383 replies to this topic

[TruePoindexter]

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

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?

I'm not sure what argument you're even trying to make. ECM and BAP were in game before they did anything yes... and not they do something. Command Console will eventually do something and MGuns are going to be buffed from their current worthlessness.

The issue is that right now the only ballistic weapon that uses less than 7 tons of weight is the MGun which we all will agree is currently useless. There are stock builds that use this weapon right now and as a result suffer due to what is effectively wasted space.

So what are you trying to say? MGuns are good enough right now and do not need a buff? MGuns are weak and should be buffed? Or are you saying MGuns should be removed?

[SteelPaladin]

Alex Iglesias, on 12 December 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

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.

If the creator of the best mech art in years submits, resistance is futile.

I too will welcome them.

[Deadoon]

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?

They still cary ammo and need to reload that ammo, acccording to construction and ammo consumption rules. Check up on those in the tech manual. Each ammo unit for the support machine gun is 5kg. The gun by itself only weighs 44kg, so maybe the ammo collection systems are part of the guns weight?
So if the machine gun is only 44kg by itself maybe this is the mg? http://en.wikipedia..../M230_chain_gun

Edited by Deadoon, 12 December 2012 - 03:59 PM.

[Orzorn]

Alex Iglesias, on 12 December 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

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.

Isn't armor in Battletech ablative anyways? Machine guns would, realistically (if we wanted to go down that road for the billionth time), hurt the armor just as easily as any other system.

[Red squirrel]

Alex Iglesias, on 12 December 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

I for one welcome our new machine gun overlords.

Obey, and we will let you live.

[Rofl]

Alex Iglesias, on 12 December 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

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.

I know it's lame but I feel somewhat excited when I realize a staff person pretty much says the same thing I did in a thread. More DAKKA!

[Scarlett Avignon]

Alex Iglesias, on 12 December 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

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.

If you are going to say that, then you need to be clear that you are saying that everything written in BT canon about machine guns up to this point as been wrong. They have always been described as smaller caliber anti-infantry weapons. I can understand them being changed for game balance, but it should not be done while denying every single written piece of lore about them.

[gavking]

Dont people in cod and bf use machine guns against tanks. also mechwarrior is in the future so it feels logical for machine guns to be used.

[Deadoon]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

If you are going to say that, then you need to be clear that you are saying that everything written in BT canon about machine guns up to this point as been wrong. They have always been described as smaller caliber anti-infantry weapons. I can understand them being changed for game balance, but it should not be done while denying every single written piece of lore about them.

SMALLER
Heck, maybe the machine gun is a 20mm micro grenade chaingun which is low powered ammunition so it has little range, but is really powerful within range?

[TruePoindexter]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

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?

I did not say that the main weapon on the mech are its machine guns. I said that it is dependent on its machine guns actually being able to deal damage as its auxiliary weapons. As I said before whether or not you like the weapon or what you think the weapons are intended for is irrelevant. The weapons do deal damage in TT and should deal damage here as they are found on stock mech variants.

Also as a correction the current CDA-3C as found in MWO has machine guns mounted in the torso not the legs.

[Scarlett Avignon]

stjobe, on 12 December 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

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

I guess if we ignore that the firing rate of the machine gun is only about 50 times faster than a medium laser, your math holds up.

[Rofl]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

If you are going to say that, then you need to be clear that you are saying that everything written in BT canon about machine guns up to this point as been wrong. They have always been described as smaller caliber anti-infantry weapons. I can understand them being changed for game balance, but it should not be done while denying every single written piece of lore about them.

This game isn't based on strict canon. ECM effects? Double armor values? Tag being bumped to 750m? UAC-5 25% Jam? I am not sure what game you are playing but we are playing a very fun game with very little strict adherence to the TT rules, and we like it.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Thontor, on 12 December 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

Writers also said Battlemechs go nuclear when destroyed.. and had a single large laser doing massive damage to a mech...

Screw fiction.. in Battletech the machine gun was 2/3rds the damage of a small laser, against mech armor.. that's what should be followed

And again, I don't care about a damage buff. Heck, I support it. I'm worried about them trying to turn it into some type of "Super Crit" weapon.

Rofl, on 12 December 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

This game isn't based on strict canon. ECM effects? Double armor values? Tag being bumped to 750m? UAC-5 25% Jam? I am not sure what game you are playing but we are playing a very fun game with very little strict adherence to the TT rules, and we like it.

