443 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

he is trolling put on him on the ignore list.

Real life literally has no place in Btech.

nothing is btech works remotely like it would in rl and any one using rl as the basis of their arguments is a fool.

RL helps for perspective but yeah, the game was designed and has been played like this for decades. It works. And I do need to point out that though you said no one cares about the lore, it does support a MG buff. Also, the absence of soft targets also supports a bigger role for MGs. I used to be on the "They are fine as is" side, but after taking a look at it in the manual, it is underpowerd in MWO. Though I stick by the need for a ammo/ton nerf to 400. .2 damage per round works though.

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 06 February 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

Yeah, but then again doesn't that kinda defeat the entire purpose of even having a 4-ballistic variant in the first place? In program design, it's usually a bad idea to include stuff that does nothing other than waste hard drive space and slow down loading times.

hey i gave an option that is better than having 4 weapons that have a very limited range and crap damage. I also pull flamers off mechs all the time cause they were not at all that useful for 25+ years. I would much rather shoot you 450M for 8 damage than 90 m away for 8 damage(TT). Much much more potential to hurt my enemy. Could care less what an ***** designer gave me. What was the purpose of the Urbanmech or the Vulcan, or the Firestarter? I designed a much better version with better speed and mobility and the same damage potential. Mechs with specific combat role we don't need some of them for or that can be done better by something else. The Charger is a stupid build, why do some folks like it?

[TheGunBunny]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

you are right.

The battle tech one weighs twice as much and has had over a thousand years of ballistic technology and material science work on it.

So the Btech "machine gun" is likely vastly more powerful

Not to be a ****, but with ammo the avenger wieghs 4000 lbs...

[FupDup]

DocBach, on 06 February 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

I've got two ballistic slots on my Atlas's right torso but I can't fit two AC/20s in it. Its a waste of slots, the Catapult which is way lighter can fit two AC/20s on it but my 100 ton Atlas can't. Devs, please change AC20s so I can fit both of them on my Atlas, or else the ballistic slots are useless!

Bad comparison. The Atlas-D has more than enough tonnage to fit two of any ballistic in the RT except the AC20, AC10, and Gauss Rifle.

Edited by FupDup, 06 February 2013 - 11:25 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Esplodin, on 06 February 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

They are actually made out of imaginarium - the most incredible substance in human existence. Just like every other weapon in the game. I think it is funny that we can have suspension of disbelief for 5 story 100 ton death machines but the reality line refuses to let machine guns cross.

Yer not a DEV. Should have worded that better.
(touche')

[KuruptU4Fun]

FupDup, on 06 February 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

An alternative solution would be to simply adjust 1 or 2 values in existing code to make said variant competitive.

Or, if an MG did seriously touch you inappropriately in your childhood and scared you for life ( ), we can always just remove all traces of MG code from the game and implant a new small ballistic weapon in its place to make those variants competitive. However, we would have to defy the lore to do that. We could either invent something like an AC1 or we could skip to 3072 and use the Magshot. Would that float your boat?

Wasn't scarred by one as a child, but shot countless rounds thru an M60 at stationary and moving targets while in the Army.

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 06 February 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

Bad comparison. The Atlas-D has more than enough tonnage to fit two of any ballistic in the RT except the AC20, AC10, and Gauss Rifle.

yet three Much lighter Mechs can carry two or even three Gauss. His point stands i would think.

[Sifright]

TheGunBunny, on 06 February 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

Not to be a ****, but with ammo the avenger wieghs 4000 lbs...

Yea but with ammo the MG can be made to weigh the same or more.

Unloaded of ammo it weighs half as much as the BTech machine gun unloaded of ammo.

[KuruptU4Fun]

To CDLord and Sifright, Don't forget that armor values in MW were doubled over the TT version back even before Founders were allowed into CB.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

yet three Much lighter Mechs can carry two or even three Gauss. His point stands i would think.

Question: are you referring to the Spider 5K, Raven 4X, and Cicada 3C as those three lighter mechs? If so, packing dual Gauss on a Cicada (much less a Raven or Spider) would pretty much gimp the mech (dual Gauss = 30 tons without ammo).

The point is, that Atlas can make very good use of both ballistic hardpoints (despite being located in the same location) due to having a lot of tonnage to spare. Assaults and heavies like the K2, Cataphracts, and lots of other stuff can use all of their ballistic slots effectively as well due to tonnage. The 5K, 4X, and 3C cannot.

Edited by FupDup, 06 February 2013 - 11:36 AM.

[Thirdstar]

FupDup, on 06 February 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

Question: are you referring to the Spider 5K, Raven 4X, and Cicada 3C as those three lighter mechs? If so, packing dual Gauss on a Cicada (much less a Raven or Spider) would pretty much gimp the mech (dual Gauss = 30 tons without ammo).

The point is, that Atlas can make very good use of both ballistic hardpoints (despite being located in the same location) due to having a lot of tonnage to spare. Certain heavies like the K2, Cataphracts, and lots of other stuff can use all of their ballistic slots effectively as well due to tonnage. The 5K, 4X, and 3C cannot.

I think he means the Cat and the Phract, though I'm wracking my brain trying to think what the third is.

[malibu43]

I love these MG threads. The fact that posters cite fantasy, reality, TT rules, lore, and gameplay in any combination to support whatever side they're on makes for entertaining, but frustrating, reading...

