298 replies to this topic

[Gaan Cathal]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

a 50 cal would be my idea of what a Mech MG would be. so about 12.7x 99mm NATO

Sifright, on 11 February 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

but they specifically call the mg a 20MM auto cannon.

Based on what I can find of it, descriptions wise, the Piranha artwork and a couple other mech artworks I've been operating under the assumption that the Battletech writers based their mech-scale 'machine gun' on the M61 Vulcan, which was a 20mm rotary autocannon that had been around for ~25 years by the time BTech was released.

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

Who did? Where?
Machine Gun

The first four examples, sold by the Quickscell company are specified as 20mm. There are also several 'miniguns' which was a common civilian misuse as a catchall for a rotary gun (much like gatling gun, which is also there) and the Piranha's stock weapons are described as 'Series XII Rotary Machine Guns. That's what's leading me to the assumption r.e. the Vulcan above.

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Thank you for the well thought out answer!

The only point I will make is for 25 years of TT play, I never fielded a single MG. Even my Piranha had Small Lasers and Dubs.

I'm still of a mind that since a MG does damage over time, Giving it a 0.4 DpS boost(0.8 DpS) and something in the line of a AC2 cool down time(20 bursts per turn). Most Dakka fans would be happy. You are looking at 16 damage per turn from a 0.5 ton weapon. or 48 damage per turn for 3 MGs Thats 1.5 tons doing comparable damage to a 6 ton AC2!!!

To be honest, if I could slap lasers in those ballistic hardpoints on my 4X I might be less bothered, although it would then functionally be a 2X with better hardpoint location. But I can't. The Hardpoint system isn't going anywhere, so everything else needs to be adjusted around that. Your SLAS Piranha can't exist in MWO.

I'm still not sure why a 1dps MG would be so objectionable as long as they adjusted the ammo/ton. Sure you get more DPS/ton than an AC/2 but that's the broad pattern of MWO weapons because of the hardpoint system. The 12MGs carried by the stock Piranha would do 12dps with an alpha of 12, an equivalent tonnage of SLAS would do 12dps with an alpha of 36. The two would be clearly comparable, and with the SLAS retaining the clear edge in alpha, which is a major advantage in the MWO arena.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 11 February 2013 - 03:03 PM.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

Who did? Where?
Machine Gun

Right there, on that page: "Gatling gun 20mm", under the heading "Models".

Don't be daft, Joe. I know you can read.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 11 February 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Right there, on that page: "Gatling gun 20mm", under the heading "Models".

Don't be daft, Joe. I know you can read.

Gatling gun does not an AutoCannon make.

pictures of 7.62mm Gatling Guns. (Machine guns)

20mm Vulcan Cannon (Gatling cannon)

Understand that to a soldier a rifle is not a gun, it is a rifle. So if the military calls it a cannon it is. If they call it a machine gun it is. If the Army and Marines are in disagreement, I was a Marine...




OMG I want one of these!!!!!!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 February 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

Gatling gun does not an AutoCannon make.

pictures of 7.62mm Gatling Guns. (Machine guns)

20mm Vulcan Cannon (Gatling cannon)

Understand that to a soldier a rifle is not a gun, it is a rifle. So if the military calls it a cannon it is. If they call it a machine gun it is. If the Army and Marines are in disagreement, I was a Marine...

I am lead to believe anything over 12mm is an autocannon by definition, so a 20mm rotary(or otherwise) bullet-firing weapon would be an autocannon, not a machinegun. BTech writers clearly not following military (or correct) terminology in this case .

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 11 February 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

Gatling gun does not an AutoCannon make.

pictures of 7.62mm Gatling Guns.

20mm Vulcan Cannon

Understand that to a soldier a rifle is not a gun, it is a rifle. So if the military calls it a cannon it is. If they call it a machine gun it is. If the Army and Marines are in disagreement, I was a Marine...

Seriously Joe - are you in the same freaking post saying that whatever someone calls it, that's what it is, but this fantasy 500 kg weapon that according to the rules can damage a 'mech as much as a high-calibre auto-cannon; just because that weapon is called a "machine gun" it must be .50 and it cannot damage a 'mech?

