443 replies to this topic

[Pootis meister]

Has nobody noticed the incredibly low rate of fire on the MG? It's like a DAKKA DAKKA, not the BRAAAAP it should be.

[One Medic Army]

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 bears repeating as people are again arguing based on realism.

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

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!

I suspect it may have a refire rate of 3, which means it fires every 10 seconds effectively (3 2.5 turns no shots, then a turn it can fire). But I am not sure. Whoever cooked it up, he didn't understand the mathematical models of the table top. Or he didn't care.

---

I saw someone other mention Depleted Uranium, and I believe Joseph pointed out earlier that the lore never suggests that MGs use it. Maybe they are using Wolfram? I believe the Bundeswehr is using Wolfram instead of Depleted Uranium. It may* not be quite as effective, but it also causes no radiation hazard.

*) Not sure if that's the case. The mass of the Wolfram Atom is lower than that of Uranium, so it probably is.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 07 February 2013 - 11:29 PM.

[Abrahms]

HC Harlequin, on 07 February 2013 - 01:16 AM, said:

heh.. you are comparing a 30mm Vulcan autocannon to a 7.62 COAX?

since when is a .5 ton ballistic array a coaxel? Since when can a man or honda truck wield a .5 ton machinegun?

[KuruptU4Fun]

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

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.

Thirdstar, on 07 February 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

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

Realism isn't entirely part of flight sims either though it's much closer, but since you're going to quote one small portion of my statement. You obviously didn't read this part as it's counter:

It's simply not realistic in MW:O gaming terms.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 08 February 2013 - 02:47 PM.

[Princeps Yarema]

Everyone that's saying MGs shouldn't do damage is forgetting that the internal structure of mechs is made out of polymer plastics. (That's why overheating is dangerous)

So 20mm can peel off ablative, and once it's gone, the insides are rather squishy.

[KuruptU4Fun]

I'll concede the difference between realistic and gaming realistic after reading several points in this thread alone. But as I've stated before. If MG's didn't exist in reality, neither would they exist in BT/ MW. Would you play a mech with a ball and cap long rifle??

Princeps Yarema, on 08 February 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

Everyone that's saying MGs shouldn't do damage is forgetting that the internal structure of mechs is made out of polymer plastics. (That's why overheating is dangerous)

So 20mm can peel off ablative, and once it's gone, the insides are rather squishy.

But the argument seems that the bigger reason it needs a buff past the internal damage crits is so that it can blow thru armor too when stacked in large amounts.

[AEgg]

KuruptU4Fun, on 08 February 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

I'll concede the difference between realistic and gaming realistic after reading several points in this thread alone. But as I've stated before. If MG's didn't exist in reality, neither would they exist in BT/ MW. Would you play a mech with a ball and cap long rifle??



But the argument seems that the bigger reason it needs a buff past the internal damage crits is so that it can blow thru armor too when stacked in large amounts.

There's a big difference between doing some damage and "blowing through armor".

Right now the MG may as well do zero damage. MGs get .4 DPS, but that's only if you are on target constantly. Most of the time, the DPS is far lower, closer to .1 And even that is spread out. Small lasers do 1 DPS with no on target requirement, nearly zero heat, and don't require ammo. And even those aren't overpowered (unless you compare them to MGs, anyway).

[KuruptU4Fun]

So would part of the solution be to put MG's on a gyroscopic mount so to speak so they are more consistently ( not perfectly) on target? I'm still a firm believer that they should simply remove them because they're useless. But if there was a additional component you could add or a module you could purchase I'd see that as a bit more reasonable in addition to the internal damage crit boosts.

[Tarman]

KuruptU4Fun, on 08 February 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

So would part of the solution be to put MG's on a gyroscopic mount so to speak so they are more consistently ( not perfectly) on target? I'm still a firm believer that they should simply remove them because they're useless. But if there was a additional component you could add or a module you could purchase I'd see that as a bit more reasonable in addition to the internal damage crit boosts.

Removing them is a bad idea. There needs to be a small ballistic weapon comparable to a SL or a stack of SRM2 in general usage. Currently there are zero ballistic weapons fitting the small filler weapon category, and ditching the MG ensures this will stay forever. If you're ditching this, then please remove all the mechs that have consistently empty secondary ballistic hardpoints, so about a quarter of the total mechs we currently have available, or completely redo the hardpoint system. Or we could fix the MG instead.

[Sifright]

Tarman, on 09 February 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Removing them is a bad idea. There needs to be a small ballistic weapon comparable to a SL or a stack of SRM2 in general usage. Currently there are zero ballistic weapons fitting the small filler weapon category, and ditching the MG ensures this will stay forever. If you're ditching this, then please remove all the mechs that have consistently empty secondary ballistic hardpoints, so about a quarter of the total mechs we currently have available, or completely redo the hardpoint system. Or we could fix the MG instead.

NO WE CANT HAVE WORKING MGS THAT DO ANYTHING IN MWO BECAUSE OF MY TT HEAD CANNONS!!!



HEAD CANNONS!!!!!!

Edited by Sifright, 09 February 2013 - 11:22 AM.

