298 replies to this topic

[Phoenix Branson]

Machine gun range should be changed to 750 meters. This would make the MG great for suppressive fire tactics (although an ammo consumption monster). Furthermore, I would argue the DPS needs to be "slightly" increased to make this weapon viable on the battlefield (yes, all weapons need to be viable in MWO). The developers are taking the wrong approach in balancing this weapon: http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

For comparison purposes, the light machine gun employed by the U.S. Military is as follows:

M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW)
Effective Range: 800 meters (point target)

Edited by Maverick01, 05 February 2013 - 06:55 PM.

[Enervation]

Giant stompy robots!

While i agree that the crappiest 1000lb machinegun ever would very likely have a longer range than 90m, i think its worth pointing out that this game gives logic and reality the finger on a regular basis.
besides, if you want a 2 damage gun that shoots across most of the map, they already implemented a 6 ton version called the AC/2

[FupDup]

I think 800 meters, although realistic, would be a tad much (I would prefer something like 270m give or take). Even with that range they would be terribad anyways due to no damage output. Here are some things that I would like to see our MGs get:

A. Significant range increase (i.e. 270m effective range?)
B. Big damage buff (i.e. 0.1-0.2 damage per shot? Remember that they have a pretty fast RoF, generate zero heat, and only take up 0.5 tons.)
C. Make them have faster projectiles or an outright hitscan weapon (since their damage sucks eggs they wouldn't be OP as a hitscan).
D. To compensate for any buffs above, they could reduce the ammo per ton drastically (the logic is that each bullet would be bigger and therefore more powerful, but you can't hold as many any more).

Edited by FupDup, 05 February 2013 - 06:57 PM.

[Redshift2k5]

The current plan to make them 'viable' includes giving them the ability to deal significant item crits (destroying items within a section) once armor has been removed from that section.

[FupDup]

Redshift2k5, on 05 February 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

The current plan to make them 'viable' includes giving them the ability to deal significant item crits (destroying items within a section) once armor has been removed from that section.

So far we haven't been informed of how big the crit multiplier will be. With a base damage of 0.04, the multiplier would have to be monstrously huge for them to be viable. For instance, if their multiplier was 3x damage on crits, they would take 25 shots (0.12 damage each) to destroy a component that has 3 health (i.e. Gauss Rifle or ECM). Hardly viable, especially when you factor in components that have 10 health (which would take 84 shots assuming a 3x multiplier).

Edited by FupDup, 05 February 2013 - 07:07 PM.

[Enervation]

Redshift2k5, on 05 February 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

The current plan to make them 'viable' includes giving them the ability to deal significant item crits (destroying items within a section) once armor has been removed from that section.

that would be epic, and a darn good reason to run a semi-stock k2 (with dhs and erppc/llasers)

[Lukoi Banacek]

Maverick01, on 05 February 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

Machine gun range should be changed to 750 meters. This would make the MG great for suppressive fire tactics (although an ammo consumption monster). Furthermore, I would argue the DPS needs to be "slightly" increased to make this weapon viable on the battlefield (yes, all weapons need to be viable in MWO). The developers are taking the wrong approach in balancing this weapon: http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

For comparison purposes, the light machine gun employed by the U.S. Military is as follows:

M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW)
Effective Range: 800 meters (point target)

Maverick01, on 05 February 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

Machine gun range should be changed to 750 meters. This would make the MG great for suppressive fire tactics (although an ammo consumption monster). Furthermore, I would argue the DPS needs to be "slightly" increased to make this weapon viable on the battlefield (yes, all weapons need to be viable in MWO). The developers are taking the wrong approach in balancing this weapon: http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

For comparison purposes, the light machine gun employed by the U.S. Military is as follows:

M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW)
Effective Range: 800 meters (point target)

A closer HMG that would come close to TT/BT/Mech MG might be the M2 50caliber HMG or the DshKa (14.7mm? can't remember)....remember these are meant to damage ferro-armor (mythically tough armor of the lore) or anti-power armor/anti-infantry. An M249 would only be anti-infantry really.

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

Machine guns should probably be buffed, just because they are in the game and they are currently 99.999% useless. However, "the real world" has absolutely no bearing on game balance or mechanics. Battletech physics are just as magical as elves and fairies in WoW or whatever.

[Vassago Rain]

Maverick01, on 05 February 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

Machine gun range should be changed to 750 meters. This would make the MG great for suppressive fire tactics (although an ammo consumption monster). Furthermore, I would argue the DPS needs to be "slightly" increased to make this weapon viable on the battlefield (yes, all weapons need to be viable in MWO). The developers are taking the wrong approach in balancing this weapon: http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

For comparison purposes, the light machine gun employed by the U.S. Military is as follows:

M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW)
Effective Range: 800 meters (point target)

Dude.
I don't know if you know, but these aren't 5.56 squd support weapons, but 500 kilo monsters, more comparable to the gunpods from macross.

