383 replies to this topic

[Scarlett Avignon]

Deadoon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

Wat, a support machine gun(an infantry version of the mounted machine gun) uses 5kg ammo reloads(1/200 a ton, aka same weight as a bm reload)

Tech level 2 rules dictate that infantry has unlimited ammo for their weapons.

Smeghead87, on 12 December 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

But I already said I don't like autocannons

THEN WE BETTER BUFF MACHINE GUNS!

While we're at it, I want Small Lasers to to do 200 damage because I don't like PPCs.

Edited by Franklen Avignon, 12 December 2012 - 03:37 PM.

[Red squirrel]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Tech level 2 rules dictate that infantry has unlimited ammo for their weapons.

Reason dictates you are a moron

Edited by Red squirrel, 12 December 2012 - 03:39 PM.

[Orzorn]

Anyone attempting to defend the current sorry state of machine guns with some sort of "realism" is delusional. The table top rules run directly contrary to that line of thought:
A machine gun does 2 damage per round for no heat.
A small laser does 3 damage per round for 1 heat.

Small lasers are currently a viable choice in MWO (viable enough for some builds to use them almost exclusively). A machine gun does 1 less damage in the TT for 1 less heat. So for what reason should it be so much less useful than the small laser in MWO?

It shouldn't. It just never got the scaling the small laser did. The small laser does 10 damage per 10 seconds (so 1 DPS) in MWO currently. That's a 3.33 times increase from the table top. The machine gun does 4 damager per 10 seconds right now, only a 2 times increase.

Its very apparent the machine gun simply was not given the same fair stats that other weapons received.

You can not argue with the math. You just can't.

[TruePoindexter]

Said this 5 pages ago... it's still as relevant now as it was then:

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

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

There are lore builds that rely on them and because we need a ballistic weapon that doesn't require 7 tons of weight.

[Smeghead87]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

THEN WE BETTER BUFF MACHINE GUNS!

While we're at it, I want Small Lasers to to do 200 damage because I don't like PPCs.

Why are you so opposed to giving the players more choice? Did I ask for a stupidy overpowered weapon? I asked for a viable light weight weapon.

[Pyrrho]

I have loaded on to my CDA-3C a ML, 3xMG, and an A/C2; it is bonkers fun to pilot. Nerf, buff, whatever, I think it will always be the most fun in a mech I have had to run around like a bat out of hell (<3<3<3 XL engine) peppering every enemy with MG spray while the A/C2 + ML soften them up. A few hundred of points of damage and more often than not assists on any kills I don't make myself--not the best once can do, but it is FUN. And the fun, well, that's what I thought the game was truly designed for

[Rofl]

TruePoindexter, on 12 December 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

Said this 5 pages ago... it's still as relevant now as it was then:




There are lore builds that rely on them and because we need a ballistic weapon that doesn't require 7 tons of weight.

There were lore builds that had ECM and BAP before they did anything... I am not sure if people actually kept that equipment on their mech when it was useless or not. Would you?

It's not a matter of does it have it, it's a matter of would you use it?

EDIT:

Think of a weapon you like. Now image if it's dps was 10% of that. Would you still like it? I mean, it's in the game, right? And that makes it viable, right?

Edited by Rofl, 12 December 2012 - 03:44 PM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

TruePoindexter, on 12 December 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

There are lore builds that rely on them and because we need a ballistic weapon that doesn't require 7 tons of weight.

Find me an anti-armor lore build that relies on machine guns as it's primary anti-armor weapon.

Smeghead87, on 12 December 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

Why are you so opposed to giving the players more choice?

The other 24 dedicated anti-armor weapons aren't enough for you?

[GuySerious]

Any time someone has fielded machine guns at me in game, they've mostly aimed for the cockpit, because it'll obscure vision and generally make lock-ons, lead-fires, and what not a bit harder because your screen is juking around.

Since i've never seen someone actually try to field MGs as anything other than that, I just assumed they were more distraction weaponry which fits really well into the idea that these are giant hulking tanks with legs. Much like a constant barrage of Streak SRM-2s makes it hard to focus crosshairs since you're cockpit is being blurred.

As damage dealers though, I would have thought they'd do similar damage overtime to a small laser considering they have the same range. (Spoiler alert: big fan of the PC games, never had a group to do the tabletop, so I can't back up what I just said with any facts, and taken as laymen at best)

[Smeghead87]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

The other 24 dedicated anti-armor weapons aren't enough for you?

Not on a light mech no, 7 tons is too heavy. What do you pilot primarily?

