135 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

verybad, on 27 December 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

What you should be thinking of is this:



Sorry, but that's not a machine gun, it's an AC-2 The Machine Gun even in TT battletech is largely innefective verse armor, meaning it's mean to be an anti-infantry weapon.

It's a RAC-2

[Tickdoff Tank]

Make the MG do 1.0 DPS, same as the small laser. That would be 0.1 damage per bullet @10 shots/second. I realize that, in TT, the MG did less dps than the SL, but in MWO the MG has a longer "beam duration" in which it applies it's damage. With a base DPS of 1.0 I think we would actually get around .75-.80 DPS on an enemy mech. With the MG being 0.5 tons, +1 ton ammo, and no heat, I think the MG would be useable.


And the GAU8 is pretty close to a TT MG. The TT MG did the same damage as an AC2. It was an anti-mech weapon, just like the small laser. The MG also recieved a bonus against infantry. Receiving a bonus to one type of target does not mean that it is only designed to attack that type of target. Both the MG and small laser filled the same "role" in TT, short range, low damage, filler weapon. The MWO MG should be as useful as the small laser, and I don't see anyone complaining about the usefullness of the small laser.

[Mahws]

Five minutes late on that comment CDlord.

verybad, on 27 December 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Sorry, but that's not a machine gun, it's an AC-2 The Machine Gun even in TT battletech is largely innefective verse armor, meaning it's mean to be an anti-infantry weapon.

Seriously, where is this coming from?

The tabletop machine gun is comparable in damage output to a small laser when used against a mech (2 damage to 3). If the machine gun is so ineffective against mechs why does it have the same damage output as an AC2? It's not in the rules and it's not in the lore. Machine guns are designed to be used against mechs and work against mechs. If you want to argue against machine guns being a viable weapon in MWO then go ahead, but quoting lore or tabletop rules simply doesn't back you up.

Edit:
What he said.

Edited by Mahws, 27 December 2012 - 10:04 AM.

[River Walker]

Tickdoff Tank, on 27 December 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

Make the MG do 1.0 DPS, same as the small laser. That would be 0.1 damage per bullet @10 shots/second. I realize that, in TT, the MG did less dps than the SL, but in MWO the MG has a longer "beam duration" in which it applies it's damage. With a base DPS of 1.0 I think we would actually get around .75-.80 DPS on an enemy mech. With the MG being 0.5 tons, +1 ton ammo, and no heat, I think the MG would be useable.


And the GAU8 is pretty close to a TT MG. The TT MG did the same damage as an AC2. It was an anti-mech weapon, just like the small laser. The MG also recieved a bonus against infantry. Receiving a bonus to one type of target does not mean that it is only designed to attack that type of target. Both the MG and small laser filled the same "role" in TT, short range, low damage, filler weapon. The MWO MG should be as useful as the small laser, and I don't see anyone complaining about the usefullness of the small laser.

100 % right ,its good to see a TT player point this out.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mahws, on 27 December 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Five minutes late on that comment CDlord.


Seriously, where is this coming from?

The tabletop machine gun is comparable in damage output to a small laser when used against a mech (2 damage to 3). If the machine gun is so ineffective against mechs why does it have the same damage output as an AC2? It's not in the rules and it's not in the lore. Machine guns are designed to be used against mechs and work against mechs. If you want to argue against machine guns being a viable weapon in MWO then go ahead, but quoting lore or tabletop rules simply doesn't back you up.

Edit:
What he said.

Maybe cause the TT DEVs decided that 1 point was to little?
Every description of MGs are as an Anti infantry weapon. Not a Mech killer.

[CDLord HHGD]

Mahws, on 27 December 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Five minutes late on that comment CDlord.

Huh? Which one? I trolled twice and offered an opinion once.....

[Tickdoff Tank]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 December 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Maybe cause the TT DEVs decided that 1 point was to little?
Every description of MGs are as an Anti infantry weapon. Not a Mech killer.

No, every description ststes that the MG is very powerful against infantry. It does not say that the MG is useless against mechs. When Battletech first came out the MG was available, but there was no infantry in the game. That is why the basic functionality of the weapon allows it to do 2 damage per round against a mech (as we said before, the same damage as an AC2, 1 point less than a small laser). When the rules for infantry were released the MG gained a buff while attacking infantry, and no one is denying that the MG was more useful against infantry, but *more useful against infantry* has never meant *useless against mechs*.

[Orgasmo]

Preferrably:

Machinegun - 0.6 dmg per shot, 180m optimum range, 300 meter maximum range.
Flamer - 0.5 dmg per second, heats up enemy mechs by 2% per second for each flamer, while increasing your own heat by 1% each second.

[CDLord HHGD]

The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers.

Reference:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Gun

EDIT: And I linked to the MG page via the description for the Stinger.

Edited by cdlord, 27 December 2012 - 10:13 AM.