[DocBach]

Lukoi, on 05 February 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

A closer HMG that would come close to TT/BT/Mech MG might be the M2 50caliber HMG or the DshKa (14.7mm? can't remember)....remember these are meant to damage ferro-armor (mythically tough armor of the lore) or anti-power armor/anti-infantry. An M249 would only be anti-infantry really.

M2s have way more range then the SAW -- but the thing is, Battletech's ranges are super wonky if you think of them in realism terms. An AC/20 has less effective range than an M4 Carbine, for instance.

Machine guns were a niche weapon - either completely last ditch, or don't want to generate heat. It also has bonuses in the board game against infantry, where you roll a dice to see how much damage it does rather than the 2 it does against vehicles or mechs.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Yea, I'm aware at the realword ranges of these weapons. I don't sweat that sort of thing because all ranges are truncated in BT....

[RiceyFighter]

I had 4 machine gun spider I played today. There was this cicada with no leg armor. I couldn't leg him and i was chucking 4 machine guns at his legs for over 10 seconds...

[Heeden]

Quickly dividing the DPS of ballistics by their tonnage gives us;

AC/2 - 0.67
AC/5 - 0.37
AC/10 - 0.33
AC/20 - 0.36
GR - 0.25
MG - 0.8

So unless you think range is important or you don't have lots of spare ballistic slots, the MG is pound for pound the best ballistic weapon available.

[Vassago Rain]

DocBach, on 05 February 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

M2s have way more range then the SAW -- but the thing is, Battletech's ranges are super wonky if you think of them in realism terms. An AC/20 has less effective range than an M4 Carbine, for instance.

Machine guns were a niche weapon - either completely last ditch, or don't want to generate heat. It also has bonuses in the board game against infantry, where you roll a dice to see how much damage it does rather than the 2 it does against vehicles or mechs.

Machineguns are great for killing mechs.
That's why the piranha exists, and so many macross mechs boat them...

Please stop talking about this subject, as not a single one of you knows what you're saying.

[Gaan Cathal]

As has been pointed out, that's entirely the wrong kind of weapon to be thinking of when you see 'MG' on a mech. These things do equivalent damage to mechs as an AC/2 and are apparently capable of decimating a platoon of (presumable battle-armoured) infantry in 'a single pass'. Something like the http://en.wikipedia....wiki/M61_Vulcan comes to mind.

However, this is BT magi-physics and the range is 90m, much like the small laser. Logic may dictate further, but that same logic makes a joke of any bipedal walking warmachine.

The only balancing pass they really need is a significant balancing boost to make them viable weapons for light mech combat, with a slightly reduce damage output compared with, say, a small laser. Nothing has the number of ballistic hardpoints required to abuse their heatlessness, which can be managed with ammo/ton frankly. Lights/small mediums with ballistics need the MG functional in order to work, is the long and short of it.

Heeden, on 05 February 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

So unless you think range is important or you don't have lots of spare ballistic slots, the MG is pound for pound the best ballistic weapon available.

I believe you're ignoring the shots/ton for that damage having an impact. Also this would be more relevant if a: we didn't have hardpoints (we do) or b: there was a ballistic weighing 1-2 tons that could be reasonably used by light mechs (there isn't). It's actually preferable to leave those ballistic slots blank currently, since you can get a heat sink or ton of engine for every ton of ammo or pair of MGs. They are that bad.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 05 February 2013 - 07:31 PM.

[MischiefSC]

The range is more about 'the range at which it can actually damage a mechs armor', not about the range at which it would be lethal to a soft target.

[Jack Corban]

MischiefSC, on 05 February 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

The range is more about 'the range at which it can actually damage a mechs armor', not about the range at which it would be lethal to a soft target.

This

Edited by Jack Corban, 05 February 2013 - 07:40 PM.

[Zordicron]

Tried a pair of MG as fluff add on on a Cataphract experiment loadout the other day. I could see little value in them. The damage is not viable for the range, IMO.

I did notice one thing though, there is a type of use: any time I opened up with both MG on a target, I was instantly the target for retaliation, even if there were much more ominous threats in the same area. if MG do one thing well, it's grab attention.

[Gaan Cathal]

MischiefSC, on 05 February 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

The range is more about 'the range at which it can actually damage a mechs armor', not about the range at which it would be lethal to a soft target.

Well, if that helps you rationalise....

Why's a small laser only go 90m?

Why's a high-damage AC shell got a shorter range than a low-damage one? One would assume damage is a factor of intertia, after all.

It's BT. The ranges are just irrational from any point of view save gameplay, best to leave it at that.

[Jack Corvus]

BattleTech ranges are intentionally short to keep the size of the map in the board game manageable, and accordingly, the size of these maps in video games. Maps would be monstrous if we used the sizes mentioned in the fiction such as novels.

We don't need machine guns that do more than they are supposed to. We just need more BattleTech. Enemy AI infantry at control points and fortress and tanks and all kinds of great things to flesh out the Mech on Mech combat.

edited: double post

Edited by Jack Corvus, 05 February 2013 - 08:02 PM.