86 replies to this topic

[Kristov Kerensky]

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

That's actually a funny page to use, since it claims MG are rarely carried by Mechs, which is rather odd considering how many Mechs do carry MG.

MG do 2 damage to a BattleMech, Tank, Aerofighter, LAVs and other assorted armored and lightly armored vehicles. They get a bonus to damage against Infantry.

Please note the wording there..they get normal 2 against Mechs and 2+ against Infantry. They do NOT get 0 damage against Mechs and do full damage on Infantry.

So enough with the people without a clue saying MGs are Infantry only weapons, they aren't.

MGs are getting a critical damage boost according to the devs, it's in the works now. Still be pretty useless against armor but will be damned useful against internal structure and taking out the goodies inside a Mech, you know, weapons, heat sinks, ammo, engine, gyro, sensors, life support..things that take the Mech out of action quickly. LBx and Flamers are evidently also getting the same work up on crit damage vs internals.

0.04 damage per round for MG, 2 rounds per second so they obviously do jack all damage against armor and internals currently, even when you apply the 2x or 3x critical damage bonuses. Even so, I've gotten a few kills using nothing but MGs, took a few thousand rounds and a very long time chasing my targets around, but it's doable. With the changes coming up, people won't laugh so much when they see a Spider 5K coming at them, with their armor gone on that torso side and leg, instead of laughing like they do NOW, they'll instead be in serious pucker mode cause 4 MG tearing into that exposed internal structure means nasty nasty things real fast.

[One Medic Army]

Kristov Kerensky, on 18 January 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

With the changes coming up, people won't laugh so much when they see a Spider 5K coming at them, with their armor gone on that torso side and leg, instead of laughing like they do NOW, they'll instead be in serious pucker mode cause 4 MG tearing into that exposed internal structure means nasty nasty things real fast.

The sad thing is, they really won't.
You still need to find a section sans armor, and that section sans armor would need to have something to crit inside.
In an atlas, for example, I know from experience that as soon as the armor on my R-torso is gone, so is any ballistic other than an AC2 in said section. MGs won't change that, they just won't blow off the torso (and attached arm) while they're taking down the AC/20.

Best case for you is you find someone without leg armor and get an ammo chain reaction going. That would still require someone else (or another weapon) to strip the leg armor to start with.

Might be useful if they finally implement reduced function from having your engine critted out though.

Edited by One Medic Army, 18 January 2013 - 03:37 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

AC, on 18 January 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

If they don't want us using it, then why the hell add it to the game.

um... flamers.
Cause theyre so damn useful

[shintakie]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 18 January 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

um... flamers.
Cause theyre so damn useful

They'd be useful if they actually did anythin. Transfer hit in a way that actually makes sense. Do some damage. Anythin at all would be nice.

[Orzorn]

Alright guys, here's the quote:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1740881

Garth Erlam, on 15 January 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

stjobe, on 09 January 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

Here's what Paul said on Dec. 12th:
source: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1591483 I'm seriously worried about this, because the MG will not become a viable weapon by either "a very slight damage increase" or "crit at a higher rate with a crit damage boost". It needs a substantial damage boost, even in conjunction with a crit boost.

Which is why we are testing both

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

shintakie, on 18 January 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

They'd be useful if they actually did anythin. Transfer hit in a way that actually makes sense. Do some damage. Anythin at all would be nice.

That was my point... why would they put in weapons that are absolutely useless? Because they were in TT and you KNOW there would have been more rage had they left them out

Orzorn, on 18 January 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

Alright guys, here's the quote:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1740881

k, which one are they implementing then?
quote shows theyre testing both. We know from DHS that they dont necessarily test then release what they tested so that WE can then test it in a live sense even though we're supposedly beta testing this game.

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 18 January 2013 - 03:55 PM.

[shintakie]

Orzorn, on 18 January 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

Alright guys, here's the quote:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1740881

I always get confused by lookin at that. I assume he means they're testin the massive damage buff as well, however the post he quoted actually said 3 things. Crit damage (the thing they talked about doin), a minor damage buff (the thing they said they thought about doin), and a massive damage buff (never mentioned).

I'm hopin they meant both as in their planned idea (crit damage/minor damage boost) and the massive damage boost, but you can never be too sure.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Thontor, on 18 January 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Im assuming that scan is from a newer book, in which case it's probably true.. how many of the later mech designs used Machine Guns

I'd be curious what the Battletech 2nd Edition said about machine guns... considering there was no infantry in the game at that point, but lots of mechs with machine guns.

My books all vanished long ago and I don't remember the fluff for MGuns in them anyway, it didn't matter since MGuns worked on Mechs, same as every other weapon in the books. Hells, I made a 12 MG Mech long before the Clans and the Piranha were introduced, 30 tons, big engine(for it's size), all the JJ i could fit and 2 tons of ammo, jump in behind a Mech, unload, jump back out while it was dying and before it could turn to face me. 50+ drops and 20 kills before I made the mistake of jumping behind a Warhammer and he flipped those PPCs around and cored me, so that both Mechs were dead. Secured my character's seat in House Steiner's upper echelons with that design, GAVE it to Steiner instead of selling it Sold my next design a bit later and got rich enough to retire to my own planet This game is missing a great part of the TT game, something PGI should think about..characters..we get attached to them...