The cognitive dissonance there is flabbergasting.

Here's some things we know about the BattleTech machine gun:
* It weighs 500kg
* It uses 1000kgs of ammo in about 3.3 minutes
* It does as much damage to armoured targets as a 25-203mm autocannon (AC/2), but at very short range.

Tell me, how does that even begin to describe a .50 machine gun?

[Joseph Mallan]

Gaan Cathal, on 11 February 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

I am lead to believe anything over 12mm is an autocannon by definition, so a 20mm rotary(or otherwise) bullet-firing weapon would be an autocannon, not a machinegun. BTech writers clearly not following military (or correct) terminology in this case .

50 Cal or 12.6mm Machine gun, Two definitions of a Auto cannon are 20mm+ and fires Shells not Bullets. So a 20mm Gatling gun that fires bullets would in fact be a Machine Gun, so 20mm bullets=Machine Gun. Do we need to define Shells and bullets too?

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 11 February 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

Seriously Joe - are you in the same freaking post saying that whatever someone calls it, that's what it is, but this fantasy 500 kg weapon that according to the rules can damage a 'mech as much as a high-calibre auto-cannon; just because that weapon is called a "machine gun" it must be .50 and it cannot damage a 'mech?

The cognitive dissonance there is flabbergasting.

Here's some things we know about the BattleTech machine gun:
* It weighs 500kg
* It uses 1000kgs of ammo in about 3.3 minutes
* It does as much damage to armoured targets as a 25-203mm autocannon (AC/2), but at very short range.

Tell me, how does that even begin to describe a .50 machine gun?

The Vulcan Auto Cannon is 248 LBS (112 Kg) with out the feed system.

Can't be helped the DEVs of TT used masses they wanted for the weapons.

Gaan Cathal, on 11 February 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

I am lead to believe anything over 12mm is an autocannon by definition, so a 20mm rotary(or otherwise) bullet-firing weapon would be an autocannon, not a machinegun. BTech writers clearly not following military (or correct) terminology in this case .

All BattleTech Auto Cannons are larger than 20mm, and fire Depleted Uranium shells. If it fires a bullet and is 20mm or less its a machine gun.

Now can we get back to discussing MechWarrior's Machine Guns?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 February 2013 - 03:43 PM.

[Sifright]

stjobe, on 11 February 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

Seriously Joe - are you in the same freaking post saying that whatever someone calls it, that's what it is, but this fantasy 500 kg weapon that according to the rules can damage a 'mech as much as a high-calibre auto-cannon; just because that weapon is called a "machine gun" it must be .50 and it cannot damage a 'mech?

The cognitive dissonance there is flabbergasting.

Here's some things we know about the BattleTech machine gun:
* It weighs 500kg
* It uses 1000kgs of ammo in about 3.3 minutes
* It does as much damage to armoured targets as a 25-203mm autocannon (AC/2), but at very short range.

Tell me, how does that even begin to describe a .50 machine gun?

sorry Joe, I'm with this guy here.

I still don't understand why you are fixated on this point any way.

Its irrelevant for the purposes of game balance.

I'll conceed that 0.8DPS a MG would be better than what we have now but it still wouldn't be enough to make the MG a worthwhile weapon.

jumping it to 1.2DPS would make up for the way it has to be used and wouldn't detract from the larger AC weapons due to the nature of the hard points.

[Gaan Cathal]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

50 Cal or 12.6mm Machine gun, Two definitions of a Auto cannon are 20mm+ and fires Shells not Bullets. So a 20mm Gatling gun that fires bullets would in fact be a Machine Gun, so 20mm bullets=Machine Gun. Do we need to define Shells and bullets too?

Fair cop, 'projectile weapon' would've been more appropriate. I still say the weight, various descriptors and the fact that it does appreciable damage to Mech armour makes it a Vulcan-inspired rotary cannon, as opposed to an MG proper. But it doesn't matter, since we're drifting into that real-life-comparison thing.

