443 replies to this topic

[KuruptU4Fun]

Hey stjobe, I read your post up above siting all the crap that's in BT, but not in RL.

Let me state 1 thing though, if MG's weren't real, they wouldn't exist in BT either....

[Asmudius Heng]

You know - i like the IDEA of machine guns being crit seekers, but perhaps not its implementation.

It needs a damage boost as well no doubt - but the idea that it is a crit seeker fits with what some people could use it for in BT. A very low tonnage weapon that could be sprayed for no heat and have a possibility of getting a crit, because if you have a bunch of them that a lot of chances of hitting an open location and in BT the damge didnt matter - it was the number of hits you took to an unarmoured location.

So how they model crit seeking is the issue not the fact it could become that sort of a wepaon which I think is a good thing and gives some tactical options in builds essepcially for light and medium mechs who have the speed to keep in range.

[Trauglodyte]

stjobe, on 06 February 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

I can. It's too weak a buff to make the MG viable (in my opinion).

I fixed that for you. While I support and appreciate your enthusiam for looking for a buff, you need to realize that the MG was a tertiary weapon in Battletech and PGI considers it that, as well. While the Spider-5K and the Cicada-3C are all screwed due to weight and 4 ballistic slots, that doesn't mean that the MG needs to be redesigned to be miniature AC/2s. I'm a Cicada Master and I hate the 3C simply because it could be better but isn't because of the MGs. But, boosting them to do 3x the damage that they do now, which is what you wanted in one of your posts, on top of critical damage buffs don't make sense. And, as you said, no mech in game boats them so the question is really: Why is it that important for the weapon to do that much damage when only two mechs really depend on them?

[Merky Merc]

ARGGGGG comparing BT to real life weaponry hurts my head


While I think I would prefer an overhaul of BT weaponry and armor to be more "realistic", given it's current state it obviously is not. You can't even compare bores on the autocannons because there are no standards, resupplying those things would be a pain in the *** if you accept all the BT handwavium.

Also, ablative armor was used on our spaceshuttle and it can be seen in reactive armor, plus gatling guns are hand cranked civil war era weapons. So STAHP

[Solis Obscuri]

Hey look, it's Abrahm's monthly "Why Can't I Just Replace All My Heat Sinks With Moar Laz0rs?" thread!

[spectrum8]

Abrahms, on 06 February 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

Heavy Machine Guns in real life have no problem harming armor. 50 cals and miniguns easily shred softer targets, even when made from armor. The A-10 Gau Avenger cannon easily rips a main battletank in half. All are high rate of fire, smaller caliber weapons compared to a 120 smoothbore cannon.

Just wanted to point out that the GAU-8 is not a 'Machine Gun' but rather a gatling cannon, so in reality it is more akin to a UAC-5. The weapon shoots 30mm shells (undermounted grenade launchers and MK19's fire 40mm shells, not too much bigger) up to 4200rpm. The machine gun in MWO should fire something akin to the 20mm round because 7.62 or .50 cal is not enough to penetrate a mech's armor, which is why it isn't effective at all against even a light tank let alone a main battle tank or a mech from the future.

Notice how well the MG works here:

So in my opinion either it needs to be removed, or it needs to be turned into something like an AC/1 which may provide the right amount of damage if given the proper firerate. 0.04 DPS is just silly when even the AC/2, which is nearly useless, has 100 times the DPS and much greater range (although it has some heat). Right now the only thing it is good for is griefing players who don't know that 0.04 DPS is less harmful then falling off a small cliff and putting your legs into the yellow.

[Jericho917]

You say they "broke" MWO by trippling the fire rate, but could you immagine playing a fast paced shooter where you can only shoot once every 5 seconds? or if a lucky shot from a gauss hit cockpit and you were out of the game? achieving ballance is difficult to do in any game it takes time. the only way to make a MMO like MWO is to quicken the pace of combat compared to the TT, and increase the armor to compensate (or you could go play MW tactics, they are in closed beta now.)

[Joseph Mallan]

Solis Obscuri, on 06 February 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

Hey look, it's Abrahm's monthly "Why Can't I Just Replace All My Heat Sinks With Moar Laz0rs?" thread!

Sorry Abram's but this is funny!

[stjobe]

Trauglodyte, on 06 February 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

While I support and appreciate your enthusiam for looking for a buff, you need to realize that the MG was a tertiary weapon in Battletech and PGI considers it that, as well.

I don't agree and I don't appreciate you stating this as fact when you just finished lecturing me on needing to state "in my opinion".

