261 replies to this topic

[Lon3Wo1f]

When I read the proposed changes I facepalmed so hard that a friend in Ireland heard me. Increasing crit chance on internals for the machine gun would not make it useful or even viable. Why would I spend time blasting away with lasers and ballistic weapons then use the machine gun for internals? At best it might increase a kill by a few milliseconds but when I'm using 2 - 4 lasers and ballistics to finish something off will it make a noticeable difference? Will it make a difference enough that I'd consider mounting a machine gun? No.

The only potential change to make them useful would be increasing damage. Anything less and they're still basically useless taking up space in the game's database.

Flamers are another matter entirely. Minimal damage I can accept if it increases the heat of a Mech being hit with it or at the very least cuts down heat dissipation by a % per flamer. Diminishing returns would be needed or you'd end up with a specialist flamer setup built to purposely shut down the biggest threats much like we have now with the Raven squads and Atlas D-DC teams.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

ladies and gentlemen i present to you a logic bomb.

Machine Guns, against futuristic triple plated irradiated armor weaved alongside created diamond fibres...are always..always useless.

http://www.sarna.net...hs_%26_Vehicles

Edited by DV McKenna, 15 January 2013 - 05:10 AM.

[DivineEvil]

Unless they would buff MG's damage 5x up, nothing will make them useful. Some mechs, like Cicada, has MG's as the only possible option to use it's ballistic slots. As long as its damage is inferior to Small Laser, which takes same weight, also for barely any heat and no need to use additional weight for ammunition, MG that do need that minimum ton of ammunition will remain useless. Critical modifier will not change anything at all, since utilizing it requires breaking armor that consists over 90% of the section intergity, and any other weapon can wipe out entire section without any critical hits. Considering how hard it is to use MG with it's spreading, velocity and short range, major damage buff would make perfect sence.

So, until I see my 4x MGs on Cicada doing the same DPS as 4x Small Lasers, I'm not using MGs and that Cicada either. I stopped to be surprised when PGI doing senseless crap.

Quote

Machine Guns, against futuristic triple plated irradiated armor weaved alongside created diamond fibres...are always..always useless.

The key moment here is that it's very brittle. And I really doubt that said Machine Guns uses lead bullets. It would make sense if said Damage multiplier would work for armor as well, or if it would be capable to critically hit trough the armor.

Edited by DivineEvil, 15 January 2013 - 05:20 AM.

[Aquilus]

DV McKenna, on 15 January 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

ladies and gentlemen i present to you a logic bomb.

Machine Guns, against futuristic triple plated irradiated armor weaved alongside created diamond fibres...are always..always useless.

http://www.sarna.net...hs_%26_Vehicles

Oh, that must be why it does 0 damage, according to the same source.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_gun

Oh, wait. I like how most of the people posting TT/Lore against the MG are capable of some extremely selective reading.

[BerryChunks]

I agree, op. 10/10

[BerryChunks]

Jade Kitsune, on 14 January 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

Paul's got an idea here to make MG/Flamers useful beyond their current non-useful position.

Just because you don't like the idea, doesn't mean it's not valid. I mean, frankly, this change would actually warrant me using build ideas that utilize MG's or Flamers as something of a "finisher" weapon, or something to use while cooling down on a hotter build.

There's plenty of options this brings up, is it the perfect solution? Far from it, but let's see where it goes before we knock it yeah?

How about this? We grant this, as long as IT GETS REVERTED IF IT TURNS OUT TO SUCK.

A lot of times, developers of games, and even avid players of a game system, will propose that since the change was worse than leaving it alone, or since it didn't work quite right, the answer is to modify it even further or change something else. instead of...

Changing it back and either leaving it alone or going in a different direction.

Flamer ECM Mech Speed Brawler Online is on the horizon. It's... it's gloriously terrible...

How about destructable terrain? Setting trees and buildings on fire to obscure Heat vision and provide smoke coverage? Hmm?

Edited by BerryChunks, 15 January 2013 - 05:47 AM.

[Congzilla]

The fact of the matter is the the flamer and the MG are anti infantry weapons, they were never meant to be able to hurt mechs. Paul's idea gives them a niche use without taking them to far from what they were on TT. I think we should actually try it out before bashing it.

[Vassago Rain]

Congzilla, on 15 January 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

The fact of the matter is the the flamer and the MG are anti infantry weapons, they were never meant to be able to hurt mechs. Paul's idea gives them a niche use without taking them to far from what they were on TT. I think we should actually try it out before bashing it.