Fact is that if you're going to more or less force use of a weapon on certain variants, which ballistic hardpoints do for light-weight mechs and MGs, then it has to be of appreciable worth. The MG as it stands isn't just suboptimal, it's so bad you're better off with empty space.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

The Vulcan Auto Cannon is 248 LBS (112 Kg) with out the feed system.

Can't be helped the DEVs of TT used masses they wanted for the weapons.

There is a current weapon that fits that description I wrote almost to a tee:
* 280 kg for the gun alone (a bit on the light side, but closer than the Vulcan)
* 1,828 kg for the complete assembly (1.5 tons for an MG with a ton of ammo)
* Ammunition weighs roughly 0.5 kg a piece, making for 2000 rounds to a ton.
* Does exactly as much damage to armoured targets as a 30mm auto-cannon.

But I guess it's too much of a stretch to consider that what we today call a "30mm hydraulically driven seven-barrel Gatling-type cannon" could be called a "machine gun" when mounted on a 'mech in the year 3050

[Tarman]

The mathematic fields are failing, down to 35%. There is a great deal of counter-mathematic field generation being provided. However, semantic deflectors have been re-deployed. Reason has been averted for now, captain. I am not sure of the efficacy of the continuation to engage the lifeform in this manner, it appears highly resistant to common-sensors.

[stjobe]

Gaan Cathal, on 11 February 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Fact is that if you're going to more or less force use of a weapon on certain variants, which ballistic hardpoints do for light-weight mechs and MGs, then it has to be of appreciable worth. The MG as it stands isn't just suboptimal, it's so bad you're better off with empty space.

Exactly. There's already at least two 'mechs in the game that are utterly reliant on a light-weight ballistic option. As things stand, these 'mechs are not viable, and they won't be until we get the MG buffed up to not only semi-usefulness (which the crit thing may or may not do), but to real usefulness - and that takes rather a large damage buff.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 11 February 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

I'll conceed that 0.8DPS a MG would be better than what we have now but it still wouldn't be enough to make the MG a worthwhile weapon.

jumping it to 1.2DPS would make up for the way it has to be used and wouldn't detract from the larger AC weapons due to the nature of the hard points.

Military men and weapons...

Anyway 1.2 DpS... With a 0.5 Cool down 20 bursts for 20.4 damage a turn...
...
...
Could be a bit high for such a light weapon in the game. Then again, LRMs have had higher damage, then low damage now higher again since I joined CB.

[Gaan Cathal]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

Military men and weapons...

Anyway 1.2 DpS... With a 0.5 Cool down 20 bursts for 20.4 damage a turn...
...
...
Could be a bit high for such a light weapon in the game. Then again, LRMs have had higher damage, then low damage now higher again since I joined CB.

Honestly, I don't think it needs the extra 0.2dps. Theoretically equalling SLAS dps I can see, but exceeding it seems like it would push it a bit far, they are supposedly inferior in terms of damage delivered after all. A lot of it depends on the final ammo/ton value though, since adjusting that once you have an appreciable damage number is functionally like the heat tweaks other weapons receive.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 11 February 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

There is a current weapon that fits that description I wrote almost to a tee:
* 280 kg for the gun alone (a bit on the light side, but closer than the Vulcan)
* 1,828 kg for the complete assembly (1.5 tons for an MG with a ton of ammo)
* Ammunition weighs roughly 0.5 kg a piece, making for 2000 rounds to a ton.
* Does exactly as much damage to armoured targets as a 30mm auto-cannon.

That is a Cannon. The Air force calls it a Cannon thus not a Machine gun.

Back To MWO.

Gaan Cathal, on 11 February 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Honestly, I don't think it needs the extra 0.2dps. Theoretically equalling SLAS dps I can see, but exceeding it seems like it would push it a bit far, they are supposedly inferior in terms of damage delivered after all. A lot of it depends on the final ammo/ton value though, since adjusting that once you have an appreciable damage number is functionally like the heat tweaks other weapons receive.

Yes this would be fair. including Cool downs.

