443 replies to this topic

[Gaan Cathal]

stjobe, on 07 February 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Nobody's trying to make the MG into what the AC/2 is, we're just using the AC/2 to counter your arguments that the MG shouldn't do damage to 'mechs. It does, in TT, do just as much as an AC/2. Nobody wants the MWO MG to do as much damage as the MWO AC/2. That would be horribly overpowered.

This. The AC/2 only comes into the discussion at all because of the 'but MGs can't damage mechs' argument.

I agree with the standpoint that the SLAS needs to be the bar for comparison for the MG, since a theoretical "SRM1" comparison falls apart with MWO's upped missile damages for splash compensation. While I'm not inclined to haggle over the exact fraction of SLAS dps that MG dps should be, since that's the kind of thing that gets tuned with ingame testing, I do believe they need to be in the same ballpark. It's worth noting, from that point of view, that for the same DPS a higher-burst weapon is superior. That is, if an MG did 1dps, the SLAS would still be better in practical terms since it front-loads it's damage into burst packets.

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

Ok...0.8 per second. that is 2/3 the damage of a Small laser.

Now... Explain why 6 tons of machine guns should be able to do more than twice as much damage as a 6 ton Auto Cannon in 10 seconds? 12 MGs in 10 seconds=96 damage 1 AC2 in 10 seconds=40...

For the same reason as 7 tons of SLAS does 14 dps to a LPLAS' 10 for the same weight of gun. Smaller gun = more efficient damage/ton because of the hardpoint mechanic.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 07 February 2013 - 10:47 AM.

[One Medic Army]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

Ok...0.8 per second. that is 2/3 the damage of a Small laser.

Now... Explain why 6 tons of machine guns should be able to do more than twice as much damage as a 6 ton Auto Cannon in 10 seconds? 12 MGs in 10 seconds=96 damage 1 AC2 in 10 seconds=40...

Same reasons 5 tons of Medium Lasers outdamages a Large Laser...
Hardpoints restrict boating, the lighter weapon has less range.

Edited by One Medic Army, 07 February 2013 - 10:47 AM.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

Ok...0.8 per second. that is 2/3 the damage of a Small laser.

Now... Explain why 6 tons of machine guns should be able to do more than twice as much damage as a 6 ton Auto Cannon in 10 seconds? 12 MGs in 10 seconds=96 damage 1 AC2 in 10 seconds=40...

When you show me the MWO 'mech with 12 ballistic slots, I'll gladly do that.

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

Ok...0.8 per second. that is 2/3 the damage of a Small laser.

Now... Explain why 6 tons of machine guns should be able to do more than twice as much damage as a 6 ton Auto Cannon in 10 seconds? 12 MGs in 10 seconds=96 damage 1 AC2 in 10 seconds=40...

MAybe it has something to do with only having 1/10th of the heavier weapons range?

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

i think THIS is what the Devs are trying to keep from happening. At a 0.4 DPS a MG does 4 points in 10 seconds or 24 points with 6 tons, compared to an AC2 (which fires a DU armor piercing round of much greater mass) which is still doing 40 in ten seconds. I think that is actually a good balance.

And in the same 10 seconds a Small Laser does 12 damage, or 144 damage with 6 tons of 'em.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 07 February 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

When you show me the MWO 'mech with 12 ballistic slots, I'll gladly do that.

You'll need to wait for it. Why allow it to happen if you can catch it before hand?
The Piranha may or may not come, but why wait for it to hit before compensating for it, or something like it?

stjobe, on 07 February 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

And in the same 10 seconds a Small Laser does 12 damage, or 144 damage with 6 tons of 'em.

Compare to the large Laser... 120 vs 21.4
That's exactly why nobody liked the Old Solaris rules. It turned the tiny weapons into wrecking balls and made Assault weapons a liability.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 February 2013 - 11:10 AM.

[One Medic Army]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

You'll need to wait for it. Why allow it to happen if you can catch it before hand?
The Piranha may or may not come, but why wait for it to hit before compensating for it, or something like it?

Right now a Piranha would carry 6 tons of MGs and deal 4.8 DPS.
A single AC/2 weighs 6 tons and does 4 DPS with an effective range 8 times greater.
The AC/2 does 150pts of dmg per ton of ammo, and the MG does 80.

