "just as much damage as an AC2" argument is a weird one to make given that AC2s are considered one of the worst (if not THE worst) weapon systems in Battletech.

Oh, it's fallacy time again. This time two in one:
The AC/2 (allegedly) being considered "as one of the worst (if not the worst) weapon system in Battletech" (by whom?, according to which sources beyond your eppeal to your own authority?) does not logically lead into the conclusion that a weapon with the same damage also being a "anti-mech weapon" is somehow "weird" (if not supposedly outright "wrong"). That's a straight up "non-sequitur fallacy.

Matter of fact remains: The AC/2 is an anti-mech weapon. One of the important traits - if not the only trait - that makes it an "anti-mech" weapon is that it canonically is capable of damaging mechs with a singular shot for two points of (abstracted) "mech damage".

The modus tolens (p -> q) here is:

1: Anything that does at least 2 points of mech damage like an AC/2 is an "anti-mech weapon"
2. The machine gun deals 2 points of damage against mechs
3. Therefore the machine gun is an "anti-mech weapon".

Ding Toast is Ready, on 03 November 2022 - 06:09 AM, said:

An MG's only saving graces vs. an AC2 are no minimum range, low tonnage investment and no heat.

So, the (allegedly) "only" saving grace are three different traits where the mahcine gun is "better" than an AC/2 - depending on very specific circumstances? So 1 == 3?

Ding Toast is Ready, on 03 November 2022 - 06:09 AM, said:

Massed MGs will scatter damage all around an enemy mech

Just as massed "anything else" will do in table top. Whether it's the 10 AC/2s on a Bane or several Small (Pulse) Lasers / Micro ER / Pulse lasers on a - what a coincidence - PIR-2

Ding Toast is Ready, on 03 November 2022 - 06:09 AM, said:

(MG Arrays are a different story)

Funny fact: In MW:O machine gund arrays are included "by default" at no extra weight.

Ding Toast is Ready, on 03 November 2022 - 06:09 AM, said:

which is typically extremely unhelpful unless the mech in question has opened armor and you're critfishing to knock components out.

Let's just ignore that every Battletech weapon always has a 1/36 chance of scoring criticals via the "center torso critical" hit result of 1-1 as well as a 1/36 base chance of scoring a head hit that may or may not lead to pilot damage and fall damage.
And all other weapons are still just spreading their damage in the exact same way.

Ding Toast is Ready, on 03 November 2022 - 06:09 AM, said:

In the meantime, MG Ammo on your mech is like strapping a nuclear warhead to it in the absence of CASE/CASE II and if the MG Ammo bin is mounted in CT by default (the Warhammer-6R has this, I believe) an unlucky TAC or a crit on an open CT/rear CT will turn your Warhammer-6R into a supernova of shrapnel and fire and your pilot into red jelly potentially.

That's true for pretty much any ammo in BT and interstingly enough has zero relevance when trying to answer the question of whether or not the machine gun (in game versions that either do not have infantry anyway [like MW:O] or just in optional situations [table top]) is an "anti-mech" weapon that is supposed to be able to damage Mechs and - given the right circumstances - even kill them.

[Akamia Terizen]

Der Geisterbaer, on 03 November 2022 - 09:52 AM, said:

Oh, it's fallacy time again. This time two in one:
The AC/2 (allegedly) being considered "as one of the worst (if not the worst) weapon system in Battletech" (by whom?, according to which sources beyond your eppeal to your own authority?) does not logically lead into the conclusion that a weapon with the same damage also being a "anti-mech weapon" is somehow "weird" (if not supposedly outright "wrong"). That's a straight up "non-sequitur fallacy.

Matter of fact remains: The AC/2 is an anti-mech weapon. One of the important traits - if not the only trait - that makes it an "anti-mech" weapon is that it canonically is capable of damaging mechs with a singular shot for two points of (abstracted) "mech damage".

The modus tolens (p -> q) here is:

1: Anything that does at least 2 points of mech damage like an AC/2 is an "anti-mech weapon"
2. The machine gun deals 2 points of damage against mechs
3. Therefore the machine gun is an "anti-mech weapon".

By itself, the amount of damage done to BattleMechs or other armor is ultimately a red herring, because BattleMechs can be hurt by anything at all, rendering the "anti-mech" distinction as you are using it completely meaningless. We need to look at what else the weapon is doing. The AC/2 with standard munitions is a flagrantly subpar option in BattleTech tabletop. I'll grant that its primary purpose is shooting armored targets, but that's the only thing it's at all good at with standard ammo, and it's quite well known that it's a poor choice even in 3025 play when there are other options available, such as the almighty medium laser, or large lasers and PPCs if it's the range you want. Arguably the AC/2 is better served shooting infantry with flechette ammo, but few ’Mechs come with that standard; you'll have to swap out the ammo bins yourself with a pencil most of the time. I would still argue the machine gun is a better choice in that regard, but at least with the AC/2, you have range on your side.