Congzilla, on 15 January 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

The fact of the matter is the the flamer and the MG are anti infantry weapons, they were never meant to be able to hurt mechs. Paul's idea gives them a niche use without taking them to far from what they were on TT. I think we should actually try it out before bashing it.

Dude.
They both do 2 damage to MECHS. They've always been anti-mech guns.
There weren't even infantry or tanks in the olden days, when all the guns were thrown in.

FASA had never fired guns, there was no internet, and all they knew about guns, they learned from watching Arnold movies. It was the early 80s. Heatsinks weren't something the common man knew about.

They picked a star trek name for a piece of gear, that turned out to be a real thing. Battletech heatsinks should be called 'heat pumps,' but they're not.

Get over yourself.

[MaddMaxx]

Dakkath, on 14 January 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

It'd be nice to give them more range. I know this goes against TT rules, but in all reality, the MG should shoot farther than it does, but just less accurate the greater the range.

Allowing your mech to cool down while you use the MG's on a heavily damaged sections is a great idea. I like the new critical hit stuff. (just want more range on the gun).

It is interesting you mention the range. Irrc, all Ballistic weapons get a 3X to max. range boost. For some unknown reason, the MG, surely considered a ballistic weapon, gets a 90m -> 200m max.

That is 70m short of what it should be.

[Yokaiko]

Congzilla, on 15 January 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

The fact of the matter is the the flamer and the MG are anti infantry weapons, they were never meant to be able to hurt mechs. Paul's idea gives them a niche use without taking them to far from what they were on TT. I think we should actually try it out before bashing it.

No they weren't MG's were on mechs to shoot at mechs as back up weapons.....as noted, mix vehicles and infantry and such came later one, they were not released with Battletch, they came later. That being said why they left the damage on MG alone with respect to TT I don't know, its the ONLY weapon that is even close to its TT damage value.

This added crit crap is just that, crap, it still doesn't justify the FOUR HUNDRED points of ammo damage you have to carry to use them, and it certainly won't save the mechs with muti-ballistic slots that don't have 18 tons to use AC2s.

[Wintersdark]

Bagheera, on 14 January 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

I'm not the only one who'll be trying MGs (again) when this is implemented. Might as well see how it plays out in game before deciding.

Also, critique of the fix completely ignores team-work.

Assault/Heavy taking massive shots at the armor, partnered up with a 4MG CDA aiming for the open sections - off the top of my head.

Also interesting options for mechs that fit a big autocanon and have left over ballistic slots and not a lot of leftover weight.

In theory, the AC20/MG array combo could be wickedly brutal. Which brings me to my next point. Bilbo already pointed out heat. The other side is RoF. If you're starting at an enemies internals but all your weapons are on cooldown, the MGs give you a rapid crit maker option without having to wait for that Gauss/PPC or AC to cycle back up again.

Insanity's point is that in every case you're better off taking any other weapon than a MG or Flamer. Particularly in the case of a flamer, you'd be FAR better off packing a small laser. Less options for the MG, as your next ballistics are substantially larger, but there too.

Your Atlas/Cicada combo? They'd be more effective if the Cicada was packing anything else: Strip the armor of your target faster, tear up the internals faster.

Unless that damage multiplier is absurdly large, so you're destroying internal components extremely fast... and even then? Given the MG's massive size/tonnage relative to DPS, you're still gimping yourself terribly to take something so bulky that has no effect until you're a single volley away from destroying that section anyways. Once a region is stripped of armor, pretty much anything is going to tear it apart regardless.

[Vassago Rain]

Thontor, on 15 January 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

Just last week actually, lost a medium laser because the section it was in wasn't crit padded... The medium laser was the only thing in the torso... Meaning it had just as much chance to be critically hit and destroyed as if it was an AC/20

Critical slots used isnt the only thing that determines likelihood of being critically hit, it is the critical slot size relative to the total critical slots used in that section.

And guys... The machine gun was never meant to be used as a primary weapon, its meant to have something to fire while your main weapons are on cooldown or while you are waiting for heat to go down.

It would be situational of course.. But if I can destroy a weapon, heat sink, or cause an ammo explosion and kill a mech without spending heat, when im waiting to fire my main weapons because of cooldown or high hear, that's a plus for me

I don't think you've ever battled massed not-veritech fighters with horded machineguns. They hurt.

A lot.

Likewise, there are plenty of mech hunters that field a lot of them, like the clan piranha, which has 12 machineguns, That's 24 potential damage in a turn, by the way. That it happens to ruin bases of infantry is a small bonus.