So comparing 12 MGs to 1 AC/2 you have:
4.8 DPS vs 4 DPS
90m vs 720m
16.7sec of fire/ton vs 37.5sec of fire/ton
0 heat/s vs 2 heat/s
12 hardpoints vs 1 hardpoint
12 crit slots vs 1 crit slot

I think it's pretty clear that a single AC/2 is easily better than 12 MGs, by a large margin.

For comparison sake let's look at 12 Small Lasers vs 1 Large Laser:
10 DPS vs 2.12 DPS
90m vs 450m
6.7 heat/s vs 1.65 heat/s
10 hardpoints vs 1 hardpoint
10 crit slots vs 2 crit slot

[Novawrecker]

Added to Mallan's statemen above: we still do not know how Omni-mechs will work. If they are straight up just pod tonnage, then this triple damage MG idea will be HELLA broken beyond any measure.

Edited by Novawrecker, 07 February 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

You'll need to wait for it. Why allow it to happen if you can catch it before hand?
The Piranha may or may not come, but why wait for it to hit before compensating for it, or something like it?

Compare to the large Laser... 120 vs 21.4
That's exactly why nobody liked the Old Solaris rules. It turned the tiny weapons into wrecking balls and made Assault weapons a liability.

At, for example, 0.8 DPS/MG with 6 tons of MGs the Piranha would do 9.6 dps, with the same tonnage of MLAS the JR7-F does 7.5 dps with more range and a better burst profile. Ton-for-ton that seems fair, to me.


And r.e. the large laser example, there is a (general) reduction in dps/ton as guns get bigger in MWO, this is true. However it largely offsets the advantages of their higher burst firepower.

Novawrecker, on 07 February 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

Added to Mallan's statemen above: we still do not know how Omni-mechs will work. If they are straight up just pod tonnage, then this triple damage MG idea will be HELLA broken beyond any measure.

Depends how much ammo/ton they have. If heat independence becomes too much of an issue then they can adjust the ammo/ton to tighten the ammo dependance. I fully envision the ammo/ton dropping sharply if the gun is ever rebalanced into not-waste-of-codeness.

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

That's exactly why nobody liked the Old Solaris rules. It turned the tiny weapons into wrecking balls and made Assault weapons a liability.

Solaris turned the MG into a 8 damage per turn or 0.8 DPS weapon, while the PPC - 7 tons heavier, producing 10 heat more - had 1 DPS. That was obviously bullsh*t. But the MW:O PPC is a 3.33 DPS weapon now, so I don't think 0.8 DPS for the MG would be horrible.

[Joseph Mallan]

MustrumRidcully, on 07 February 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Solaris turned the MG into a 8 damage per turn or 0.8 DPS weapon, while the PPC - 7 tons heavier, producing 10 heat more - had 1 DPS. That was obviously bullsh*t. But the MW:O PPC is a 3.33 DPS weapon now, so I don't think 0.8 DPS for the MG would be horrible.

A 0.5 ton Machine gun doing as much damage per turn as a large laser. I haven't seen Solaris rules in nearly 20 years how much damage did a Large Laser do in a turn?

Yeah Solaris sucked!

[Azantia]

For those who wanted the canon reference for autocannons :

An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts. It is, basically, a giant "machine gun" that fires predominantly cased explosive shells though models firing saboted high velocity kinetic energy penetrators or caseless ordnance do exist. Among the earliest tank/BattleMech scale weaponry produced, autocannons produce far less heat than energy weapons, but are considerably bulkier and are dependent upon limited stores of ammunition.
Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage vs armor.^[1] The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors. Autocannon are grouped into the following loose damage classes:

• Autocannon/2
  
• Autocannon/5
  
• Autocannon/10
  
• Autocannon/20

Beyond the "standard" models, variants include the shotgun-like LBX quick-firing Ultra and the gatling-type Rotary. Light weight variants and capital ship scale models also exist. The experimental Hypervelocity Autocannon has also entered limited production.



Caliber

Caliber is fluff for the size of the barrel that the shell or shells are fired from and no standard caliber has been set for any of the classes of Autocannon. Autocannon in a class vary by manufacturer and model. With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire. Probable exceptions are the 185 mm ChemJet Gun Autocannon/20 mounted on the Demolisher combat vehicle and Monitor Surface vessel or the 203 mm Ultra Autocannon/20 on the Cauldron Born A BattleMech.

Barrel Arrangement

All Rotary Autocannon are multiple-barrel arrangements.^[4] Some standard, Light, and Ultra autocannons also use a multiple-barrel arrangement, but not as frequently.