[ICEFANG13]

How many weapon systems do 'you' (anyone) think we have? 3? (Missile, Energy, Ballistic), 6? (Laser, LRM, SRM, SSRM, Direct, Stream). How many actual weapons do we have? That would be 26, including everything (worthless Flamers and MGs, LRM-5 and 10 etc). I don't think at 26 we should talk about removing weapons. We should focus on making a solid foundation for future weapons to compare to.

In Ask the Devs-31, they said if a mech had a sub 100 engine, they would create it, just like with MGs, I mean they really can't remove them (they can do nothing if they wanted to), but they can't remove them, some mechs start with MGs, and that's just how they are.

[SICk Nick]

To comment on the first post (I havn't read the rest yet)...the Heat issue is actually more dynamic than that. If you look at Solaris Arena rules, turns are 2.5 sec each. Some weapons actually can fire more than once in a 10 sec BT turn. BT was generic for simplicity. Some weapons could recycle in 7.5 seconds, some in 5 and some in 2.5. In Arena rules a MG could fire 4 times in 10 sec, or, every Arena 2.5 sec turn at 2 DMG a piece. With that, an MG could do as much DMG as a Large Laser in 10 sec! So yes, the MG DEF needs a buff, but I think the heat system is pretty good, especially since everything is real time. They might have even made some weapons cooler than they should. In Arena rules heat was a primary concern making some weapons very undesireable.

We should def not get rid of MGs, they did 2 DMG in BT for 0 heat. SL did 3 for however many heat (2?). They both had a range of 3 hexes too (90m?) So...let's just fix it. As far as "not being able to do DMG to Mech armor.." How do you know? A Depleted Uranium .50cal MG round could seriusly ruin a T-72 Tank's day...or API rounds could be any light vehicles' nightmare. Hell, my Mk-19 40mm grenade launcher in Iraq had low-velocity grenades that were able to penetrate 5 inches of steel...who woulda ever thought that sh*t??

So wether the Dev's make it a good critical hit weapon or something to aid in peeling back armor...I'm cool..lets do it. It's 3050...who the hell knows what kind of rounds they shoot..plus...its half a TON...an M2 HB .50 cal MG weighs 84lbs....what the hell we getting for half a TON??

I like that one dudes gyroscopic MG suggestion too, thats some p*mp sh*t...

Edited by SICk Nick, 18 February 2013 - 07:47 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

The Solaris rules are a failure of implementing the Battletech Rules on a shorter time scale.

It makes absolutely no sense to assume that Battletech abstracts the potenital higher rate of fire of weapons away and just ignores that a MG can actually do 8 damage in 10 seconds, not just 2!

Mathematically, the easiest way to handle variable fire rates on a 2.5 second turn would have been to quadruple all armour and damage, and then adjust damage and heat per shot down based on your refire rate.

A PPC would deal 40 damage and 40 heat with a refire rate of 3. (Converts to 10 damage and 10 heat every 10 seconds in TT)
A Medium laser might deal 10 damage and 6 heat with a refire rate of 1. (Converts to 5 damage and 3 heat every 10 seconds in TT)
A MG might deal 2 damage and 0 heat with a refire rate of 0. (Converts to 2 damage and 0 heat every 10 seconds in TT).

What Solaris did makes no sense at all and is greatly inconsistent with the table top.

[redlance]

machine guns are fun. i like em just how they are.

[HC Harlequin]

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.

LOL. a 30 mm vulcan autocannon is NOT a machine gun and NO a .50 cal can't even scratch tank armor.

[MustrumRidcully]

HC Harlequin, on 19 February 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

LOL. a 30 mm vulcan autocannon is NOT a machine gun and NO a .50 cal can't even scratch tank armor.

LOL. People are still arguing in circles, bringnig up points and counter-points that have been rehased thousand of times.

My only hope is that this thread is as succesful as Vassago's Repair & Rearm thread.

[Yokaiko]

HC Harlequin, on 19 February 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

LOL. a 30 mm vulcan autocannon is NOT a machine gun and NO a .50 cal can't even scratch tank armor.

Yes it is.

By definition any fully automatic ballistic weapon is a machine gun, thus rotary vulcan cannons a la the Warthog's 30mm the Phalanax's 20mm as well as other heavy automatics fall under that umbrella.

Even when you get into ships main batteries they are still rifles, from the 16" all the way down to the lowly 76mm on frigates.

In fact most of our fleet carry 25mm crew served machine guns for small boat threats.

[Edustaja]

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

Look at the models of the mech scale machine gun. Machine gun is used as moniker for a weapon that "can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire".

Model names like Ares Gattling Gun 20 mm are provided.

So we're definitely talking more on line with the Vulcan than the Browning .50.

Edited by Edustaja, 19 February 2013 - 04:02 AM.

[Thirdstar]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 February 2013 - 03:53 AM, said:

LOL. People are still arguing in circles, bringnig up points and counter-points that have been rehased thousand of times.

My only hope is that this thread is as succesful as Vassago's Repair & Rearm thread.

That pretty much what's been happening for *checks* 17 pages.