383 replies to this topic

[Scarlett Avignon]

WHY?

How on earth do you explain a machine gun bullet doing "increased" critical damage over the plethora of weapons that are purpose-built to destroy battlemechs?

Furthermore, why is this needed?

Does a dedicated anti-infantry weapon really need to be given a special ability?

Why can't it be left in the condition it is right now, where logic and common sense dictates it should be: basically useless in armored warfare where we do not see infantry on the battlefield.

Seriously. It's just silly that they are doing to buff an anti-infantry weapon. There is no good reason other than some people think that, because it's there, it needs to be it's own special little flower.

P.S.- If they want to buff the damage a bit, I don't care. It's just silly they they would give it a nonsensical "crit buff."

Edited by Franklen Avignon, 12 December 2012 - 01:23 PM.

[Pyrrho]

You should have probably said "This item needs to be removed from the game." since you seem to think that it is okay for the developers to include what you deem to be "basically useless in armored warfare where we do not see infantry on the battlefield".

Perhaps you are just afraid of the soon to be OP Cicada 3C? <-- this is sarcasm.

[SteelPaladin]

MGs are not dedicated anti-infantry weapons. They were in the initial release of BattleTech, which did not have infantry. They're really good against infantry, but that was a later development. They were always intended to be used against mechs.

[Budor]

How on earth do you explain someone using giant walking robots instead of tanks.

[Red squirrel]

You should definitely do some research on:

1) Damage capacity of machine guns in real life

2) Machine guns in BT lore

before posting such nonesense



Edit: And as posted before .... it makes no sense to include useless weapons into the game.
If you object I want my pillow thrower cannon!

Edited by Red squirrel, 12 December 2012 - 01:30 PM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

SteelPaladin, on 12 December 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

MGs are not dedicated anti-infantry weapons.

You need to do some research.

[Jman5]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

logic and common sense

You answered your own question. Logic and common sense dictate that if a weapon is extremely underpowered within the confines of the game. You buff it. Spouting realism or previous games where different rules applied is meaningless. There are no infantry units therefore, machine guns need to be useful versus other mechs.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Red squirrel, on 12 December 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

You should definitely do some research on:

1) Damage capacity of machine guns in real life

2) Machine guns in BT lore

Considering that armored fighting vehicles were specifically designed to defeat machine guns in trench warfare, I think I know what I'm talking about.

Oh, and let's look at BT lore MGs. Two points of damage to armored vehicles, MASSIVE BUFF AGAINST INFANTRY.

[SteelPaladin]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

You need to do some research.

Actually, YOU need to do some research. As I said, they were in the initial release of BattleTech, which had no infantry rules at all. You are trying to say they added a weapon dedicated to fighting something they didn't even have in the game?

Beyond that, MGs in BT do the same damage as an AC/2. They just trade less heat, more ammo, and less tonnage for much lower range (and the fact that an ammo explosion goes off like a nuke).

[Scarlett Avignon]

Jman5, on 12 December 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

You answered your own question. Logic and common sense dictate that if a weapon is extremely underpowered within the confines of the game. You buff it. Spouting realism or previous games where different rules applied is meaningless. There are no infantry units therefore, machine guns need to be useful versus other mechs.

Tell me why they need to be useful.

[Scarlett Avignon]

SteelPaladin, on 12 December 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Actually, YOU need to do some research

I'll refer you to my post to Red Squirrel.

However, yes, they did add a weapon to fight something that wasn't in the game yet. Just because rules weren't out for it, doesn't mean infantry magically didn't exist in the BT universe. Every single entry in a tech readout where machine guns are mentioned says they were added for anti-infantry purposes (and usually "as an afterthought.") As a matter of fact, in every mention of MGs in the lore, they specifically go out of their way to say that MGs are practically useless against mechs and tanks.

You mentioned that MGs do the same average damage as a AC/2. Remember that is spread out over a 10 second window, If they want to buff the damage to MGs a bit, I could care less. "Crit Buffs" are just silly and make no sense, however.

