339 replies to this topic

[Deadoon]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 January 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Do Machine Guns fire explosive shells or bullets?

Again going to Wiki;

"paste as plain text"

A m2 browning can fire incendiaries, which explode mind you, does that make it a autocannon?
Here is something from canon that might annoy you,
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Guns

Quote

Gatling Gun 20mm

Yep, a 20mm gun counts as a machine gun in battletech.

Does ammo really matter, half the standard ammo for the gau-8 is api, aka armor piercing inciniary, other half the ammo is hei. Congrats, it fires both. Is it no longer a cannon?

Does a 20mm anti tank rifle firing explosive rounds count as a cannon?
Does a recoiless rifle count as a cannon?
Does your argument even have a basis, considering you already were proven wrong?

Also interesting thing i missed.
Machine guns fire Bullets
While autocannons fire Shells
Still no counter found for my umbrella term comparison.

Edited by Deadoon, 10 January 2013 - 10:15 AM.

[Viper69]

Lorren Jaffray, on 10 January 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

Honestly this is ten pages of **** that doesn't matter even a little bit. You don't need to look at table top, you don't need to look at real world ****. None of that matters, all that is important is A. Is the weapon in the game ( ) B. Do the developers intend for it to be more than a weapon included only because it exists in lore ( ) If yes to B balance the weapon based on its heat weight and range. The end. Whether or not you think a machine gun is effective against mechs or the fact that it "shredded people in no time flat" in table top are completely irrelevant to the goal of providing a well done balanced game.

I honestly could give a rat **** about anything in real life. I just want a ton of MG ammo to explode with every point of damage it could inflict had it emptied the amount that exploded. That is all, end of story.

[Karl Split]

Its a machine gun, its for slaughtering massed infantry with its high rate of fire. It aint a battlemech vs battlemech weapon if people now want it buffed way beyond what it should be capable of then i wish they never added it to the game.

[Rippthrough]

You would, because you're wrong.

[Deadoon]

Karl Split, on 10 January 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Its a machine gun, its for slaughtering massed infantry with its high rate of fire. It aint a battlemech vs battlemech weapon if people now want it buffed way beyond what it should be capable of then i wish they never added it to the game.

It does 2 damage vs battlemechs

Vs infantry it does 2D6 for comparison, it's minimum damage is the same as an ac/20 or gauss rifle.
Direct fire ballistics and regular lasers you have to divide the damage dealt by 10 to get damage vs infantry.

Edited by Deadoon, 10 January 2013 - 10:20 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Deadoon, on 10 January 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

"paste as plain text" A m2 browning can fire incendiaries, which explode mind you, does that make it a autocannon? Here is something from canon that might annoy you, http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_Guns Yep, a 20mm gun counts as a machine gun in battletech. Does ammo really matter, half the standard ammo for the gau-8 is api, aka armor piercing inciniary, other half the ammo is hei. Congrats, it fires both. Is it no longer a cannon? Does a 20mm anti tank rifle firing explosive rounds count as a cannon? Does a recoiless rifle count as a cannon? Does your argument even have a basis, considering you already were proven wrong?

My basis is using the definitions of Cannon and Machine gun.

20mm Anti tank gun would count as a Cannon if it doesn't fire "bullets". If it fires Shells it is no longer a gun but a cannon hence the Military classifying it as such. Not Me, The Military. haven't been proven wrong. I have backed up my end of the argument and foiled yours. Caliber and Ammo type separate a gun from a cannon.

By the definition of a cannon a recoiless rifle would be closer to a Cannon due to firing HEAT even though it does not fire either 'bullets' or 'shells' by my reading. A nice trick question.

You act as if I didn't know all those things from Sarna... I playtested some of that equipment for TT.

Deadoon, on 10 January 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

It does 2 damage vs battlemechs Vs infantry it does 2D6 for comparison, it's minimum damage is the same as an ac/20 or gauss rifle. Direct fire ballistics and regular lasers you have to divide the damage dealt by 10 to get damage vs infantry.

Correct me on this one though, An AC20 round Or Gauss slug still only kills ONE soldier where a MG would cut down 2d6 soldiers.

[stjobe]

Please, Joe and others: Can we not have the discussion on whether an MG is a cannon or not, or whether it should be in MWO or not? The devs have put it in MWO, and they have decided it needs a buff, so all those discussions are irrelevant to the thread, which tries to discuss how much of a buff the MG should have.

So pretty please with sugar on top, no more of the "MG is an infantry weapon", "MG has no place in MWO", or "an MG is not an autocannon", okay?

[Joseph Mallan]

I understand StJobe. Sorry for my part in it. I do look forward to seeing how the new Buffs affect the game play when they are released.

