106 replies to this topic

[Hidirian]

Lavrenti, on 01 December 2012 - 03:13 AM, said:

It's true that MGs are pretty much useless in MWO at present. It doesn't seem unreasonable to imagine them as something like a .50cal, and the half tonne weight can be assumed to include mounting, ammo feeds, targeting equipment etc.If their damage was increased a little - say to 0.05 per round - and their spread tightened they would be a little better. But if a 14 tonne AC20 can fit in a single ballistic hardpoint, why not a twin or quad machinegun mount? A twin mount might weigh a tonne, a quad mount perhaps 2 tonnes. It's still relatively cheap in terms of tonnage and ammo, and it might actually make them useful.

What you are suggesting already exists but not until 3068 ~ Machine_Gun_Array.

[Znail]

Logic asside, there is no reason for MG's to be worse then they are in TT as they are hardly OP there. It's also extra safe ion MWO as we have limited balistic slots in mechs to put them in. Only a mech with lots of balistic slots could ever use them as main weapons and there are no reason to put such a mech into the game unless they specifically want a MG boat around.

[superteds]

ffs

look the rl or canon applications of this don't matter in the slightest.

it is BAD to have weapons in game that are just flat-out pointless. It's even worse to attempt to justify them being bad because 'well they're bad in real life/canon'.

You either make them worthwhile mounting (and to hell with the canon) or you remove them from the game.

[Mordin Ashe]

ferranis, on 01 December 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

What do we want?

Better Machineguns!

What do we never use?

Better Machineguns!


Sorry i couldnt resist.
But honestly, wo builds a mech around Machineguns? Cheesebuilds yes.

A heatefficient ppc would be a better wish.

Dragons would be capable of utilising better MGs. Cataphracts as well, but not as much since the Mech is generally slower, which isn't good for high ROF, low dmg weapon. For this reason alone, I think improving the MGs would be a great thing, Dragon definitely needs some more viable builds.

[J4ckInthebox]

MG's are actually Nexter 30's
notice something ?

[WolvesX]

More viable MGs would be great for many Mechs. I would love if they would be buffed (DPS wise) range is ok.

Double or Quad Mount is a great Idea!!!

[WolvesX]

Mordin Ashe, on 01 December 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

Dragons would be capable of utilising better MGs. Cataphracts as well, but not as much since the Mech is generally slower, which isn't good for high ROF, low dmg weapon. For this reason alone, I think improving the MGs would be a great thing, Dragon definitely needs some more viable builds.

True that!

[IIIuminaughty]

MG's are already OP son!

[Ghostrider0067]

While I can understand the root of the OP's argument, I can't side with him given that machine guns aren't designed for mech/mech combat. They're essentially for anti-personnel use only and given the lack of infantry, they don't have much purpose at this point. The same goes for flamers but to a lesser degree since flame units should be able to ignite forested sections and buildings to increase the heat load of a mech standing within that vicinity. Flamers should also be able to engulf a mech in a spray of napalm flame and have it burn for a while before it goes out. This would increase the mech's heat load and subsequently decrease visibility.

As for the weight factor of machine guns, take into account the time frame in which this game takes place. It's more than 1000 years into the future! As such, you'd think that if they could produce walking tanks and energy weapons, dropping the weight of a 20mm machine gun down to 200 pounds would be a given. Hell, I'm surprised it's not lighter than that.

Now, if I were going to have a machine gun on my mech, I'd prefer it to be something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8

Edited by Ghostrider0067, 01 December 2012 - 06:46 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Jon Hasselblad, on 01 December 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

Just a thought.

I've seen machine guns loading 7.62mm rounds, tear a 1 foot thick wall of concrete down in about 7 seconds at 100 yards.

M16s used in the early 1960s have an effective range of 450 yards, better after it was improved.

If a mech uses a machine gun, i'm sure it would load larger calibre bullets and have a longer range.

For the sake of balance, would it be feasible to let it have a range of 270-380 metres, and up its dps slightly, instead of its measly 90m range.

Just my cents.

I also saw target vehicles (Some were over 5 years old) on Camp Pendelton that have been shot with Millions of rounds ahd their armor is mostly intact. Except where the LAW rockets and 40mm grenades hit. Some where dented(Tanks) by the 50cal rounds other shot through(as in the Trucks and jeeps). Armor isn't concrete I can smash though concrete with a sledge hammer.

[Joseph Mallan]

superteds, on 01 December 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

ffs

look the rl or canon applications of this don't matter in the slightest.

it is BAD to have weapons in game that are just flat-out pointless. It's even worse to attempt to justify them being bad because 'well they're bad in real life/canon'.