PS - I am in favor of an MG buff.

Edited by malibu43, 06 February 2013 - 11:37 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

To CDLord and Sifright, Don't forget that armor values in MW were doubled over the TT version back even before Founders were allowed into CB.

Oh, I haven't forgotten, but the damage of weapons weren't likewise increased. All weapons are less potent than they are in TT. That doesn't necessarily change their damage comparisons to other weapons.

AC/20 = 20
Gauss = 15
AC/10 = 10
AC/5 = 5
AC/2 = 2
MG = .2 (my figure) For a lore wise 10 round burst (factoring in a lore ammo/ton of 200, that is 20 10-round bursts) that would also be 2 damage. This is for a weapon inferior to the AC/2.

Edited by cdlord, 06 February 2013 - 11:39 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 06 February 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

Question: are you referring to the Spider 5K, Raven 4X, and Cicada 3C as those three lighter mechs? If so, packing dual Gauss on a Cicada (much less a Raven or Spider) would pretty much gimp the mech (dual Gauss = 30 tons without ammo).

The point is, that Atlas can make very good use of both ballistic hardpoints (despite being located in the same location) due to having a lot of tonnage to spare. Certain heavies like the K2, Cataphracts, and lots of other stuff can use all of their ballistic slots effectively as well due to tonnage. The 5K, 4X, and 3C cannot.

Catapult, and some Cataphracts. I have seen a Raven dressed as a Hollander and a Spider with an AC5 (Ultra?), and a Cicada with 3 AC2s though!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 February 2013 - 11:49 AM.

[Thirdstar]

malibu43, on 06 February 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

I love these MG threads. The fact that posters cite fantasy, reality, TT rules, lore, and gameplay in any combination to support whatever side they're on makes for entertaining, but frustrating, reading...

PS - I am in favor of an MG buff.

My personal opinion is that the highlighted point should be only consideration. It's my pet peeve and one of the very few things i'm hardline about. Gameplay trumps everything.

[Joseph Mallan]

cdlord, on 06 February 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Oh, I haven't forgotten, but the damage of weapons weren't likewise increased. All weapons are less potent than they are in TT. That doesn't necessarily change their damage comparisons to other weapons.

AC/20 = 20
Gauss = 15
AC/10 = 10
AC/5 = 5
AC/2 = 2
MG = .2 (my figure) For a lore wise 10 round burst (factoring in a lore ammo/ton of 200, that is 20 10-round bursts) that would also be 2 damage. This is for a weapon inferior to the AC/2.

You know. there are rules on TT for firing your MG at a much higher rate of fire. It will generate heat and chew threw ammo like a Rottie through rawhide but it is an optional rule.

[KuruptU4Fun]

cdlord, on 06 February 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Oh, I haven't forgotten, but the damage of weapons weren't likewise increased. All weapons are less potent than they are in TT. That doesn't necessarily change their damage comparisons to other weapons.

AC/20 = 20
Gauss = 15
AC/10 = 10
AC/5 = 5
AC/2 = 2
MG = .2 (my figure) For a lore wise 10 round burst (factoring in a lore ammo/ton of 200, that is 20 10-round bursts) that would also be 2 damage. This is for a weapon inferior to the AC/2.

Than wouldn't it be wiser to argue for a reduction of armor values across the board? maybe 1/4th or 1/5th?

[Joseph Mallan]

Thirdstar, on 06 February 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

My personal opinion is that the highlighted point should be only consideration. It's my pet peeve and one of the very few things i'm hardline about. Gameplay trumps everything.

Gameplay worked just fine for 25 years without MGs among most TT players I games with(we had one stand out and even he was willing to use Small lasers instead). Just sayin it never hurt the fun we had not having MGs...

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 February 2013 - 11:44 AM.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Catapult, and some Cataphracts. I have seen a Raven dressed as a Hollander and a Spider with an AC5 (Ultra?), and a Cicada with 3 AC2s though!

The Ghetto Hollander only uses one of two ballistic hardpoints. Same for the AC Spider, except with 3 unused slots. The triple-AC Cicada has 1 unused slot and is probably not very fast/durable.


To say it once more, as it stands those 3 small mechs have redundant ballistic hardpoints because you can't fill all of them simultaneously without seriously gimping your ride. The solutions (pick one):
A. Remove some of those hardpoints.
B. Remove those variants entirely (add in other variants so that people can still have 3 variants to grind for the pilot trees).
C. Give them a lightweight ballistic (i.e. 3 tons or less, without ammo factored in) that doesn't suck eggs. It doesn't have to be an MG if you must insist.

Edited by FupDup, 06 February 2013 - 11:46 AM.

[Kousagi]

Has anyone really done the math? and Figured out to what point would a MG buff be reasonable? I mean at its current damage out put, it takes 5 sec's of non-stop hits to deal its equivalent to TT damage. So its .4 damage per sec or .04 damage per bullet. Small lasers weight the same amount but produce heat at the same time, where MG's don't, but small lasers damage per sec is 1, or 3 damage every 3 secs.

If they gave MG's a .6 damage per sec ( .06 damage per bullet ), it would lower the amount of time to do 2 damage to 3 sec's, which brings it in line with small lasers rate of damage. Plus gives it the 1/3 rate of fire of TT like other weapons. Thats amount the highest buff I could see for MG's, but even with that they would not be useful to people...