[Deadoon]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 January 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

My basis is using the definitions of Cannon and Machine gun.

20mm Anti tank gun would count as a Cannon if it doesn't fire "bullets". If it fires Shells it is no longer a gun but a cannon hence the Military classifying it as such. Not Me, The Military. haven't been proven wrong. I have backed up my end of the argument and foiled yours. Caliber and Ammo type separate a gun from a cannon.

By the definition of a cannon a recoiless rifle would be closer to a Cannon due to firing HEAT even though it does not fire either 'bullets' or 'shells' by my reading. A nice trick question.

You act as if I didn't know all those things from Sarna... I playtested some of that equipment for TT.

Correct me on this one though, An AC20 round Or Gauss slug still only kills ONE soldier where a MG would cut down 2d6 soldiers.

An ac20/gauss kills 2 infantry, 20/10= 2 and 15/10 is 1.5 specifically rounded up for 2.
A machine gun can kill 12.

Cutaways of a gau-8's cartridges
http://www.airforcew.../gfx/pgu13b.jpg

A Raufoss Mk 211 bullet
http://www.ar15.com/...51711/26567.JPG

wow not much difference between that bullet and shell.

Heck that bullet better fits the definition of a shell, maybe the m2 browning should be considered an autocannon if it can fire that thing?

Also you still haven't countered the fact that machine gun is an umbrella term, like handgun, rifle, and revolver are.
All of them are categories for defining what a weapon is.

A rifle just means that it has a rifled barrel, a handgun means that it is designed for ability to use with one hand and a revolver merely means it has multiple revolving chambers. You can have a revolver cannon(exists already), revolver autocannon, or even a revolver rifle.

[Joseph Mallan]

Deadoon, on 10 January 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

An ac20/gauss kills 2 infantry, 20/10= 2 and 15/10 is 1.5 specifically rounded up for 2.
A machine gun can kill 12.

Thanks I looked it up while waiting. (got most of the books on CD)
Replies to anything else posted... Will no longer be made in respect to StJobe's request.

[TungstenWall]

Something i could see is a Dramatic projectile speed boost, slight damage boost, 0-300-600 range, and ammo per ton boost, making the MG a Light's long-range weapon.

[AlanEsh]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 January 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Do Machine Guns fire explosive shells or bullets?

Again going to Wiki;

A ONE THOUSAND POUND WEAPON firing non-exploding rounds at 4000rpm is going to rip **** up. PERIOD. It doesn't matter if the rounds explode or not -- kinetic energy is the greater part of the damage done by these guns anyway.

And all of these MG vs Autocannon posts beside the point. MGs in tabletop do 66% of the damage that a Small Laser does. This should be the starting point (relative to the MWO small laser) for the devs and they should tweak up or down from there.

We're in mechs shooting at mechs; all weapons should be viable.

Edited by Angelicon, 10 January 2013 - 11:09 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tungsten remember with damage boosts come the more powerful Ammo explosions. One reason I don't play MGs on TT was the 400 point Ammo explosion. Now in the MMO MG ammo isn't that volatile and that is Good! to those asking for 1.2 damage remember you carry 2000 rounds of damage. When(IF) R & R returns that will be a new Mech with a single ammo hit. IF you forget CASE.

[Xyroc]

Kristov Kerensky, on 09 January 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

Ranges in BTech have nothing to do with how powerful a weapon should be, they have to do with how you can fit it on a map in your house on a single table, nothing more, nothing less. BTech used hex maps, each hex was Xm, so you could fit a fairly good sized map on a single standard dining room table. Now, if you give the weapons their real world ranges(which we do know what they should be for in some cases), you'd need a rather larger table..say...100m x 100m for starters.

Now, YOU may be rich enough to afford a house where you could fit a 100x100m table, but the vast majority of the PnP gamers back in the 80s weren't that rich, so FASA decided to make the ranges very short so the maps would fit on the average table. After all, they wanted to make some money off the game and if it could only be played by people who had 100x100m tables, well..I mean really, how many customers would they have had?

good thing this is a video game and the table aspect has nothing to do with it ;D

[Joseph Mallan]

Angelicon, on 10 January 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

MGs in tabletop do 66% of the damage that a Small Laser does. This should be the starting point (relative to the MWO small laser) for the devs and they should tweak up or down from there.

We're in mechs shooting at mechs; all weapons should be viable.