What is a "tertiary weapon" anyway? For a Locust, with a Medium Laser and two MGs, the MGs are secondary weapons, not tertiary. For a Thunderbolt, with a Large Laser, LRM-15, 3 Medium Lasers, a SRM-2, and 2 MGs, they may be tertiary, but putting it in a blanket statement like that is being just a little bit dishonest.

Trauglodyte, on 06 February 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

While the Spider-5K and the Cicada-3C are all screwed due to weight and 4 ballistic slots, that doesn't mean that the MG needs to be redesigned to be miniature AC/2s.

The AC/2 does ten times the damage of the MG currently. My proposal would reduce that to only doing about three times as much - and with a much reduced range at that, and a lot higher spread due to higher rate of fire.

Trauglodyte, on 06 February 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

I'm a Cicada Master and I hate the 3C simply because it could be better but isn't because of the MGs. But, boosting them to do 3x the damage that they do now, which is what you wanted in one of your posts, on top of critical damage buffs don't make sense.

That's why I'm deliberately leaving out the crit damage buff any time I present my opinion of how to buff the MG. I don't think it needs a crit damage buff, just a damage buff. "Crit weapons" are a bad idea from the get-go, in my opinion.

Trauglodyte, on 06 February 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

And, as you said, no mech in game boats them so the question is really: Why is it that important for the weapon to do that much damage when only two mechs really depend on them?

Any light 'mech with a ballistic slot (yes, currently only two, but the Flea is on its way and I'm sure there'll be more) depend on them to not be gimped. Many mediums with ballistic slots could use a viable secondary weapon as well.

[Joseph Mallan]

Trauglodyte, on 06 February 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

I fixed that for you. While I support and appreciate your enthusiam for looking for a buff, you need to realize that the MG was a tertiary weapon in Battletech and PGI considers it that, as well. While the Spider-5K and the Cicada-3C are all screwed due to weight and 4 ballistic slots, that doesn't mean that the MG needs to be redesigned to be miniature AC/2s. I'm a Cicada Master and I hate the 3C simply because it could be better but isn't because of the MGs. But, boosting them to do 3x the damage that they do now, which is what you wanted in one of your posts, on top of critical damage buffs don't make sense. And, as you said, no mech in game boats them so the question is really: Why is it that important for the weapon to do that much damage when only two mechs really depend on them?

Quote

• SDR-5D - The -5D Spider is also geared towards anti-infantry work. This is done by removing one of theMedium Lasers and replacing it with a single arm-mounted Flamer. BV (1.0) = 412, BV (2.0) = 524^[4]

• SDR-5K - The -5K Spider removes one of the Medium Lasers and replaces it with two arm mounted Machine Guns for anti-infantry use. To make room for its Machine Gun ammunition the 'Mech sacrifices 60 meters of its jump capability. ^[5] BV (1.0) = 433, BV (2.0) = 503^[6]

You know the Cicada is the only Mech with Machine Guns that does not specify they are for Anti-infantry use...? That I have read yet.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 February 2013 - 03:32 PM.

[Vodrin Thales]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 February 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

Or are you suggesting maybe that they knew better, but didn't care, because what they did made for a better game (at least to them)? That's certainly a possibility, too.

I think you just hit the nail on the head right there. I've played the TT game almost from the time it was first introduced and I went to a tournament at GENCON in the mid to late 80's where one of the FASA staff pretty much admitted they reduced the range and accuracy of the weapons to make the game work the way they wanted it to.

[Fabe]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

Yea i'm so worried about how over powered that will be.

Why if i stand still for exactly 25 seconds my cockpit could be taken out!

or if im in an atlas they could take out my center torso in a mere 3 minutes!


TABLE TOP DAMAGE VALUES

AC-2 2 DAMAGE A HIT.
Machinegun 2 DAMAGE A HIT.

What don't we see in mwo?

AC-2 MWO = 4 DPS
MACHINEGUN = .4 DPS

MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

Sure, there is a big difference between a tabletop game where 1 turn equals 10 seconds of real time and a flat out real time game. If the mwo machine gun did 4 points of damage and assuming 1 hit per second at the minimum we're talking 40 points of damage in ten seconds. in actuality the MG is probably scoring multiple hit per second so giving it 4 points of damage could make it the most powerful weapon in the game.

As it stands at .4 points of damage over ten seconds equals 4 points of damage which in my opinion brings it in line damage wise to the AC/2 in tabletop terms.

Edited by Fabe, 06 February 2013 - 03:47 PM.

[Sifright]

Fabe, on 06 February 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

Sure, there is a big difference between a tabletop game where 1 turn equals 10 seconds of real time and a flat out real time game. If the mwo machine gun did 4 points of damage and assuming 1 hit per second at the minimum we're talking 40 points of damage in ten seconds. in actuality the MG is probably scoring multiple hit per second so giving it 4 points of damage could make it the most powerful weapon in the game.