[stjobe]

Gaan Cathal, on 11 February 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Honestly, I don't think it needs the extra 0.2dps. Theoretically equalling SLAS dps I can see, but exceeding it seems like it would push it a bit far, they are supposedly inferior in terms of damage delivered after all. A lot of it depends on the final ammo/ton value though, since adjusting that once you have an appreciable damage number is functionally like the heat tweaks other weapons receive.

I do think it needs the extra 0.2 DPS - and I've expanded on why in quite a number of posts. Suffice it to say that the continuous-fire mechanic of the MG requires it to be on-target 100% of the time to hit that DPS number as opposed to the Small Laser which only needs to be on-target for 25% of the time to hit its DPS number.

We want it to be a viable weapon. The only weapons with a DPS below 1.2 currently are the MG, the Flamer, the Small Laser, and the Small Pulse Laser. Energy weapons have lots of light-weight alternatives; hell, the heaviest energy weapon weighs 7 tons - exactly as much as the second-lightest ballistic weapon with a ton of ammo. You can easily substitute your Small Laser for a Medium Laser, but you're hard-pressed to find the tonnage to substitute your MG for an AC/2.

[Gaan Cathal]

stjobe, on 11 February 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

I do think it needs the extra 0.2 DPS - and I've expanded on why in quite a number of posts. Suffice it to say that the continuous-fire mechanic of the MG requires it to be on-target 100% of the time to hit that DPS number as opposed to the Small Laser which only needs to be on-target for 25% of the time to hit its DPS number.

We want it to be a viable weapon. The only weapons with a DPS below 1.2 currently are the MG, the Flamer, the Small Laser, and the Small Pulse Laser. Energy weapons have lots of light-weight alternatives; hell, the heaviest energy weapon weighs 7 tons - exactly as much as the second-lightest ballistic weapon with a ton of ammo. You can easily substitute your Small Laser for a Medium Laser, but you're hard-pressed to find the tonnage to substitute your MG for an AC/2.

Ok, lets assume 1.2 for the moment then. Frankly I'm not that inclined to quibble over the exact numbers since once the principle is implemented they're easily adjustable based on ingame metrics etc.

RVN-4X w/ 2xMPLAS (3.2), 2xMG (2.4), 1xSRM6 (3.75) = 9.35 dps, 29.4 alpha, 8 tons, 3.66 hps
RVN-2X w/ 4xMLAS (5), 1xSRM6 (3.75) = 8.75 dps, 40.0 alpha, 7 tons, 5.00 hps

Obviously using MPLAS on the 2X would push the DPS higher (to 10.15) but I wanted to use a more realistic build (4xMPLAS+SRM6 on a 2X runs rather hot) in terms of having an achievable dps actually near the theoretical dps. In the case of the (non-ECM) Raven variants I'd say that's fairly reasonable, if we assume ammo/ton is adjusted to more or less equal heatsinks in terms of value/ton.

Edit: All numbers from Ohmwrecker's charts

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 11 February 2013 - 04:29 PM.

[SpiralRazor]

Tincan Nightmare, on 11 February 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

Yes but the main word is 'useful.' Your definition is that an MG isn't useful if it isn't chewing armor of a mech at least as well as a Sm. laser with increased range. The devs are trying to make it useful by allowing it to be more effective at inflicting critical damage. Also there are plenty of weapons in the game that don't get used very regularly, just go ask the NARC beacon or the flamer. Hell with ECM in its current state, lots of players have dropped LRM's.



