Sorry, but that is just not true. I used to be an observer in an artillery unit. Artillery is "good versus infantry", no argument there. But I would be happy to call in the same rounds with the same fuse against armoured vehicles, and have a reasonable expectation of knocking them out. So weapons that are good against infantry absolutely can be used against vehicles.
I've heard it said that the Browning .50 machinegun was originally designed as an anti-tank weapon, and a .50 cal certainly has a decent chance against APCs such as the BTR or M-113.
And 50 cals don't stand much of a chance vs a Mech armor (in the TT game). Also Artillery is meant to be that way. IIRC Artillery is the "King" of the battlefield? Been a few years since I stomped around Cal in Kevlar but thats the Nickname I remember.
APC and M-113 don't have DU armor?
Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 December 2012 - 12:17 PM.
I made a thread about it, of course you can go in a lot of different directions, I figure that if you don't buff it to at least 1DPS, only the Cicada-3C and maybe the Raven-4X can use it then effectively. I suggested a few changes, but I think if you do any less than 2DPS we won't see it on any other mechs at all anyway.
Joseph Mallan, on 27 December 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:
APC and M-113 don't have DU armor?
No, they don't. Usually steel or aluminium, IIRC. On the other hand, mechs don't either - they have some kind of ablative armour which gets worn away by incoming fire.
The reason I picked APCs as an example is that they're in the same 20-30 tonne weight class as a light mech, so it shows that light armour can be defeated by heavy machinegun fire. You'd have to be pretty freaking optimistic to shoot at a 60-tonne Abrams with a .50 cal, and I'm ok with machineguns not having much chance against medium mechs or anything heavier. But I can't see any reason why they shouldn't have some utility against light armour - they do in the real world, after all.
No, they don't. Usually steel or aluminium, IIRC. On the other hand, mechs don't either - they have some kind of ablative armour which gets worn away by incoming fire.
The reason I picked APCs as an example is that they're in the same 20-30 tonne weight class as a light mech, so it shows that light armour can be defeated by heavy machinegun fire. You'd have to be pretty freaking optimistic to shoot at a 60-tonne Abrams with a .50 cal, and I'm ok with machineguns not having much chance against medium mechs or anything heavier. But I can't see any reason why they shouldn't have some utility against light armour - they do in the real world, after all.
So considering adding penetration values to armor vs weapon PV? I've seen it in other games, but not in BT or MW. Be a complex system to implement properly, but interesting none-the-less....
Right Mechs don't use just Steel or Aluminum. They use multi layers armors Blah blah blah Techobabble technobabble. So in BattleTech terms The Abrams armor is less than "Military grade" for the 31st Century.
(Opps, Thanks for the info on the armors used )
Battletech does use a PV(Penetration value) system for support vehicles.
Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 December 2012 - 12:44 PM.
I said no,but ,what the could do for them is make 2 per ballisitic slot on a mech, I know its a rather slippery slope because you would have to same for othr .5 ton weapons probably,but it' an idea.
To everyone saying they need to suck vs mechs because they're anti-infantry .50 cals:
They were in the TT game before infantry
They deal 2/3 the damage of a small laser with the same range in TT
According to Sarna they're not .50s, they're 20mm
Which is why I voted to boost their DPS to .8, as a small laser has a DPS of 1 and far better burst damage.
Also, in a TT campaign I run an array of them on my mech as a poor-man's LBX. Quite effective.
Edited by One Medic Army, 27 December 2012 - 12:50 PM.
What if, and I know that this is TOTALLY crazy on my part to suggest, that we comprimised between both sides. Bump the damage up to 0.06 meaning that a 10 round 1s burst would do 0.6 damage on actual armor. BUT, it would do 3x (subject to change) as much damage to internals and would have a slightly higher than normal critical rate on both normal armor and internals?
Doing this would make MG users a bit happier, would keep the weapon slightly below the Small Laser, but it would be nasty on shredded armor.
PS> To the person that brought up the armor on APCs and such, if you ever get the time, watch "http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/". It was an HBO original movie that shows the life cycle of the Bradley. It was a damned funny movie but pretty sad when you see how it went from a basic APC to what it is today. Damned politics. Also, LOL at the Pavway Bomb. Good times!
It seems like a lot but then I did a test with my 4MG Cicada (sorry team )
I had no other weapon and were just shooting as much as I could during the match.
I managed to get 7000 rounds out and did 59 damage.
So this basically means if you shoot permanently for 10 minutes you can theoretically do 280 damage with the current system.
(So if you find an AfK mech you might manage to do that)
With my 59 damage game I feel I was already doing quite well......anybody managed to do more damage with only MG in a game?
If not a x5 buff would be adequate. It would allow you to do 200-300 damage with 4 MGs in a good match.