As it stands at .4 points of damage over ten seconds equals 4 points of damage which in my opinion brings it in line damage wise to the AC/2 in tabletop terms.

and yet the ac/2 in mwo in that time does 40 damage

[stjobe]

Fabe, on 06 February 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

Sure, there is a big difference between a tabletop game where 1 turn equals 10 seconds of real time and a flat out real time game. If the mwo machine gun did 4 points of damage and assuming 1 hit per second at the minimum we're talking 40 points of damage in ten seconds. in actuality the MG is probably scoring multiple hit per second so giving it 4 points of damage could make it the most powerful weapon in the game

What he's saying (and you're missing) is that the MWO AC/2 is already buffed to ten times the MG damage, where in BattleTech they did the exact same damage. The AC/2 indeed does 40 points of damage over ten seconds, with multiple (well, two) hits per second. Is the AC/2 the most powerful weapon in the game in your eyes?

DPS isn't everything.

Either way, nobody's asking for the MG to be buffed to those levels, most are asking for it to have 0.8-1.2 DPS, with a majority seeming to ask for a flat 1 DPS.

[Zenehre]

Fabe, on 06 February 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

Sure, there is a big difference between a tabletop game where 1 turn equals 10 seconds of real time and a flat out real time game. If the mwo machine gun did 4 points of damage and assuming 1 hit per second at the minimum we're talking 40 points of damage in ten seconds. in actuality the MG is probably scoring multiple hit per second so giving it 4 points of damage could make it the most powerful weapon in the game

You are reading his suggestion wrong. The point isnt to make the MG deal the same damage per second as an ac/2, it's to make it deal similar damage over a period of time (10 seconds is what was used in the TT) to the ac/2. The tradeoff for having the same damage at a fraction of the weight, is the need to keep your cross-hair and your mech pointed at the enemy the entire time period while being close enough to reach out and punch him. If you want to deal your damage you give up the ability to torso twist to absorb his damage, since you are required to maintain facing (except for the case of arm mounted MGs, as they get a little more leeway). MGs are more comparable to small lasers anyways. With the same drawback ive already mentioned regarding facing, they dealt 2/3 of the damage of a small laser over a 10 second period. In MWO they do nowhere near this much relative damage. A buff to the amount of damage they deal, so as to fall into this range, is all they need to become a useful ballistic slot filler.

Edited by Zenehre, 06 February 2013 - 03:52 PM.

[Abrahms]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH NO.

The battle tech machine gun is supposed to be a Gatling weapon that really murders lights and mediums.

In the table top game the machine gun was much much better than the AC2 and was actually useful in light mechs.

Why do you people keep saying they are .50 cals they have nothing in common with them.

They weigh 4 times as much as a .50 cal for christ sake.

.5 tons is more on par with a weapon that kills main battle tanks in .00001 seconds (like the Gau 8). A 50 cal can be handled by a mere man. Even a huge array of 50 cals can easily be attached to a smart car.

For .5 tons with the battletech physics, the weapons IS INTENDED TO HARM BATTLEMECHS. Its basically a ballistic small laser... why it hits as hard as a 9mm pistol makes no sense. it also makes no sense that it would do extra damage to internals. If anything, a weapon like missiles with explosions would do more damage to soft targets....

Simply put, increasing the dmg of the MG by 300-500% would make it potentially viable for light mechs to take. You still have to hold the reticle on target 100% of the time to maximize its dps per ton, and its still subject to ammo and short range.

The BT MG array is a large clump of high RoF ballistic guns, almost like a smaller, faster firing AC2 type weapon that gets its power from a high rate of fire. It should be powerful for .5 tons. Slapping 4 of these on a spider should have the potential that a cluster of small lasers would have. Armor is armor, and big guns do more damage per hit, but many many many small hits can also add up, very fast. Only when the armor is so greater than the weapon do we find many hits ineffective - hence, a 9mm versus tank armor. The MG array is like a fast firing 20-30mm type weapon, many impacts of light damage, still balance dfor .5 tons.

Right now its a puff of cold air... not worth taking.

stjobe, on 06 February 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

What he's saying (and you're missing) is that the MWO AC/2 is already buffed to ten times the MG damage, where in BattleTech they did the exact same damage. The AC/2 indeed does 40 points of damage over ten seconds, with multiple (well, two) hits per second. Is the AC/2 the most powerful weapon in the game in your eyes?

DPS isn't everything.

