86 replies to this topic

[Ptom]

Then most likely the reason for this is because when the clans are introduced there will be machine gun "packages" with 2 or more machine guns in each ballistic slot.

Either that or they really don't want us using it. As said in another thread before this, using them as a "crit seeker" is horrible functionality when the mech in question will die in a few seconds from stronger weapons anyways.

Edited by Ptom, 18 January 2013 - 02:44 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Ptom, on 18 January 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Then most likely the reason for this is because when the clans are introduced there will be machine gun "packages" with 2 or more machine guns in each ballistic slot.

Either that or they really don't want as using it. As said in another thread before this, using them as a "crit seeker" is horrible functionality when the mech in question will die in a few seconds from stronger weapons anyways.

and they took out rearm/repair so why does it really matter if you do more internal damage when you kill them?
Its not like it was before where you had an incentive: to make it cost more

[Sug]

You could put 30 machine guns in a package and you'll still be doing less dps than a medium laser.

[Culler]

Personally I think it's because the devs don't want to wander too far from what they think is canon out of fear of damaging the game balance. That, or there will eventually be a reason for taking an anti-infantry weapon like the MG.

Personally I'd like to see it have the dps of a small laser (1.0 dps), rather than the 0.4 dps it has now. It would have the disadvantage of being heavier and spreading the damage out over a longer time and aiming is harder but it wouldn't generate heat. Seems a good balance to me.

[CancR]

Culler, on 18 January 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Personally I think it's because the devs don't want to wander too far from what they think is canon out of fear of damaging the game balance.

Yet here we are. Away from both cannon and balance.

[CDLord HHGD]

CancR, on 18 January 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

Yet here we are. Away from both cannon and balance.

How so? Machine Guns in canon are anti-infantry weapons. Not suited for Mech to Mech combat.

[Deathz Jester]

cdlord, on 18 January 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

How so? Machine Guns in canon are anti-infantry weapons. Not suited for Mech to Mech combat.

Then why are they even in the game?

I see no infantry

Edited by Iron Harlequin, 18 January 2013 - 12:17 PM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Iron Harlequin, on 18 January 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

Then why are they even in the game?

I see no infantry

You echo my thought.

[One Medic Army]

cdlord, on 18 January 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

How so? Machine Guns in canon are anti-infantry weapons. Not suited for Mech to Mech combat.

machine guns in canon are plenty good vs mechs
Each MG does 2 dmg, and weighs .5 tons.
SRMs do 2 dmg per missile and weigh .5 tons per tube.

Machine guns are 20mm, that's a pretty huge bullet.

Edited by One Medic Army, 18 January 2013 - 12:25 PM.

[Orzorn]

Garth said the other day (Don't have time to dig up the post) that several machine gun changes were being tested.

So, no, they are no adverse to adjusting their damage. They simply want to test it first.

[CDLord HHGD]

[Gen Kumon]

cdlord, on 18 January 2013 - 12:27 PM, 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. Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire, though they are more commonly found on Combat Vehicles and ProtoMechs.^[3] These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns.^[4] Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins.<sup>[5]


And under "Support Machine Gun"...</sup>
Support Machine Guns are large crew-served support weapons mounted on vehicles or emplacement turrets. Too massive for a single trooper to carry, these guns fire large-caliber bullets at much greater ranges than most other ballistic weapons and with enough firepower to be a threat to heavily-armored vehicles. Support machine guns achieve superior accuracy at these ranges thanks to their stable, static mounts and built-in recoil compensation

enough firepower to be a threat to heavily-armored vehicles

enough firepower to be a threat to heavily-armored vehicles

enough firepower to be a threat to heavily-armored vehicles

[One Medic Army]

cdlord, on 18 January 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

And yet they have the same dmg/ton of weapon as a SRM launcher, and more dmg/ton of ammo in TT.
Also they were included in TT before infantry.

On top of all of these FACTS, PGI just released a 30ton mech with 4 ballistic hardpoints, the next lightest ballistic after the .5ton MG is the 6 ton AC2 (which does the same damage/turn as an MG in tabletop!).
Good luck fitting 4 AC2s on a spider.