Compare that to your 3xSSRM2 COM-2D or a Jenner with 6 small lasers......
killer is that the game is supposed to be based loosely on TT, TT values have it at the same range and 2/3 the damage of a small laser. Its hopelessly lacking at the moment.
Bring them into line or just remove them from the game entirely. I have no idea why they gave the machine guns such useless stats and have left them there for so long. I could make some statement about other baffling decisions made by the dev team but lets just leave it at machine gun damage WTF?
These weapons are reserved for the brave and courageous mech pilots. The underdogs. The crazy, the insane and cicada pilots
Let me tell you whiners want to get rid of them just to rub us the wrong way. Elitist got thier butt handed over by mgs so it was nerfed a long long long time ago.
Look at the last patch notes.....
* HUD will no longer flicker unnaturally when shot with machine gun fire and flamers beyond a certain damage threshold
Thats right.......they had to nerf machine guns even more!
Why? cause when your a badass mf mech pilot your going to end up only using machine guns.
Not some God-mode mech.
These are like JEDI weapons that take years of training to use.
Thing is you need to learn to use machine guns. Machine guns require high dicipline ninja training.
Machine guns and flamers is all bark and no bite. And thats the key to understanding these weapons. The fear of force rather then force itself. Its about chaos, making the sht hit the fan. Anyone who's mech was mg'd to death was killed by sheer determination not bullets.
You let out flames on one mech all the sudden you just created a aoe taunt attack. Everyone who sees it is going to try to save thier buddy.
Machine guns you can pepper multiple enemies giving them something to worry about. Most the time they don't know whats hitting them just that they are being attacked.
Gotta keep your eyes open for the mech who lost its armor shell. Which MGs are soposedly the best vs unarmored( I think this got nerfed too) It makes for very interesting combat.......it makes you feel like a newbie all over again.
I got 4 machine guns that does less damage then one small laser..........people you do not want to buff these guns, Theres a whole reason these things got nerfed in the first place......to buff mgs is to court death.
Im sure it only takes a press of a button to give mgs more damage, don't do it. Do not buff mgs.....for the sake of mechs all around the world. It is a mercy to whiner elitist. Thier ego's could not bear the full might of complete machine guns.
People who still use machine guns are still cocky as is.......
I salute you fellow mg cicada 3c pilots.
MGs = Cicada Singing Till they give us a cicada siren or something.
Whether you want to believe that in TT they were useful for more than anti-infantry work or not the fact that there is not and will not be infantry in MWO means that the machine gun needs to be viable against mechs in MWO. Also we are currently lacking a decent light ballistics weapon (the AC2 is just to heavy to be considered "Light"). The MG would fill this role nicely with a damage buff it's short range will prevent it from outperforming the AC/2 as a suppression and ranged sustain weapon.
Also what are those of you arguing that it shouldn't be viable afraid of? Does it really hurt to have a ballistics option for lights and cicadas?
I doubt that will have any real effect though, I'd rather have a strong weapon all around, rather than a crit seeker, I might as well kill them rather than crit their stuff. Only if it was like crazy (once the armor is gone, so is everything on the inside).
I got 4 machine guns that does less damage then one small laser..........people you do not want to buff these guns, Theres a whole reason these things got nerfed in the first place......to buff mgs is to court death.
Im sure it only takes a press of a button to give mgs more damage, don't do it. Do not buff mgs.....for the sake of mechs all around the world. It is a mercy to whiner elitist. Thier ego's could not bear the full might of complete machine guns.
People who still use machine guns are still cocky as is.......
I salute you fellow mg cicada 3c pilots.
Sarcasm doesnt work very well on forums, but your post makes so little sense I can only assume you are being sarcastic and agree that the MGs are complete junk and need a buff LOL
Piranha is planning to buff them, and rightfully so. They're currently useless. Even if you had 1.5t left, you'd spend it somewhere else. You'd either upgrade your engine, add another sink, more ammo to a real weapon, more armor, slot an AMS, the list goes on and on. What you won't do however is spend it on a Machine Gun. If the Mech comes equipped with it, the first thing you'll do is strip it off.(And probably hock it back to the store too)
Why is the gun so bad? Well it's not that it isn't efficient for the cost per max damage dealt from its ammo box... it's that it takes too long to do any of it. Clock how long it takes you to dump 1,000 Machine Gun bullets. You'll be dead by the time you spend half of them unless you were just spraying most of them into the wall or ground uselessly. This gun needed more damage with less max ammo per ton. Or a higher weight cost for current ammo with more damage dealt. But it didn't get either of those. So it's basically just a super soaker, and about as effective vs tanks as you'd expect.
5
Lavrenti, on 27 December 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:
)
)