Der Geisterbaer, on 03 November 2022 - 09:52 AM, said:

So, the (allegedly) "only" saving grace are three different traits where the mahcine gun is "better" than an AC/2 - depending on very specific circumstances? So 1 == 3?

Those traits don't matter if you can't get close, and in tabletop, the AC/2 doesn't want to get close under any circumstances. So in a range game, say for example you're up against someone who's playing an Awesome or two, on a slower BattleMech, the AC/2 is the better choice between the two weapons – though that's probably not saying much.

Let's take it a different way. You know what a Rifleman is, right? Everyone here knows what a Rifleman is. Let's look at the Rifleman.

In lore, the Rifleman is considered an anti-air BattleMech, and excels in that role. It has advanced targeting designed for shooting aerial targets reliably. During the Succession Wars, it was pressed into roles it wasn't designed for with questionable results.

On the table, this is reflected quite well, at least if one is willing to account for everything the game has to offer. It does shoot air targets better than most other ’Mechs from its time. Shooting other ’Mechs is something it can certainly do, and in the absence of any aircraft to worry about, it absolutely should, but other fire support ’Mechs exist that do that job better than the Rifleman does, even in 3025.

Now, in video games, and especially MechWarrior Online, you'd be correct to point out that building for anti-air is a fool's errand. Aside from UAVs that never move from where they're deployed, invulnerable bombers dropping air strikes, and equally invulnerable DropShips deploying BattleMechs at the start of almost every match – more often in games with drop decks – there are no air targets in MWO. Other games, it's generally not hard to shoot down a VTOL, aerospace, or conventional fighter where they exist, and almost all DropShip encounters are grounded, or at least stationary, whenever they're something worth shooting. You'd also be correct to point out that, even in tabletop, none of the weapons onboard a Rifleman are dedicated anti-air guns. To my knowledge, weapons that are specialized to that degree do not exist in BattleTech; at best, you get damage or to-hit modifiers when they are fired at a particular variety of combat asset. In theory, anything can hurt anything. So to determine the primary purpose, we have to look at not just the lore, but also what else they're doing in terms of gameplay.

Machine guns do damage BattleMechs, but BattleTech is more than just BattleMechs regardless of what you personally put on the table, and has been for decades now. The very first novels had combined arms in it. Almost no one in the BattleTech universe is using BattleMechs and nothing else; even the Clans have other assets they use on the regular, despite their truly overwhelming reliance on OmniMechs and BattleMechs in their doctrines. Whatever damage machine guns do to ’Mechs, they do more damage to infantry. Yes, any weapon seen on a BattleMech will splatter or fry a human being if they get caught on the business end of them, but they aren't all equal at dealing with infantry who seldom work alone.

Believe it or not, we already had anti-BattleMech machine guns. Once upon a time, we called those autocannons. They've since been reinterpreted when someone missed the memo and came up with rotary autocannons instead, but they're there, and they're a much better choice against BattleMechs than the machine gun most of the time.

Edited by Akamia Terizen, 05 November 2022 - 09:34 PM.

[MrMadguy]

Blood Rose, on 08 November 2022 - 04:39 PM, said:

[redacted]

There is usual problem, called skill requirement difference. Devs often make big mistake, when they use "power vs skill balance", make classes with different skill curves and tune balance around pro vs pro. For example. Stealth classes in MMOs are weaker than plate ones. In theory. But at the same time they're much easier to play. It gives some illusion of skill to players, who play them. And it gives illusion of balance. But such "weakness via skill" compensation is ok, when it's applied to top players. But problems start, when it's applied to average players or noobs. "Easier" classes start to be OP vs "harder" ones, because "harder" ones perform much worse, when played by unskilled players. Such problem should be self-compensated by MMR. Classes with lower skill requirement should advance to higher Tiers quicker and play against more skilled players. If only MMR would work in this game.

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 09 November 2022 - 12:49 AM.
quote clean-up

[Akamia Terizen]

I mean, yeah, I agree that the complaining is absurd. I don't understand the complaints either.

While I'm here, allow me to respond to your earlier post addressed to me.