I never said it was based on canon. Alex just stated that BT MGs are like the gun on an A-10 Warthog, while all the canon dictates this isn't the case.

[Pyrrho]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

If you are going to say that, then you need to be clear that you are saying that everything written in BT canon about machine guns up to this point as been wrong. They have always been described as smaller caliber anti-infantry weapons. I can understand them being changed for game balance, but it should not be done while denying every single written piece of lore about them.

**The palm of a hand meets the definition of the face**

So, when you say "this has always been this way" and someone else says "no, it hasn't" we are to just consistently fall back on your expertise and discount everyone else?

[TruePoindexter]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

And again, I don't care about a damage buff. Heck, I support it. I'm worried about them trying to turn it into some type of "Super Crit" weapon.

That we will have to wait and see. I trust the devs to not give us something too ridiculous. At this rate any improvement is welcome.

[King Arthur IV]

armor piercing rounds baby.

[DoktorVivi]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

I never said it was based on canon. Alex just stated that BT MGs are like the gun on an A-10 Warthog, while all the canon dictates this isn't the case.

If that was the case, wouldn't there be a special rule making it so they didn't damage Mechs in TT?

[Scarlett Avignon]

Thontor, on 12 December 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

ok let's improve the math then.. how much damage does the machine gun do during the time it takes for a medium laser to recharge..

0.4 dps, 4 seconds.. 1.6 damage

still not the 2 damage from TT

the machine gun should do 2/3rds the dps of a small laser, which would be 0.67 dps, or 0.067 damage per bullet.. a 67.5% increase from 0.04 damage

AGAIN, I don't mind a damage buff in any way.

You have to admit, though, 1.6 is actually pretty close to 2. While still below, they are pretty close to the actual damage profile of the weapon.

[Orzorn]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 December 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

If you are going to say that, then you need to be clear that you are saying that everything written in BT canon about machine guns up to this point as been wrong. They have always been described as smaller caliber anti-infantry weapons. I can understand them being changed for game balance, but it should not be done while denying every single written piece of lore about them.

At half a ton for 200 rounds in the TT, that means that, roughly (not accounting for the weight of the bin), each round weighs 2.5 kilograms. 2.5 kilograms is 5.51156 pounds. A 30MM gau 8 armor piercing incendiary round, by comparison, is 15 ounces according to wikipedia.

Even if we assumed an insane HALF of the weight of the ammo was the bin, the rounds come out to weigh 1.25 kilograms, or 2.755778 pounds.

Not small rounds by any means of the word. In fact, these rounds would be gigantic.

Of course, that's just using the rules, which are strictly for balance purposes. Regardless, the machine gun likely be larger than a GAU 8 and fire even larger rounds.

[Onyx Rain]

Alex Iglesias, on 12 December 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

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.

+1 faith restored in Devs and PGI. Thread should have been locked after Alex's post

Now for my personal opinion which is everything Alex just stated plus this...

Mg spread the little damage they do all around the mech...that is what makes their 2 damage ever 5 seconds so much more worthless then a small lasers's 3 damage...that and it is just less damage period. If you could put that 2 dmg all on one spot easily....it would begin to be useful, but even when you can sustain a long burst, the mech is usually moving and even with constant adjustments you are hitting more then one area you first shot at much of the time.

With the current dmg/dps rates and mechanic of how the gun actually works in the game(spray and prey)...Against armor the gun needs triple its current damage rates to begin to be as useful as 1 small laser. Or if you just want it to be useful against internals it needs a massive crit bonus when it is chewing up the soft innards of a mech...like 10x minimum instead of the 3x max that current weapons can get for a crit bonus. The crit likelihood may need to be increased also.

MG with ammo weighs 3x more the 1 small laser...takes up 2x more crit spots....is 1/5 or worse when compared to the usefulness of a small laser.

As it stands it is useless in game and should be buffed, or they should tell us Officially...

"hey it sux, we know it sux....we just put it there for $hits and giggles.... Eat it. "

I honestly can't fathom why anyone wouldn't want a weapon that is in the game...to not actually be useful in the game. The anti-infantry only argument is BS...even if it is canon...which obviously since so many argue about it is arguable...it is still BS, and IMO one of those situations where Gameplay is > BT/TT canon.