Either way, nobody's asking for the MG to be buffed to those levels, most are asking for it to have 0.8-1.2 DPS, with a majority seeming to ask for a flat 1 DPS.

The AC2s power is countered by heat, AND the fact you need to land all those shells in the same place.

Kepeping a reticle on a center torso for 10 seconds is A LOT harder than simply firing one shell a single time into the CT each 10 sec.

Despite the power of the AC2, you still find it underused, largely because of these other niche factors like it relying on a high rate of fire.

The MG works in a similar way. You could increase the dmg by 5x easily and itd still probably get little attention.

[Kousagi]

Abrahms, on 06 February 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

For .5 tons with the battletech physics, the weapons IS INTENDED TO HARM BATTLEMECHS. Its basically a ballistic small laser... why it hits as hard as a 9mm pistol makes no sense. it also makes no sense that it would do extra damage to internals. If anything, a weapon like missiles with explosions would do more damage to soft targets....

Simply put, increasing the dmg of the MG by 300-500% would make it potentially viable for light mechs to take. You still have to hold the reticle on target 100% of the time to maximize its dps per ton, and its still subject to ammo and short range.

The BT MG array is a large clump of high RoF ballistic guns, almost like a smaller, faster firing AC2 type weapon that gets its power from a high rate of fire. It should be powerful for .5 tons. Slapping 4 of these on a spider should have the potential that a cluster of small lasers would have. Armor is armor, and big guns do more damage per hit, but many many many small hits can also add up, very fast. Only when the armor is so greater than the weapon do we find many hits ineffective - hence, a 9mm versus tank armor. The MG array is like a fast firing 20-30mm type weapon, many impacts of light damage, still balance dfor .5 tons.

In Battletech, the MG is meant as a anti-infantry weapon. That is its main and primary use. Small lasers are even meant more for anti-infantry use as well, they just get more application vs mechs cause they don't get the bonus vs infantry like MG's do. Also, the MG's in BT are 20mm, as someone else pointed that one out... 30mm would be a cannon.

If you are comparing real world tanks to 20-30mm cannons hitting them, then, It all depends on Where that cannon hits. As a M4 Bradly with its 25mm cannon can shoot a M1A2 Abrams in the front armor all day long and not put a dent in it. Though should it shoot its rear or top armor is a whole different matter. This is where the airborne 30mm cannons get their tank killing power from, is cause top armor is never as thick as front/side armor.

Edited by Kousagi, 06 February 2013 - 07:21 PM.

[RagingOyster]

The GAU-8 Avenger minigun is a 620 lb (2+ tons loaded) weapon designed specifically to kill tanks. It accounts for something like 15% of the weight of the entire aircraft. It is so cumbersome the A-10 "Warthog" had to be built around the weapon. (notice how the weapon is offset) Comparing it to a MW Machine Gun, a weapon designed to let mechs protect themselves against infantry, is just ridiculous. A closer comparison would be to the BT AMS since the Avenger is the baseline for some modern missile defense systems.

The MG is, in BT canon, an infantry killer. It was never supposed to be used against enemy mechs. Reading most specs that include them, you will find they usually say something like "and MGs to protect against infantry" or "MGs are added to deal with infantry and soft vehicles"
It would not be right to make them a viable weapon to engage mechs, since that is not their purpose. Personally, I feel they are fine as they are: an annoying harassment tool for lights.

As a side note, insulting PGI, acting sarcastic and being condescending will not take you very far. You made some very good points but your tone seriously detracts from your legitimacy.

[One Medic Army]

To everyone who says MGs should only be good vs infantry.
Since MWO has no infantry, MGs should be removed entirely. They're not supposed to work against mechs obviously, and all we get to shoot at are mechs.

There, now the lightest ballistic weapon is 6tons, good luck fitting 4 onto your spider with 4 ballistic hardpoints.

[/sarcarm]

It's not about canon, it's not about realism, it's about PGI making a bunch of mechs with lots of completely useless ballistic hardpoints.
So please stuff any arguments not based on game balance into your lowest available orifice.

[Kaspirikay]

One Medic Army, on 06 February 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

To everyone who says MGs should only be good vs infantry. Since MWO has no infantry, MGs should be removed entirely. They're not supposed to work against mechs obviously, and all we get to shoot at are mechs. There, now the lightest ballistic weapon is 6tons, good luck fitting 4 onto your spider with 4 ballistic hardpoints. [/sarcarm] It's not about canon, it's not about realism, it's about PGI making a bunch of mechs with lots of completely useless ballistic hardpoints. So please stuff any arguments not based on game balance into your lowest available orifice.

this

this is a game, and should be balanced as such.