You either make them worthwhile mounting (and to hell with the canon) or you remove them from the game.

MGs were for anti infantry use. Like AC2s they NEVER MADE IT ON A MECH at my table. I had a player who brought a Mech with 5 RAC2s. He had the highest repair bill in every match, cause he couldn't kill his onrushing enemies.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 01 December 2012 - 07:06 AM.

[Sifright]

Solis Obscuri, on 01 December 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

Bear in mind, some AC/5s use 120mm shells.

.50 machine guns, by comparison, are much less effective vs. the LoLwhut? armor of the 31st century.

it's a good thing they don't use .50 cal machine guns eh?

Given I can hold one of those in my arms and the mech variant of a 'machine gun' weighs half a tonne.

[Taizan]

Quote

What we are planning:
Special effect when you are hit by a PPC that is similar to EMP.
Getting hit by an AC/20 is going to rock you hard.
MG's will be getting a damage boost.
Flamers will be getting the heat generation on enemy scaled in a way that makes more sense. You're not going to overheat a Mech but you should be raising their temps to the point that if they fire anything they will shut down/overheat.

It's in the works. Check command chair comm on weapon balancing.
http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

[Trauglodyte]

Deedsie, on 01 December 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

I saw an enemy get killed off by one of my team mates firing machine guns into them in an earlier match.

CDA-3C driver and I run 4 MGs and a Md Pulse laser cause this mech design is god awful and its comical to me to get Elite status with such an awful design. I used to run a Lrg Laser and 3 MGs but the range didn't really provide any benefit.



PS> Getting kills with a MG is classic awesome.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 01 December 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

it's a good thing they don't use .50 cal machine guns eh?

Given I can hold one of those in my arms and the mech variant of a 'machine gun' weighs half a tonne.

You are one strong man to hold a 150 lbs Machine Gun in your arms! I did know a man who carried one for a 1/4 mile but he was a bodybuilder!

Are you sure it wasn't a Sniper rifle?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 01 December 2012 - 07:54 AM.

[Scratx]

Ursh, on 01 December 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

Let's look at things like the A-10 Thunderbolt *aka The Warthog*

It uses a 30mm gatling gun firing at insanely fast rates that makes it a more effective and accurate armor piercer than any large bore cannon.

Actually, one of the reasons the A-10 is so freaking effective is that the attack profile means they hit the thinner top armor of tanks and/or can maneuver to hit the side or rear armor. The GAU-8 is a terrifying weapon when loaded with depleted uranium slugs, true, but it's not a miracle weapon, it isn't going to punch through the frontal armor of a modern battle tank. You aren't seeing the US Army rushing GAU-8's into M1 Abrams, are you?

Large bore guns are still kings for raw penetration, but when you can make a gun fly you only need enough penetration to comfortably punch through side or rear/top armor. And wreck them like that.

[superteds]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 December 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

MGs were for anti infantry use. Like AC2s they NEVER MADE IT ON A MECH at my table. I had a player who brought a Mech with 5 RAC2s. He had the highest repair bill in every match, cause he couldn't kill his onrushing enemies.

Yes great, but this isn't tabletop. they either get given a meaningful use in this game - something that will make them a good option, or they get removed.

just having MG's in the game be ****, and that being ok because they were anti-inf in TT and there's no inf in MWO is A Bad Way To Run A Internet Robot Game.

[BlackSquirrel]

Thorn Hallis, on 01 December 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

The only way to make machine guns viable is to introduce unarmored infantry.

This... For ***** sake the MG's were for other things in the BT universe not mech warfare. Same with flamers mostly anti infantry.

I never really understood why they included them in this game...

Edited by BlackSquirrel, 01 December 2012 - 09:48 AM.

[stjobe]

BlackSquirrel, on 01 December 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

MG's were for other things in the BT universe not mech warfare. Same with flamers mostly anti infantry.

They might have been *primarily* anti-infantry, but they saw good use as a backup weapon for 'mech warfare. Just about every 'mech had them, and in just about every BT novel there are descriptions of 'mechs using them.

Flamers might also have been primarily anti-infantry, but the one thing a BT mechwarrior fears is heat. Heat kills you faster than bullets, and flamers could be put to good anti-'mech use on that premise alone.

Edited by stjobe, 01 December 2012 - 09:56 AM.

[BlackSquirrel]

Just because lore of some author states them being used... I'm guessing to little effect. (No grand MG battle that smashed faces) and the fact that they are in fact primarily anti infantry/soft...and a back up weapon should still signify that they have no purpose in mech v mech combat.

And flamers in TT did raise your own mechs heat more so than the other guys. Against mechs or vehicles. A situational/nuisance weapon more than primary.