[Pyrrho]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Tell me why they need to be useful.

I could tell you, but you wouldn't believe me anyway.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Pyrrho, on 12 December 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

I could tell you, but you wouldn't believe me anyway.

Well then, obviously your reasoning is correct.

[Davers]

Why are some people so against having more viable weapons in this game?

[Alexandrix]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

Considering that armored fighting vehicles were specifically designed to defeat machine guns in trench warfare, I think I know what I'm talking about.

Oh, and let's look at BT lore MGs. Two points of damage to armored vehicles, MASSIVE BUFF AGAINST INFANTRY.

You simply emphasized the part of your sentence that best supported your opinion.That doesn't make you entirely right.Let's emphasize the other part to rebutt.

"Oh, and let's look at BT lore MGs. TWO POINTS OF DAMAGE AGAINST ARMORED VEHICLES, massive buff against
infantry."
As much damage as an AC/2 in the same time frame.

am i right now?

anyways,i really don't get why this issue keeps coming up.The simple fact of the matter is,at this point in time,there are no infantry in MW:O.Machine guns either need to be useful,or removed.

A "crit buff" probably isn't the way I would have went with....i woulda just gave them a decent damage buff and left it at that....but,whatever ... I'm not a dev.

Edited by Alexandrix, 12 December 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Davers, on 12 December 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Why are some people so against having more viable weapons in this game?

There will be TONS of viable weapons as the timeline carries on. No reason to bloat the stats on an anti-infantry weapon.

[Shard Phoenix]

Nope, there's never been such a thing as a machine gun designed to defeat armored vehicles.







Let's not forget one of the premier rapid fire anti-tank weapons used today:




So, far into the future when there are giant robots with advanced weapons, why wouldn't there be a machine gun of a large caliber which could serve a dual purpose role of anti-infantry and anti-mech?

As for MG's in the Mechwarrior Universe..

They were useful to some degree in MW2 and MW3 (never played 4). Not as primary weapons for taking down a DireWolf, but they were pretty good for taking down lighter mechs or finishing off a critically damaged opponent.

In MW:O they, again, shouldn't be some kind of beastly weapon that strips armor off in a heartbeat, but they should be useful for punching through parts of mechs that aren't heavily armored. On top of that, if armor is stripped machine guns should be an excellent weapon for ripping exposed internals to shreds.

[TruePoindexter]

Not the "machine guns are intended for infantry so they're not supposed to deal damage" idea again. They're supposed to match the AC2 in TT for damage output. They don't even come close to matching the AC2 in TT much less the current MWO AC2 right now.

Machine Guns need to deal some damage since there are build that actually depend on them like the Cicada. Right now they're cute weapons that couldn't kill a Commando.

Edited by TruePoindexter, 12 December 2012 - 01:49 PM.

[Scratx]

Machineguns in TT do as much damage as a Small Laser. I think that pretty much indicates they need not merely a small buff but a major one.

The idea they should be useless against mechs is ridiculous.

Heck, just raise per bullet damage to 0,1 already, that's 1 DPS and still quite a ways below a small laser right now but it's actually useful at that damage level. (my suggestion)

[Scarlett Avignon]

Alexandrix, on 12 December 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

You simply emphasized the part of your sentence that best supported your opinion.That doesn't make you entirely right.Let's emphasize the other part to rebutt.

"Oh, and let's look at BT lore MGs. TWO POINTS OF DAMAGE AGAINST ARMORED VEHICLES, massive buff against
infantry."
As much damage as an AC/2 in the same time frame.

am i right now?

anyways,i really don't get why this issue keeps coming up.The simple fact of the matter is,at this point in time,there are no infantry in MW:O.Machine guns either need to be useful,or removed.

No, I linked to an article that supports my point. It's called backing an argument up with facts.

Speaking of that, please give me a reason that, "Machine guns either need to be useful,or removed."