Did you also know there are lots of laser weapons that do this? What about plasma rifles? Are those all now anti-infantry weapons we're not meant to use?

Yeah, no. You people either never played it, or you did, but it was so long ago, you don't remember anything.

[Jungle Rhino]

I just want to know why PGI doesn't just make the MG do the same damage per second as a small laser. Just like in tabletop. It doesn't need to 'crit seek'. That is creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist!

Meanwhile, back at the batcave - ECM is completely busted, PPCs are gimp, and UACs do far too much DPS. Please get your priorities right PGI!!

[Congzilla]

Vassago Rain, on 15 January 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

Dude.
They both do 2 damage to MECHS. They've always been anti-mech guns.
There weren't even infantry or tanks in the olden days, when all the guns were thrown in.

FASA had never fired guns, there was no internet, and all they knew about guns, they learned from watching Arnold movies. It was the early 80s. Heatsinks weren't something the common man knew about.

They picked a star trek name for a piece of gear, that turned out to be a real thing. Battletech heatsinks should be called 'heat pumps,' but they're not.

Get over yourself.

Tanks and infantry came out with CityTech in 1986, two years after the game launched. The MG was never a viable anti mech weapon.

[Vassago Rain]

Jungle Rhino, on 15 January 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

I just want to know why PGI doesn't just make the MG do the same damage per second as a small laser. Just like in tabletop. It doesn't need to 'crit seek'. That is creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist!

Meanwhile, back at the batcave - ECM is completely busted, PPCs are gimp, and UACs do far too much DPS. Please get your priorities right PGI!!

It does 2 damage, like an AC2, but with barely any range.
Small lasers do 3 damage, with some extra range.

[Yokaiko]

Congzilla, on 15 January 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

Tanks and infantry came out with CityTech in 1986, two years after the game launched. The MG was never a viable anti mech weapon.

Still better than it is in this game, markedly.

[Vassago Rain]

Congzilla, on 15 January 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

Tanks and infantry came out with CityTech in 1986, two years after the game launched. The MG was never a viable anti mech weapon.

Dude, I've been playing with all these wasps, stingers, and phoenix hawks forever. Machineguns are perfectly viable against mechs, but like all the other tiny weapons, you need a lot of them to make it count.

2 damage for no heat cost, on a mech that has no problems getting in close, and as a bonus, I can remove entire bases of infantry with them very quickly? Sure, I'll take that.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"How about this? We grant this, as long as IT GETS REVERTED IF IT TURNS OUT TO SUCK."

Firstly who is this "we" you speak of. Do you really think "we" can tell the Dev what to put in and what not to based on some Forum Thread that even the participants can't ******* agree on? please, let's "we" stay rational.

As to the quoted point. No one, zip, nada, zero uses MG's now. How could "any" change make them SUCK any more? (Holy Smokes Batman)

Edited by MaddMaxx, 15 January 2013 - 05:55 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Aquilus, on 15 January 2013 - 05:17 AM, said:

Oh, that must be why it does 0 damage, according to the same source.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Machine_gun

Oh, wait. I like how most of the people posting TT/Lore against the MG are capable of some extremely selective reading.

So it's almost like a religion and the rulebooks are our holy books?

[MustrumRidcully]

Thontor, on 15 January 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

Just last week actually, lost a medium laser because the section it was in wasn't crit padded... The medium laser was the only thing in the torso... Meaning it had just as much chance to be critically hit and destroyed as if it was an AC/20

Last week, so it must basically happen all the time? Or more like "almost never"?

Quote

Critical slots used isnt the only thing that determines likelihood of being critically hit, it is the critical slot size relative to the total critical slots used in that section.

Yes, as I pointed out in the LRM20 example.

Quote

And guys... The machine gun was never meant to be used as a primary weapon, its meant to have something to fire while your main weapons are on cooldown or while you are waiting for heat to go down.

Small Lasers are not primary weapons either, and yet, if you equip 6 of them on a light or medium mech, you have some reasonable firepower. Yet if you equip 6 MGs... You're underwhelming.

Quote

It would be situational of course.. But if I can destroy a weapon, heat sink, or cause an ammo explosion and kill a mech without spending heat, when im waiting to fire my main weapons because of cooldown or high hear, that's a plus for me

But what if you instead spend 1 ton on an extra double heat sinks? Then you would have been able to fire your weapons more often / faster over the entire course of battle, and had dealt more damage than the MG... What if you had used those 1.5 tons on an AMS with Ammo instead of an MG?