443 replies to this topic

[Sifright]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

the GAU-8 is an autocannon not a machine-gun. Machine guns are defined as automatic weapons under 20mm and use bullets not "shells".

(The Air Force even classifies it as a cannon)

thats very nice the battle tech writers of the time didn't have half a god damned clue about any of that stuff though.

I don't care what the definitions are because battle tech ignores them.

machine guns in battle tech are not .50 guns.

They are gattling guns.

[Joseph Mallan]

Gaan Cathal, on 06 February 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

No offence man, but that comparison is like arguing that the ranges are unrealistic. Just because BT calls it an MG doesn't mean it fits the modern US classification. The Vulcan is also termed a 'cannon' I believe and that best fits the specs of the 20mm BT MGs IMO.

There are 20mm MGs and 20 MM cannons. the ammo type splits that hair. Also there is a downsized version of the Vulcan cannon, it is classed as a machine gun. As to range... thats been a grumble since before the video game came out. The TT DEVs admitted to nerfing weapon range so the maps could be scaled... better. for the record in the MechWarrior RPG a 20mm Machine gun has a much longer range v soft targets.

[The Mecha Streisand]

Gaan Cathal, on 06 February 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

No offence man, but that comparison is like arguing that the ranges are unrealistic. Just because BT calls it an MG doesn't mean it fits the modern US classification. The Vulcan is also termed a 'cannon' I believe and that best fits the specs of the 20mm BT MGs IMO.

Technically, the Mk 19 40mm is a grenade MACHINEGUN. Not launcher, not cannon.

More to us 'Mercans, by certain laws an M-4A1 is a MACHINEGUN. As is an MP5.

I like to think of it in relative terms. Compared to the auto cannons available in 3050, the MG is JUST a machinegun compared to an AC/2 (for range) or an AC/20 (for damage). It may still chuck some hefty stuff downrange, but compared to the damage that its 3050 contemporary weapons can do with energy or projectiles or missiles (oh, MY!), it's just to main weapon systems what the M-2 is to a 120mm main gun on a tank.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

thats very nice the battle tech writers of the time didn't have half a god damned clue about any of that stuff though.

I don't care what the definitions are because battle tech ignores them.

machine guns in battle tech are not .50 guns.

They are gattling guns.

The GAU-8 is a

Quote

Gatling-style cannon

Military weapon, Military definition.

[Sifright]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

The GAU-8 is a
Military weapon, Military definition.

Battle-TECH-LORE-WRITERS.

They had NO military knowledge NONE.
They had NO access to wikipedia.

Regardless of your petty hair splitting over the importance of naming schema

The machine gun in battle tech is SUPPOSED to be a legitimate threat to battle mechs at close range in groups of 4+

THIS is not the case in MWO.

This should not be the way the machine gun operates.

It is currently an utter waste of space. It has no viable use. Crit seeking is ******** and wont help.

Stop splitting hairs over fine definitions which are for real life and not the in game lore when it's patently obvious the game lore bares no resemblance to reality.

[Kousagi]

Gau-8, is a Cannon. Vulcan is also a cannon. MK-19 is a automatic grenade launcher, not a MG.

[MustrumRidcully]

If we go by the "lore writers" of BattleTech, than mechs don't use fusion reactors. Some lore writers claim the fusion reactors explode. But it's a feature of fusion reactors that they don't explode - if their shielding is gone, the fusion reaction stops, because it cannot sustain itself. Of course, only some lore writers claim that fusion reactors explode.

As the OP said - MGs should deal damage, even if Bt fairy land. It has nothing to do with realism, or how weapons are described in the magic fantasy fairy land of Battletech. It has everything to dow ith them being a weapon in a game where every weapon usefulness is determined based on its value using them against mechs. If it lacks value for this, the weapon is superflous. Since it's already there, better to make it useful then removing it.

[Jack Corvus]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

Battle-TECH-LORE-WRITERS.

They had NO military knowledge NONE.
They had NO access to wikipedia.

Uh, no offense man, but how old are you? Because it sounds like you 'grew up' with the internet and assume that before it, we didn't share knowledge via libraries and encylopedias.

[Kousagi]

Jack Corvus, on 06 February 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

Uh, no offense man, but how old are you? Because it sounds like you 'grew up' with the internet and assume that before it, we didn't share knowledge via libraries and encylopedias.

I guess he does not know that everything in BT was based are real world tech that was in use, or being researched...

[Sifright]

Jack Corvus, on 06 February 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

Uh, no offense man, but how old are you? Because it sounds like you 'grew up' with the internet and assume that before it, we didn't share knowledge via libraries and encylopedias.

I'm well aware of encyclopedias and such I have a large copy of Britannica on the shelf beside me.
That doesn't change the fact that nothing in battle tech works in a way that is bares any resemblance to reality.

Lasers that shoot past their optimal range in MWO is actually much more realistic than it is in TT. Althought the ranges are still far to low to properly account for how optical atmospheric attenuation would occur.

The ballistic weapons all have horrendously low ranges with larger bore weapons having less range some how which is another massive stupidity in terms of realism.

and none of this has any actual bareing on in game balance.