[Sug]

Orgasmo, on 27 December 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Machinegun - 0.6 dmg per shot, 180m optimum range, 300 meter maximum range.

0.6 damage per shot at 10 shots a sec would give machineguns a dps of 6. Making them one of the highest dps weapons in the game.

Currently they do 0.04 damage per shot, at 10 shots a second giving them a dps of 0.4. (This number over the 10 sec TT value gives them a TT value of 4.)

Orgasmo, on 27 December 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Flamer - 0.5 dmg per second, heats up enemy mechs by 2% per second for each flamer, while increasing your own heat by 1% each second.

And now we have Hunchbacks running around with 9 flamers shutting down enemy mechs in about 7 seconds. With the ability to keep a mech shutdown permanently. No thanks. I like this game without Crowd Control.

If you want to buff weapons you need to give them drawbacks.

Example: Buff the flamers like you said but now they have a limited supply of fuel, maybe 30 seconds worth, that can't be increased, and they now explode on a critical hit.

Edited by Sug, 27 December 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tickdoff Tank, on 27 December 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

No, every description ststes that the MG is very powerful against infantry. It does not say that the MG is useless against mechs. When Battletech first came out the MG was available, but there was no infantry in the game. That is why the basic functionality of the weapon allows it to do 2 damage per round against a mech (as we said before, the same damage as an AC2, 1 point less than a small laser). When the rules for infantry were released the MG gained a buff while attacking infantry, and no one is denying that the MG was more useful against infantry, but *more useful against infantry* has never meant *useless against mechs*.

And this

Quote

The primary weapon on the Vulcan is an Armstrong Autocannon/2. This weapon gives the Vulcan a long reach, but in an urban battlefield it can be a hindrance. The secondary weapon on the 'Mech is a Randell Medium Laser, which is useful in close combat against both hard and soft targets. For anti-infantry use, the Vulcan carries a Sperry Browning Machine Gun and a Firestorm Flamer.

Quote

The main weapon of the Locust was a single Martell Medium Laser. Backing this up were two Sperry Browning Machine Guns, which effectively deterred infantry attacks against the Locust's vulnerable legs.

Quote

Warhammer-two Sperry Browning Machine Guns act as an effective deterrent to infantry attacks.

Quote

Finally, the BattleMaster was equipped with two Sperry Browning Machine Guns, which deterred infantry attacks.

Can you use MGs v Mechs... Sure. Should you?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 December 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[AlexWildeagle]

cdlord, on 27 December 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers.

Reference:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Gun

EDIT: And I linked to the MG page via the description for the Stinger.

We all know the above. But no where in what you posted does it say it's useless against mechs.

[Mahws]

Honestly I think flamers are fine as they are. Just give them a chance to detonate ammo in unarmored sections or something along those lines and they'd be set.

cdlord, on 27 December 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers.

Reference:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Gun

EDIT: And I linked to the MG page via the description for the Stinger.

A. That's a free to edit wiki, written by volounteers. Quoting it as a source of cannon is a little silly.
B. As has been said by several people already, good against infantry =/= only good against infantry. Thus Solaris mechs boating them, thus the damage equivalent of an AC2.

Edited by Mahws, 27 December 2012 - 10:37 AM.

[Lonestar1771]

Having MGs is better than not having anything at all. If I got the space for them, then why not? All it can do is help me win.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mahws, on 27 December 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Honestly I think flamers are fine as they are. Just give them a chance to detonate ammo in unarmored sections or something along those lines and they'd be set.


A. That's a free to edit wiki, written by volounteers. Quoting it as a source of cannon is a little silly.
B. As has been said by several people already, good against infantry =/= only good against infantry. Thus Solaris mechs boating them, thus the damage equivalent of an AC2.

Solaris should not be used to explain the battlefield usefulness of MGs. As to whether MGs need to be more effective or not. I pose a question. Why?

Good v Infantry is definitely Military double talk for not an Anti vehicle weapon. Can you use em? Sure... Should You???

[ArcDemon]

Yes I think the machinegun should be buffed so that it is a viable weapon and not just something a few inexperienced players haven't stripped from their new mech.

However I don't think the changes should be limited to damage or range - rate of fire and spread should also be examined in an effect to make it a useful weapon. I don't think we want to buff the damage to the point that the machine gun is just a short range AC/2, it just doesn't match the Battletech universe for the machine gun to be that powerful. Against big mechs it should always be a weapon of last resort whose damage/ton is inferer.

What I think would be a useful and canon role for the machine gun is if it where rebalanced to make it a useful anti-light weapon. Buff the damage and rate of fire slightly, increase the bullet spread and finally increase the size of the machine gun bullet's hitbox - the damage still wouldn't be worth the weight against bigger mechs, but the oversized hitbox would add add some 'autoaim' to the weapon to compensate for lag. Against big slow mechs the aim assist wouldn't make a difference, but against lights it would be the difference between and a hit and miss which is more important then damage when facing a mech with just 8-16 armor on each face.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 December 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

Can you use MGs v Mechs... Sure. Should you?