[CDLord HHGD]

Gen Kumon, on 18 January 2013 - 12:31 PM, 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. Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire, though they are more commonly found on Combat Vehicles and ProtoMechs.^[3] These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns.^[4] Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins.<sup>[5]


And under "Support Machine Gun"...</sup>
Support Machine Guns are large crew-served support weapons mounted on vehicles or emplacement turrets. Too massive for a single trooper to carry, these guns fire large-caliber bullets at much greater ranges than most other ballistic weapons and with enough firepower to be a threat to heavily-armored vehicles. Support machine guns achieve superior accuracy at these ranges thanks to their stable, static mounts and built-in recoil compensation

enough firepower to be a threat to heavily-armored vehicles

enough firepower to be a threat to heavily-armored vehicles

enough firepower to be a threat to heavily-armored vehicles

Get that from Sarna did you? Mine is out of a book. Generally wikis modifiable by anyone is considered less accurate than printed text.

[Gen Kumon]

cdlord, on 18 January 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Get that from Sarna did you? Mine is out of a book. Generally wikis modifiable by anyone is considered less accurate than printed text.

It cites the source page. Want to prove it wrong? Get the book, and post what the page actually says. Otherwise, you're just making baseless accusations.

Edit: Besides, nothing in the image you posted says anything about not being able to properly damage large scale targets. Just that they excel against infantry. Which they do. By doing BONUS DAMAGE. They do their STANDARD damage to other targets, which is 2 per round. The same as an SRM missile, or a round of fire from an AC/2. It's 2/3 as much as a small laser. It's 2/5 as much as a medium laser or AC/5. There are mechs out there that specifically use banks of MGs as close range weapons against all targets, just like there are mechs that use small lasers for the same purpose. 6 machine guns do the SAME DAMAGE FOR THE SAME WEIGHT as an SRM-6 in the tabletop, just with less range. Are you saying SRMs are only good against infantry?

Edited by Gen Kumon, 18 January 2013 - 12:39 PM.

[One Medic Army]

cdlord, on 18 January 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Get that from Sarna did you? Mine is out of a book. Generally wikis modifiable by anyone is considered less accurate than printed text.

Still haven't refuted any of the other arguments, if you're just arguing about the tabletop manuals, then the oldest ones would have precedent as to the intended role of the MG as originally envisioned.
In the oldest books/rules there was no infantry for the MG to be better against. It was a low weight short range AC/2, or a ballistic small-laser equivalent.

[Sean Casey]

In TT they were crit seekers because you could get a lucky shot and do crit damage before penetrating armor. It could make a huge difference in a match if you got lucky and did a crit shot that took out the cockpit on a fresh Atlas. you neve used MG in TT for raw damage, you used them and small lasers to get an advantage by taking out HS, actuators, weapons, cockpits, etc by the chance of a crit shot. Their effectiveness at it came from light weight, lots of ammo, and no heat issues. It was counter balanced by the fact that an ammo explosion of a single ton of ammo could do 100 points of damage.

Here, we only get crit damage once the armor is gone, and each crit has its own HP instead of simply "crit being hit = dead slot" (well engines needed three crit hits to destroy). If MG's had the chance to do crit damage with armor intact it would make them VERY useful even with their low damage. For now they are just for distracting others, although I was actually killed by one the other night.

[Trauglodyte]

cdlord, on 18 January 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

How so? Machine Guns in canon are anti-infantry weapons. Not suited for Mech to Mech combat.

Technically, there is an infantry dude in the cockpit of each mech being driven. SO, visa vi ergo and etcetera, we need the MG to be good against the armor so that we can, there for, kill said infantry pilot.

[Skaroth]

I think the general point of all this bickering is that the MG as is, is a useless weapon and needs to be modified or removed from game. They have stated they are testing fixes for the MG so the discussion here is moot (and redundant...).

[Corison]

cdlord, on 18 January 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

How so? Machine Guns in canon are anti-infantry weapons. Not suited for Mech to Mech combat.

It is amazing how often I see that False information posted. The Machine Gun has always been effective (for its tonnage) against other mechs. It may not be the best choice, but it is cheap, light, and does damage. Just because in your opinion it should not be effective vs. a mech, does not mean it was not intended to be. It also has the added bonus of being just as effective at taking out components as any other weapon.

As mentioned above its damage curve was initially that of a SRM just at much shorter ranges. The anti-infantry bonus was not added until later.

MG’s have been almost as poorly implemented in this game as ECM. I don’t care about their “creative” (read ineffective) crit design which failed utterly. They simple need to scale up the damage done to at least the translated TT value to make them useful.

Edited by Corison, 18 January 2013 - 12:44 PM.