443 replies to this topic

[KuruptU4Fun]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

This is about the ingame MG and why it needs a buff to be useable. The discussion has already demonstrated that 'crit seeking' buffs will not do anything to make it a viable in game weapon.

It has been PGI's mistake in including them in this game despite that people are seeking said buffs. They have no use on a battlefield where no soft targets are present. firing a .22 against a cinder block wall will damage it. But it will take forever to put a hole in it. It's far more effective to use another weapon to achieve the same goal.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 06 February 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[Sifright]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

Not according to the game play established by FASA Sifright. It has been PGI's mistake in including them in this game despite that fact. They have no use on a battlefield where no soft targets are present.

[redacted]

If an AC/2 is supposed to be able to hurt mechs and the MG does the same damage then both should work.

[redacted]

Seriously why are you so against some of the lighter mechs actually being usable?

Edited by miSs, 06 February 2013 - 12:44 PM.
inflamatory

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

ladies take your off topic conversation else where.

This is about the ingame MG and why it needs a buff to be useable. The discussion has already demonstrated that 'crit seeking' buffs will not do anything to make it a viable in game weapon.

Part of the discussion you are having is whether MGs in game should be able to harm BattleMech Armor our side discussion is trying to fathom what is most likely true. But you are right our side bar is distracting from this game breaking subject.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 February 2013 - 10:04 AM.

[DEN_Ninja]

One day PGI will unleash a ninja patch. It will introduce infantry with Inferno Missile Launchers, armored divisions, and aerospace assets.

PGI cackles as they removed the MG. We suffer major losses on all fronts.

[Sifright]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

Part of the discussion you are having is whether MGs in game should be able to harm BattleMech Armor.

no that isn't whats being discussed any one discussing that is a damned *****.

MGS are supposed to be useable by light mechs to deal damage as the lightest ballistic point they are supposed to be on par with small lasers and fill the same combat role.

For what ever insane and idiotic reason you guys are to hung up over a name to accept that the they should be effective in the same role as the small laser and quibble over bullcrap technicalities.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

Seriously why are you so against some of the lighter mechs actually being usable?

Give me one sentence that introduces the MMOs MGs using DU rounds and I will accept your argument, until such a time an AC2 round has much better armor penetration ability than a standard machine gun ball round.

[Gaan Cathal]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

Not according to the game play established by FASA Sifright.

As has been pointed out, this is a non-factual statement.

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

Part of the discussion you are having is whether MGs in game should be able to harm BattleMech Armor our side discussion is trying to fathom what is most likely true. But you are right our side bar is distracting from this game breaking subject.

It's pretty game breaking for anyone who pilots an affected variant, frankly. Whilst my dual ERPPC/ dual LPL 4X is a bit fun since the heat nerf, we both know it's not what it's supposed to be doing. (Plus that's what the 2X is for...)

I mean, I'll accept we simply disagree on the 'realism' element (although why the MG must be the only weapon in the game held to that standard is a different question entierly), but from a pure gameplay perspective, what value is there in having no option for multiple light/fast-med ballistic hardpoints?

[The Mecha Streisand]

Hey, who remembers the old CEV (Combat Engineer Vehicle)?


Look how SHORT, STUBBY, and WIDE that gun is. That's it. That's all she had. THAT is your doggone AC/20. Unless you want the gun barrel to be 6-7 meters long and weight 15,000 pounds by itself, that's what you get. It has a VERY short range, therefore. It was actually designed to be a short standoff demolition device--it fired heavy, high-explosive rounds into countermobility structures in order to clear the way for vehicles to pass through them. It's what combat engineers do.

Now, consider:


Look at THAT barrel! Longer, narrower. It fires a smaller projectile. It fires it farther, more accurately. But that round doesn't carry the same energy, necessarily, because it has far smaller mass, and less space into which to pack explosives. Et cetera. That's more of an AC/5. It doesn't blow up berms and dunes and hills. It just rings other tanks' bells. With sabots or shaped charges, but anyhow...

Gee, fast-forward to early 3050, and so little has changed. It's comforting, in a way.

There IS something with massive damage, like and AC/20, with amazing long range, like an AC/2. But it has a lot more of both, and never sees what it shoots. I've heard RUMOR that field artillery is in the future plans for this game. Until then, NO, you do NOT get a God Gun. Spot well for your LRM boats, and have a nice year. I have a feeling about 3050...

[Viper69]

Increase the damage done per ton of ammo when it explodes too.

[Ashnod]

The problem is they made it a continuous fire weapon, normally in battletech the machine gun does the same as the ac2, it just has a smaller range, it can also be set to rapid fire where it can do a lot more than usual at the exchange of massive heat gain.. PGI needs to give it a rapid cool down or a burst fire mechanic that would let it do its intended damage.