Blood Rose, on 02 November 2022 - 10:59 AM, said:

If your in range then you use them because 0 heat damage is amazing

Perhaps, but generally it's wisdom to use weapons against the stuff they're best at. In this case, killing infantry. Yes, I know there is no infantry in MWO, and at no point did I complain about it; I was talking about its canon and tabletop contexts, the latter assuming combined arms, which while not terribly common in real life tabletop play, is allowed by Total Warfare and is the norm in all eras of canon as far as I can tell, including 3025.

Blood Rose, on 02 November 2022 - 10:59 AM, said:

Someone introduce this [hard gamer word that would get me banned] to Flechette shells and Inferno/Frag warheads

Very aggressive.

That will not be necessary. I already know about these alternative munitions. The machine gun works better against infantry without such things; in fact, to my knowledge, it legally doesn't have any alternative ammo to speak of. Thus, I assumed standard munitions for all weapons unless otherwise stated.

Changing the ammo type where possible changes the functionality of the weapon; this goes without saying, honestly.

EDIT: Actually, now that these alternative munitions have entered the conversation, let’s talk about this a minute, because this punches a gaping hole in Der Geisterbaer’s standard for what constitutes an “anti-mech” weapon. To qualify according to them, a weapon must do at least 2 points of damage to armor, right? This disqualifies an AC/2 using flechettes, because it only does 1 point of damage against armored targets such as BattleMechs; it does not disqualify an AC/5 (or larger) using the same ammo. Flechettes are even more unambiguously designed to fight infantry than machine guns are; you’d be a fool to deploy that stuff in a ’Mech-only game instead of literally any other ammo type, except flak but including standard. At least machine guns have a niche use case that makes some amount of sense in such a game; bringing flechettes in any class of autocannon to a game like that is an act of self-sabotage. Even accounting exclusively for BattleMech-mounted weapons, not only do I reject the claim that the MG is anti-mech, I reject their entire stated standard for what counts as such. An AC/20 will do 10 damage to BattleMechs with flechettes, but in no universe does bringing that to a ’Mechs-only fight make sense unless it is somehow forced. If you want to do 10 damage to BattleMechs, bring an AC/10 with standard ammo, or any non-flechette/flak alternative. Bring a PPC. Bring an (IS) ER PPC. Bring a Snub-Nose PPC. Bring an LB-10 X AC. At least these will last you longer, and in some cases, generate less heat.

Blood Rose, on 02 November 2022 - 10:59 AM, said:

Its usually accepted that those small arms are toting underbarrel launchers, rifle grenades, or in the case of lasers, are turned up to 11

Accepted by whom? I mean, that would certainly make sense, but "accepted" sounds like headcanon. How do you know they aren't unloading an absurd amount of bullets into something that's supposed to be bulletproof (or at least extremely bullet-resistant)?

Blood Rose, on 02 November 2022 - 10:59 AM, said:

Small, fast firing, point blank holdout weapons for when enemy armour gets into knife fighting range?

You can certainly do that, but that doesn't mean that's its primary canonical purpose.



In the end:

Do I consider the machine gun to be an anti-mech weapon? No. Not as its intended primary purpose in the context of BattleTech canon today, anyway. It can still damage BattleMechs, but so can just about anything else I'm aware of, making the distinction meaningless if that alone is how it is defined.
Do I want the removal of, or nerfs to, the machine gun in MWO? Also no, and you'll never see me argue favorably for that. Not on the above grounds, at the very least; regardless of where you stand on the above issue, it's a terrible reason to remove a weapon from the game, or to nerf it to the point of irrelevance – come to think of it, I can't think of a good reason to do the latter, at that point you may as well have removed it in the first place.

I once again don't care what was going on in BattleDroids or BattleTech: Second Edition. For as long as it has been known as BattleTech, this franchise has gone through so many retcons over the years going back as far as FASA's work during the Clan Invasion, if not earlier. Machine guns are considered an anti-infantry weapon in the BattleTech universe today, for better or for worse. That doesn't have any bearing on its functionality in MechWarrior Online, or any other MechWarrior video game, especially those that lack infantry as a concern, which is most of them I believe (MW2 and 3 had Elementals, but the other games didn't have anything to my understanding). Where it concerns weapon stats in the tabletop, all it means is it is significantly more effective against infantry units than against an armored target such as a BattleMech.

Edited by Akamia Terizen, 20 November 2022 - 12:50 AM.

[Knownswift]

In the context of Battlefield today the machine gun is an anti-mech weapon with a damage bonus towards infantry.

Source; solaris rules, where the pir ******* dominates.