Should you use a small laser vs a mech? YES. Same for the MG.

No one is asking for the MG to be a *God weapon*, we are just asking for the MG to be USEFUL. The small laser is useful, the MG should be as well. Why should only lasers have a small, short range low damage weapon?

And everything you linked is exactly what I am saying.. MGs are MORE useful against infantry, that is not being debated. What you consistantly refuse to accept is that the MG is also a short range weapon to damage a MECH. Show me 1 place in TT rules where it says that an MG is unable to damage a mech, just 1.

You can't. Because the MG was always supposed to be used against a mech. That is the whole reason it is in the game. I will say it again: Just because the MG is *more* effective against infantry does not mean that it's only use is against infantry. The MG is supposed to fill the same function as the small laser. 90m range, low damage filler weapon.

The small laser generates 1 heat and has no ammo and weighs 0.5 ton +1ton for a heatsink= Total weight 1.5 tons. Deals 3 damage per round. 90m range

The MG weighs 0.5 ton +1 ton for ammo, generates no heat (no heatsink needed)= Total weight 1.5 tons. Deals 2 damage. 90m range.

The MG was always meant to be the ballistic equivalent to the small laser. In MWO the MG should be as useful as the small laser. End of that discussion.

The discussion should be " What buffs will make the MG useful without being OP or breaking the basic use of the weapon". We were having a good discussion on the possible buffs, and I appologize for assisting in the derailing of the thread.

[Mahws]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 December 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Solaris should not be used to explain the battlefield usefulness of MGs. As to whether MGs need to be more effective or not. I pose a question. Why?

Good v Infantry is definitely Military double talk for not an Anti vehicle weapon. Can you use em? Sure... Should You???

A nuke is good against infantry, doesn't mean that's all it's good against. And we're not talking about military talk, we're talking about rulebooks for an RPG game. If they'd meant not an Anti vehicle weapon they wouldn't have made them useful against vehicles/mechs. There's plenty of infantry only weapons in BT, machine guns aren't one of them.

I'd like to propose a counter question. Why not? What would the game lose from making machine guns a viable, practical choice for MWO? Why not give them stats scaled to be equivalent to their TT values? What does the game stand to gain from having a weapon that's completely useless and a liability to equip?

The burden of proof is on the side saying that the weapons should remain in their current needlessly nerfed state. The TT stats don't back them being useless. The game isn't improved by them being useless. Convince me why I'm wrong to say they should be fixed.

Edited by Mahws, 27 December 2012 - 10:48 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tickdoff Tank, on 27 December 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

Should you use a small laser vs a mech? YES. Same for the MG.

No one is asking for the MG to be a *God weapon*, we are just asking for the MG to be USEFUL. The small laser is useful, the MG should be as well. Why should only lasers have a small, short range low damage weapon?

And everything you linked is exactly what I am saying.. MGs are MORE useful against infantry, that is not being debated. What you consistantly refuse to accept is that the MG is also a short range weapon to damage a MECH. Show me 1 place in TT rules where it says that an MG is unable to damage a mech, just 1.

You can't. Because the MG was always supposed to be used against a mech. That is the whole reason it is in the game. I will say it again: Just because the MG is *more* effective against infantry does not mean that it's only use is against infantry. The MG is supposed to fill the same function as the small laser. 90m range, low damage filler weapon.

The small laser generates 1 heat and has no ammo and weighs 0.5 ton +1ton for a heatsink= Total weight 1.5 tons. Deals 3 damage per round. 90m range

The MG weighs 0.5 ton +1 ton for ammo, generates no heat (no heatsink needed)= Total weight 1.5 tons. Deals 2 damage. 90m range.

The MG was always meant to be the ballistic equivalent to the small laser. In MWO the MG should be as useful as the small laser. End of that discussion.

The discussion should be " What buffs will make the MG useful without being OP or breaking the basic use of the weapon". We were having a good discussion on the possible buffs, and I appologize for assisting in the derailing of the thread.

I don't use either though Tanker, They are pop guns, they have been pop guns. I see others use Small Lasers with good effect, but to me they are a last ditch space filler weapon(also Small lasers are a better choice than a MG to me). Not deserving a Buff. I will never be convinced of otherwise.

Mahws, on 27 December 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

A nuke is good against infantry, doesn't mean that's all it's good against. And we're not talking about military talk, we're talking about rulebooks for an RPG game. If they'd meant not an Anti vehicle weapon they wouldn't have made them useful against vehicles/mechs. There's plenty of infantry only weapons in BT, machine guns aren't one of them.

A Nukes primary description isn't that "Its good v Infantry" It Kills everything. going to the opposite extreme reinforces my position sir. Would I use a Nuke to kill one platoon?

[King Arthur IV]

the dev already working on this...... they have their own ideas and i think its being tested or something.