Specially since its the to go to weapon for the ballistic point on light mechs, hell even a light machine gun does more damage in BT than our current one

Edited by Ashnod, 06 February 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

[redacted]

If an AC/2 is supposed to be able to hurt mechs and the MG does the same damage then both should work.
[redacted]

Seriously why are you so against some of the lighter mechs actually being usable?

Sifright I'm not against light mechs being usable. I love my Jenner especially playing Conquest mode where it's the most effective in it's role. What I'm stating is that it's pointless to have an MG on a mech because it's armor is too thick for it to do any real damage to said mech, even on the thin armor a light mech carries, let alone against something like an Atlas.

What is the real point on mounting a ballistic weapon whether if be an A/C 2 to 20 to a Gauss on something that goes over 120 kph? You're making a yourself a sitting target if you try to snipe with one in that situation, or are going too fast to aim accurately in the first place. MG's simply put out small damage bullets over too wide an area to ever be even marginally effective against another mech.

[Sifright]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Sifright I'm not against light mechs being usable. I love my Jenner especially playing Conquest mode where it's the most effective in it's role. What I'm stating is that it's pointless to have an MG on a mech because it's armor is too thick for it to do any real damage to said mech, even on the thin armor a light mech carries, let alone against something like an Atlas.

What is the real point on mounting a ballistic weapon whether if be an A/C 2 to 20 to a Gauss on something that goes over 120 kph? You're making a yourself a sitting target if you try to snipe with one in that situation, or are going too fast to aim accurately in the first place. MG's simply put out small damage bullets over too wide an area to ever be even marginally effective against another mech.

and yet in the table top game that wouldn't be true.

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

If that mech got to you in close range it could shred you with the number of machine guns it fielded.

In MWO that mech wouldn't be able to do anything.

You are against a large number of current mechs that have ballisitic hard points not being usable.

The spider, raven and any medium that is expected to mount machine guns.

hell even the K2 Catapult.

90m is also not sniping range so all of your points in that post are rubbish.

get back to me when you aren't conflating problems in the AC weapon line up with the machine guns.

by the way many of us are capable of aiming such weaponry in game even at high speed.

Edited by Sifright, 06 February 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

deleted

Calm down.

[DEN_Ninja]

Going by TT values, I am not a TT purist btw, the MG does 2 damage. The short comings of it are suppose to that it does it at a short distance and is mostly to kill infantry.

At 90m it easily replaces the AC/2. Why not downgrade it to just 1 damage which is a .5 damage buff. The damage beyond 90m should degrade into nil very quickly. That way the honest use for the MG as a crit seeker holds still but you have to be willing to get within 100m. However a fast infighter light can easily chew away. that 4 ballistic slow spider actually has a use of 4 damage.

Don't forget that the MG easily misses just like the AC/2. Especially with a light mech moving 129 kph.

[Sifright]

cdlord, on 06 February 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Calm down.

No u.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Gaan Cathal, on 06 February 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

As has been pointed out, this is a non-factual statement.

Because the entire game and it's technical readouts are based on science fiction. Now to have any sort of credibility it has to base itself on some actual fact.

D&D is in the same boat, if you shoot an arrow at someone it has a set amount of damage it can do and only do with that arrow. But if you add a spell to said arrow, it now can do other things like freeze you solid or melt you into a pool of goo.

My argument all along is that the MG's in BT/MW are based more on fact then they are on fiction. There is no way to add something to the ton of ammo to make it do more damage, nor should there ever be. That being the case there is no place for an MG to effectively damage another mech.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 06 February 2013 - 10:27 AM.

[Sifright]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Because the entire game and it's technical readouts are based on science fiction. Now to have any sort of credibility it has to base itself on some actual fact.

D&D is in the same boat, if you shoot an arrow at someone it has a set amount of damage it can do and only do with that arrow. But if you add a spell to said arrow, it now can do other things like freeze you solid or melt you into a pool of goo.

My argument all along is that the MG's in BT/MW are based more on fact then they are on fiction. There is no way to add something to the ton of ammo to make it do more damage, nor should there ever be. That being the case there is no place for an MG to effectively damage another mech.

Battletech MGS now use Diamond bullets. Now they can penetrate hard composites because their tensile strength is higher.

There you go ******** reason for a weapon to actually be useable.

but really the only important criteria is that MGS are supposed to be about as good as small lasers.

They aren't at the moment and need to be brought in line.

Edited by Sifright, 06 February 2013 - 10:30 AM.

[80Bit]

.4 DPS

[Sifright]

80Bit, on 06 February 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

.4 DPS

Hahaha I know right?

[CDLord HHGD]

80Bit, on 06 February 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

.4 DPS

NOT a machinegun..... More equivalent to a RAC/2.....