Edited by Azantia, 07 February 2013 - 12:32 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

MustrumRidcully, on 07 February 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Solaris turned the MG into a 8 damage per turn or 0.8 DPS weapon, while the PPC - 7 tons heavier, producing 10 heat more - had 1 DPS. That was obviously bullsh*t. But the MW:O PPC is a 3.33 DPS weapon now, so I don't think 0.8 DPS for the MG would be horrible.

This is what I've been saying. If we assume that PGI wants to keep the machine gun at 0.4 DPS and buff that damage done on criticals to X, then would it be a horrible thing for them to buff the machine gun to 0.75 DPS (+87.5%) and then reduce the crit multiplier to 1/2 X? The end result would be nearly the same only you'd be getting more damage done with the weapon against armor without people running around and complaining about how they got ganked by a quad MG "meat chopper" build from the Flea, Spider, or Cicada. And it isn't like the bigger mechs are going to drop their AC/20s and Gauss Rifles to start running nothing but MGs. We won't see 4x MG Cataphracts cause that would be dumb, Atlai aren't going to drop down to 2x MGs. At best, you MIGHT see the Dragon 5N running 3 MGs in combination with their normal load out. But, that is the worst of the Dragons and a chassis that most people despise anyway.

Point is, we can buff the machine gun to be somewhat decent without making it a main line weapon like the normal load outs. And we don't need to go off the reservation and making it into a half ton autocannon or a no heat ballistic version of the Small Pulse Laser.

[Helbourne]

Should the devs actually bump up the damage of MGs just pretend they changed the ammo to PGU-14/B API Armor Piercing Incendiary (DU). That is the stuff that the GAU-8 Avenger 30mm cannon uses. When the shell ('bullet') hits its target, first the tip explodes making a small hole, followed by the depleted uranium metal spike that just rips through the armor.


And they have not even scratched the surface of the different types of ammo that can be used in Battletech. PGI has a long row to hoe for sure.

[ICEFANG13]

I just don't see why MGs can't be a main weapon. I mean Smalls are on the right mech, and if they were to give some attention to SSRMs and/or SRMs, SRM-2s could be as well. Heavier weapons are all ok for mechs.

I have A/C-2 mechs, I've seen A/C-5 Phracts, A/C-10s make great primary weapons, A/C-20+Gausscats
Hunches and Jenner-Fs with 6 Smalls, even a couple Mediums are great weapons, heavier mechs like to bring LLs, and they have 3-6 LL builds too
Splatapults? SSRMcats? LRMboats?

I mean other than the really bad weapons, you can make a build that focuses and boats all the average-excellent weapons and plays to its strengths. I mean if we had at least a DPS of 1 on MGs, and suddenly we see Cicadas with 4 of them and then a PPC, that doesn't sound OP at all. If we saw Raven's with 2, or Spiders with 4, its in the area of dangerous, effective, hardly OP at all.

[KuruptU4Fun]

To be realistic changing the damage a MG can do comparatively to an A/C 2 is like trying to get a paintball gun to do the same damage as a M-16 bullet. You'd have to change the size of the round so dramatically that it wouldn't be a PB gun anymore. Stacking the MG's wouldn't do the damage needed at range to be effective at destroying armor. It's simply not realistic in MW:O gaming terms. Might as well ask for an Ultra A/C 2 ( out of timeline) with highly diminished range.

[Xeven]

Just add infantry! and battlesuits etc...

[Alik Kerensky]

Died in a match last night where the Cata 4x was spraying me with MGs continously and the only thing that registed on the kill screen was the AC/10s and MLs he cored me with. lol

Edited by Alik Kerensky, 07 February 2013 - 08:23 PM.

[Thirdstar]

KuruptU4Fun, on 07 February 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

To be realistic.......

Sorry, this is a game about Giant Stompy Robots. Realism doesn't apply. Flight sims are that way ---------->

[Ialti]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 05:21 AM, said:

2 tonnes loaded with ammo.

it weighs 600 pounds with out ammo.

about a quarter of a tonne

Also, material science in btech is clearly much more advanced than ours things weigh A LOT less than they should.

I can assure you a metal monstrousity like the atlas made with todays tech would weigh a hell of a lot more than 100 tonnes just for the structure and armour never mind everything else.

True enough, but remember your own argument: the Atlas isn't a 90-ton tank by today's standards. It's a 90-ton space!tank, and thus on equal footing with a .5-ton space!machine gun.

...If you apply your logic consistently instead of selectively, you will see something interesting: the machine gun is still under-powered.