[One Medic Army]

Kristov Kerensky, on 18 January 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

My books all vanished long ago and I don't remember the fluff for MGuns in them anyway, it didn't matter since MGuns worked on Mechs, same as every other weapon in the books. Hells, I made a 12 MG Mech long before the Clans and the Piranha were introduced, 30 tons, big engine(for it's size), all the JJ i could fit and 2 tons of ammo, jump in behind a Mech, unload, jump back out while it was dying and before it could turn to face me. 50+ drops and 20 kills before I made the mistake of jumping behind a Warhammer and he flipped those PPCs around and cored me, so that both Mechs were dead. Secured my character's seat in House Steiner's upper echelons with that design, GAVE it to Steiner instead of selling it Sold my next design a bit later and got rich enough to retire to my own planet This game is missing a great part of the TT game, something PGI should think about..characters..we get attached to them...

My GM isn't nearly as free-form with mechs, we all had to start with a mostly stock model.
Wolverine with 3 MGs, 2 MLs, SRM6 and a Hatchet.

Fast, armored, agile, and lots of crit seeking.

Just never making the mistake of fighting a hunchback who has initiative again.

[ConnorSinclair]

I still say MG's should do more DPS than a smaller laser just because of Risk of Case and ammo consumption.

And they really should be arrays.

Who the hell is going to bring just 1 mg for 1 hardpoint?

Either this OR EVERYONE FINALLY ADMITS MW4 HAD HARDPOINTS RIGHT.


The only real issue on MW4 was the terrible aiming and hit scan that turned it into super sniping. But we've got bullet travel, better mouse aiming and DOA to prevent it.

So why the hell have they STILL not given us hardpoint sizes? Hell it would solve the K2 and A1 problem fast.

[CDLord HHGD]

Orzorn, on 18 January 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

Alright guys, here's the quote:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1740881

My concern is if they buff the MG, will the AC/2 remain viable? If they can do it that will not have people ditching their AC/2s for MGs in droves, then I'm ok with it. If they make the MG better than the AC/2 then it will be broken due to the whining of people who want more punch for less weight and crits.

[ConnorSinclair]

cdlord, on 18 January 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

My concern is if they buff the MG, will the AC/2 remain viable? If they can do it that will not have people ditching their AC/2s for MGs in droves, then I'm ok with it. If they make the MG better than the AC/2 then it will be broken due to the whining of people who want more punch for less weight and crits.

The AC/2 has range and damage all at once.

The MG's range is at 90m and has to be focused on the target over time.


You golds shed more crocodile tears than criminals who get beaten for breaking the law.

MUH GAME BALANCE, yeah you're right it will modify the current trends, but we won't know if it will fix anything until we try.


Welcome to a B-B-B-B-BETA.

[ConnorSinclair]

Thontor, on 18 January 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

different sized hardpoints? OK.. but more than one weapon per hardpoint? no

If you're worried about boating, they could always adjust hardpoint sizes even further to where you'd only ever see MG and AC2 in ballistic slots.


I mean come on, we've got Ravens carrying PPC's and K2's wielding Dual AC20's in MG bays. Things are broken now, not adjusting and testing is defaulting this game to be bad. If it's really as awful as you " forum warriors/Golds " say it is then we can always flip back to the previous patch.

6 months and the balance adjustments we've had are hilarious small.


Meanwhile SOE changed it's entire game, maps, weapons and Meta on a weekly basis. Planetside 2 had more patches in a month than we've had in half a year.

[TABLETOP RULES CLARIFIER]

Hi there!

I would like to point out that infantry were both present in BattleDroids, which was BattleTech before the word 'Droid was copywrited by Lucas, and CityTech, which was released immediately after the first true BattleTech book. Stop saying that infantry weren't in the "original game", they've been there since 1984. It's a bad argument, stahp it.

Also there's very little in terms of weapon-fluff in the early editions. The only instances where machine guns were mentionned, they were fluffed as being anti-infantry, vehicle and mech weapons.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

ConnorSinclair, on 18 January 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

Welcome to a B-B-B-B-BETA.

hence my sig

TABLETOP RULES CLARIFIER, on 18 January 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

Hi there!

I would like to point out that infantry were both present in BattleDroids, which was BattleTech before the word 'Droid was copywrited by Lucas, and CityTech, which was released immediately after the first true BattleTech book. Stop saying that infantry weren't in the "original game", they've been there since 1984. It's a bad argument, stahp it.

Also there's very little in terms of weapon-fluff in the early editions. The only instances where machine guns were mentionned, they were fluffed as being anti-infantry, vehicle and mech weapons.

it took Lucas 7 years to copyright droid?

[ConnorSinclair]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 18 January 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

hence my sig



it took Lucas 7 years to copyright droid?

It took him even longer to stop ruining starwars.

[TABLETOP RULES CLARIFIER]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 18 January 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

it took Lucas 7 years to copyright droid?

I have no idea when he copywrited it, but I do know that Battledroids was changed to BattleTech because of said trademark.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

ConnorSinclair, on 18 January 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

It took him even longer to stop ruining starwars.

technically he's not done with that yet, he's just passed it on to new people to finish the job

TABLETOP RULES CLARIFIER, on 18 January 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

I have no idea when he copywrited it, but I do know that Battledroids was changed to BattleTech because of said trademark.

ah, you said 1984, was just going off that number is why. Given SW came out in '77

[ConnorSinclair]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 18 January 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

technically he's not done with that yet, he's just passed it on to new people to finish the job

Disney are so evil they can still make good movies from time to time and that terrifies me.


So have we agreed MG's need a ton of tweaking? * Badum, TISH *

Edited by ConnorSinclair, 18 January 2013 - 05:06 PM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Thontor, on 18 January 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

I don't think the AC/2 is in any danger.. it already does 10x DPS relative to armor compared to TT
nobody is suggesting to buff the machine gun that much.. then there's the fact it spreads, and has such a short range...

I've seen some suggestions that would make this a reality. I am willing to see what they have, I expressed my concern. I only council caution where the devs have on occasion taken things to the extreme.