So I have to ask which part of TT should be adhered to? MGs in canon are anti infantry weapons (Sorry StJobe), as such the DEVs have chosen to keep a MG bullet less than effective v BattleMech Armor but are buffing their ability to trash the equipment after armor is removed. Now how much of a Buff will need to be seen in action.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 January 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

So I have to ask which part of TT should be adhered to? MGs in canon are anti infantry weapons (Sorry StJobe), as such the DEVs have chosen to keep a MG bullet less than effective v BattleMech Armor but are buffing their ability to trash the equipment after armor is removed. Now how much of a Buff will need to be seen in action.

In canon the MG damages a mech as much as an AC2, 2/3 as much as a small laser. It is an anti-mech weapon that gains a bonus to damaging infantry. Please try to understand this. The MG has always been able to do damage to a mech, ALWAYS. 2 per turn. That is a low amount, but it is not useless, especially when you mount several of them. The AC2 has better range at the cost of increased heat and weight. The MG has no heat, low weight and very short range, but it is STILL an effective weapon against a mech, always has been, always will be. That does not mean that the MG is the best weapon to shoot a mech with, but it should still be effective.

Many TT designs make great use of the MG at close range, especially light mechs that would not do nearly the damage with a melee' attack as they do with a couple MGs.

ANd now I am done explaining this to you, you refuse to understand basic TT game rules and why they were written. I look foreward to the upcoming buff, but like the OP, I hope they do it right and I am worried that they will not.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tickdoff Tank, on 10 January 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

In canon the MG damages a mech as much as an AC2, 2/3 as much as a small laser. It is an anti-mech weapon that gains a bonus to damaging infantry. Please try to understand this. The MG has always been able to do damage to a mech, ALWAYS. 2 per turn. That is a low amount, but it is not useless, especially when you mount several of them. The AC2 has better range at the cost of increased heat and weight. The MG has no heat, low weight and very short range, but it is STILL an effective weapon against a mech, always has been, always will be. That does not mean that the MG is the best weapon to shoot a mech with, but it should still be effective.

Many TT designs make great use of the MG at close range, especially light mechs that would not do nearly the damage with a melee' attack as they do with a couple MGs.

ANd now I am done explaining this to you, you refuse to understand basic TT game rules and why they were written. I look foreward to the upcoming buff, but like the OP, I hope they do it right and I am worried that they will not.

I understand and accept all of that. However as gets brandied about a lot to us TT warriors, this isn't the TT, and the DEVs have decided the MG is still not an anti-Mech weapon.

Are you willing to pay for a Mg ammo explosion when/if R&R come back? (X*2,000 damage per ton of ammo) right now a mere 80 damage.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 January 2013 - 11:53 AM.

[TungstenWall]

nm.

Edited by TungstenWall, 10 January 2013 - 11:40 AM.

[Esplodin]

On Machine guns and Cannons:
Machine guns adapt the body of the projectile to the bore of the gunbarrel by a little deformation (compression and elongation) so all gas pressure can be used for propulsion with no leaks.

On the contrary, cannon shells are too big to be deformed so a soft metal ring sorrounds the projectiles and is that what adapts to the bore of the gunbarrel.

Both weapon systems have been designed to fore faster/slower, use specialized (i.e. explosive) rounds, etc. so ordinince or fire rate isn't a differentiatior really.

I really don't get all the vitrol about machine guns, since it is all hand waving and symantics anyway. As of now there are no low end ballistics in the game worth a ****, while energy has a sm laser and missles have srm2's. They make an awesome sound in game, and seem to have a massive psycological effect. Every single time I've fired one the target swings off of their target and goes after me. It's an aggro magnet, and is awesome when lowering the oppositions potential DPS by having them swap targets.

I'd love a damage buff, since it would be more effective to get out of the mech and punch their leg then hit them with a MG volley. Personnaly I'm gonna reserve judgement until the devs release the particulars on the crit seeking. For all we know at this point it could be so full of win it would be stupid not to equip it. (crosses fingers for critting THROUGH armor with a 1000% crit buff)

[Tickdoff Tank]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 January 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

I understand and accept all of that. However as gets brandied about a lot to us TT warriors, this isn't the TT, and the DEVs have decided the MG is still not an anti-Mech weapon.

Are you willing to pay for a Mg ammo explosion when/if R&R come back? (X*2,000 damage per ton of ammo) right now a mere 80 damage.

Yes, I am more than willing to pay for the MG ammo explosion, I already do that with all the AC ammo I carry. I run a Cataphract with 6 tons of AC 10 ammo, carrying 2 tons of MG ammo will be a non-issue for the mechs that need it. And the devs have already said that the MG is an anti-mech weapon that needs a buf, a dev even posted in this thread about it. The only question remaining is exactly *how* the MG will be buffed. I know the dev listed what they are planning, but I still agree with the OP, the propsed MG buff does not seem like it will be enough, but I am willing to give them a chance before I complain about a change that is not even in yet.