[Red squirrel]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Find me an anti-armor lore build that relies on machine guns as it's primary anti-armor weapon.


The other 24 dedicated anti-armor weapons aren't enough for you?

100+ posts with good arguments aren't enough for you?

[Scarlett Avignon]

Red squirrel, on 12 December 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

Reason dictates you are a moron

I haven't name-called yet, funnily enough. Your contribution to the conversation is noted, however.

[TruePoindexter]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

Find me an anti-armor lore build that relies on machine guns as it's primary anti-armor weapon.

Cicada CDA-3C. It is in game right now and dependent on the machine guns to provide support firepower to the single PPC. Whether you think the weapons are appropriate or not is irrelevant - they are here now and are under powered. They are being buffed and I look forward to how they behave once enhanced.

[Orzorn]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

The other 24 dedicated anti-armor weapons aren't enough for you?

So why are you so upset about this one weapon getting its time in the sun?

[Scarlett Avignon]

Smeghead87, on 12 December 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Not on a light mech no, 7 tons is too heavy. What do you pilot primarily?

And these light mechs. None of them have anything besides ballistic points? Say...energy weapon or missile points that could fit lighter dedicated anti-armor weapons?

[stjobe]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Find me an anti-armor lore build that relies on machine guns as it's primary anti-armor weapon.

There's plenty of light 'mechs that have e.g. a medium laser as primary weapon and two MGs as secondary weapons. In BT, that meant I could do 5+2+2 damage to an enemy at close range. In MWO it means 5+0.4+0.4.

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

The other 24 dedicated anti-armor weapons aren't enough for you?

Frankly, no. Every weapon needs to be viable, especially one so abundant in the lore as the MG.

Edited by stjobe, 12 December 2012 - 03:51 PM.

[-Seneschal-]

it's 27 brownings in weight, come on. This thing is not anti-infantry unless you are talking about literally destroying them to the point that there's nothing to recover from a single round.

Also, is anti-infantry that crazy? I'm looking out of glass in this mech, it's future glass, but that's a future machinegun that weighs a metric ton. "it's the future" is a crazy rebuttal.

Machinegun needs a buuf, it's a game, make the gun useful.

[Alex Iglesias]

Gonna throw my hat into the ring, speaking only as a fan

BT mgs, being rather wonky as per the TT rules, not withstanding... are between the system and the ammo feeds and mountings, 500kg weapon systems. Forget how heavy so many other weapon systems are for a sec. In and of itself a half ton weapon is nothing to sneeze at.

That's closer to GAU 8, and other assorted modern day autocannon territory than it is to 50cal or minigun territory.

That a MG is effective vs infantry in canon does not by any means mean that MGs have to be firing small arms caliber rounds. Or rounds that would be useless against armor. All it means is that it's capable of damaging armor to some degree, and that that level of firepower eviscerates infantry like all getout.

Furthermore as others have said, there is no point putting in a useless weapon system into the game. Ideally, every system should have a use. And yeah, having machinegun rounds being good for digging around in the cream filling of a mech makes sense, it's like the difference between getting burned while holding one of those black cat firecrackers against your skin as it goes off vs somehow swallowing a lit one.

I for one welcome our new machine gun overlords.

[Scarlett Avignon]

TruePoindexter, on 12 December 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Cicada CDA-3C. It is in game right now and dependent on the machine guns to provide support firepower to the single PPC. Whether you think the weapons are appropriate or not is irrelevant - they are here now and are under powered. They are being buffed and I look forward to how they behave once enhanced.

Seriously? You think the main weapon for anti-armor work on a mech with a PPC and 2 machine guns is the machine guns?

Those weapons, mounted in the legs, may not have been there for the purpose of fighting off infantry attempts to swarm it's legs?

[Smeghead87]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

And these light mechs. None of them have anything besides ballistic points? Say...energy weapon or missile points that could fit lighter dedicated anti-armor weapons?

If I want to master the Raven chassis, I have to play all 3, so if they are forcing me to play a mech to get all the bonuses, I'd like some options when customising it rather than boating the biggest gun available.

By the way, the crit changes to the machine gun would not make it any better as an anti armour weapon, it will still suck against armour. Internal systems however like that fushion engine will be a different matter. So I'll use my dedicated anti armour weapons for stripping off armour, then my machine guns to put some rounds through the engine block (do fushion engines have an engine block?)

Edited for spelling, again, think its time I got some sleep.

Edited by Smeghead87, 12 December 2012 - 03:56 PM.