Yah but now its a viable weapon that has the same range as an AC/20. Should a 20mm MG have the reach of a cannon in the 120mm or more range. The lightweight weapons have always been exactly what they are, just a little bit more damage (usually at very short range) when a mech has some tonnage available (that didn't go to heat sinks, engine, armor, etc.) They were never intended to be high damage items. Its one of the reasons they later gave flamers the ability to add to a targets heat level and MG's the ability to nearly wipeout an infantry platoon in one burst, a function that made them useful to carry. Its part of the whole balancing of BT weapons (that admittedly don't follow real world physics) that you got damage, heat, range, and weight/crit space (plus ammo for missiles/ballistics.) Get a weapon that does high damage, like and AC/20, and it pays for it by being very heavy, less shots per ton, fairly high heat (at least for a ballistic,) and short range. Or the MG that weighs nearly nothing, 200 shots per ton, generates no heat, but has a laughable range and a 10 second burst (the time of a TT turn) amounts to 2 points of damage. I'm not saying MG's couldn't use a slight damage increase, but there are far more important weapons and mechanics that need work now that I hope the dev's concentrate on instead of boosting a weapon that is only important for 2 chassis.

it doesnt have the same range at an AC/20 you tard.....geez... Max range on an AC/20 is 810. Youre causing 10 damage all at once out to 540. It would also literally take 30 seconds to make the changes in the XML file.

L2Mech and L2code

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

That is a Cannon. The Air force calls it a Cannon thus not a Machine gun.

Back To MWO.


Yes this would be fair. including Cool downs.

Battle Tech machine guns are our light automatic cannon. Mechwarrior the RPG details it pretty clearly.

Edited by SpiralRazor, 11 February 2013 - 06:19 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

SpiralRazor, on 11 February 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

it doesnt have the same range at an AC/20 you tard.....geez... Max range on an AC/20 is 810. Youre causing 10 damage all at once out to 540. It would also literally take 30 seconds to make the changes in the XML file.

L2Mech and L2code



Battle Tech machine guns are our light automatic cannon. Mechwarrior the RPG details it pretty clearly.

You're to late Spiral. StJobe already had this conversation with me in PM. As long as the GAU-8 is firing "Bullets" and not Shells I can see it being a 30th century MG.

But also remember...
Anything from this century would not penetrate Mech Armor as was documented when the Mackie crushed 4 Merkava Heavy Tanks.
Just call it 0.8-1.0 DpS, 0.5-0.7 Cool down and I think I can put this debate to bed!

Also what Pg in the RPG sourcebook? I have several editions... and the Support Machine Gun only weighs 44 Kilos and does .94 damage per gun...

Also... for the record. The Bearhunter infantry Auto Cannon weighs both 150 Kg and 0.5 Tons depending on whether a Suit of Golem Battle armor wields it (150 Kg) or a Mech (0.5 Ton) and both do 3 damage v Battle Armor, Mechs and Vehicles.

FYI...
Basic MGs weight is 100Kg on a Battle Armor!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 February 2013 - 08:07 PM.

[EmperorMyrf]

4

Gaan Cathal, on 11 February 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Ok, lets assume 1.2 for the moment then. Frankly I'm not that inclined to quibble over the exact numbers since once the principle is implemented they're easily adjustable based on ingame metrics etc.

RVN-4X w/ 2xMPLAS (3.2), 2xMG (2.4), 1xSRM6 (3.75) = 9.35 dps, 29.4 alpha, 8 tons, 3.66 hps
RVN-2X w/ 4xMLAS (5), 1xSRM6 (3.75) = 8.75 dps, 40.0 alpha, 7 tons, 5.00 hps

Obviously using MPLAS on the 2X would push the DPS higher (to 10.15) but I wanted to use a more realistic build (4xMPLAS+SRM6 on a 2X runs rather hot) in terms of having an achievable dps actually near the theoretical dps. In the case of the (non-ECM) Raven variants I'd say that's fairly reasonable, if we assume ammo/ton is adjusted to more or less equal heatsinks in terms of value/ton.

Edit: All numbers from Ohmwrecker's charts

The most important thing to note is the sustained DPS (heat neutral DPS)

4x = 4.68 susDPS
2x = 1.75 susDPS

This is of course assuming that you can keep on target. Even if you only fired MGs 1/4 of the time it would still be a higher susDPS substantially. The thing to take away from this is that because of the MGs extremely high tonnage efficiency, including MGs to any build will simply add long-term DPS to your build, both directly and indirectly (indirectly because stress is lifted off of the other hot weapons in the build).