The MG is useless can we get a mg that isn't so that the mechs that are light have ballistic points aren't complete trash?

[Gaan Cathal]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

Because in all the canon stories never refer to the ammo as being such. While the AC is often noted as having DU rounds being fired. MGs fire bullets, ACs fire DU rounds, lasers fire megajoules of energy, Gauss use Ferro-Nickle slugs (IIRC)

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

GAU-8[/url] is a
Military weapon, Military definition.

The argument isn't that the GAU is a machine gun, it's not, the argument is that irrespective of the name the TT devs happened to assign this weapon, the logical comparitor is a GAU or Vulcan.


To take a slightl different tack, and his isn't just me being argumentative. Why do you object to the MG being brought more in line with it's TT effectiveness? The AC/2 hasn't drawn massive ire despite a massive buff relative to TT. The MG -can- damage mechs, particularly lights, in TT. And without it lights and most mediums with ballistic slots have no sensible loadouts avaliable to them.

Given the ardent defence of most things canon, I don't understand the exception here. An MG buff is good for the FPS -and- more TT/canon faithful.


Edit - will fix phone-based formatting derp later

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 06 February 2013 - 07:18 AM.

[Sifright]

Kousagi, on 06 February 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

I guess he does not know that everything in BT was based are real world tech that was in use, or being researched...

that would be because none of it was.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

Battle-TECH-LORE-WRITERS.

They had NO military knowledge NONE.
They had NO access to wikipedia.

Regardless of your petty hair splitting over the importance of naming schema

The machine gun in battle tech is SUPPOSED to be a legitimate threat to battle mechs at close range in groups of 4+

THIS is not the case in MWO.

This should not be the way the machine gun operates.

It is currently an utter waste of space. It has no viable use. Crit seeking is ******** and wont help.

Stop splitting hairs over fine definitions which are for real life and not the in game lore when it's patently obvious the game lore bares no resemblance to reality.

can you support that the DVEs of TT had 0 Military knowledge? You know back in the days of BattleTech development we had things like libraries that you could Google information in. took a bit longer to find your information but it was (and still is) there for the finding. as to being a legitimate threat... in a mass MGs are a illegitimate threat, but the 2 most Mechs carried... not a real threat in most cases. 25 years of TT proved that point very succinctly to the majority of players. game lore calls Machine Guns, "Anti Infantry weapons, since you brought it up.

Kousagi, on 06 February 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

Gau-8, is a Cannon. Vulcan is also a cannon. MK-19 is a automatic grenade launcher, not a MG.

The Army does, in fact, disagree with the Marines on this point Kousagi. Thank goodness I was a Marine!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 February 2013 - 07:23 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Jack Corvus, on 06 February 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

Uh, no offense man, but how old are you? Because it sounds like you 'grew up' with the internet and assume that before it, we didn't share knowledge via libraries and encylopedias.

And yet, either those libraries or encyclopedias provided less informational value than Wikipedia, or the Battle-TECH-LORE-WRITERS didn't utilize them sufficiently. Otherwise they would have created more reasonable weapon features. And he suggests that it's possible that something like Wikipedia would have allowed them to access the information easily enough that they wouldn't have omitted doing so.

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.

[KuruptU4Fun]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 February 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

And 500 % of 0.04 damage * 3 means: 0.6 damage.

A typical component has 10 hit points. So it would require about 17 of such impressive triple-crits (likelihood is something about 5 %?) to destroy a component.
Let's say you have 2 Medium Lasers and 1 Double Heat Sink in a hit location. That's 1 crit per laser and 3 per DHS. That means a 20 % chance for hit ML 1, a 20 % chance to hit ML 2, and a 60 % chance to hit the DHS.
Think about how likely it is that you score 17 crits on the ML, and how muich total damage you would have done in the same time to the internal structure.

But you're reference is only 1 bullet. with an MG there are multiple rounds going into the target at a HROF. So your example of 1 bullet causing .04 damage at a 3* crit buff equaling out to a .6 damage means that an ECM (component structure lowered to 3) would get shredded after 5 bullets hit that target with those damage modifiers. So realistically it would take 12-15 bullets to hit that ECM and destroy it if you average out the damage caused.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 06 February 2013 - 07:20 AM.

[Thirdstar]

Kinda getting off topic. What are we arguing about anyway? That MGs should not have any actual usefulness in MWO? Because that's what we're dancing about with the canon argument.

MWO does not have infantry, no soft targets, and certainly no raiding. I.E. the Devs have to make the weapon system do SOMETHING, otherwise why even include it?

[Joseph Mallan]

Gaan Cathal, on 06 February 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

The argument isn't that the GAU is a machine gun, it's not, the argument is that irrespective of the name the TT devs happened to assign this weapon, the logical comparitor is a GAU or Vulcan.


To take a slightl different tack, and his isn't just me being argumentative. Why do you object to the MG being brought more in line with it's TT effectiveness? The AC/2 hasn't drawn massive ire despite a massive buff relative to TT. The MG -can- damage mechs, particularly lights, in TT. And without it lights and most mediums with ballistic slots have no sensible loadouts avaliable to them.

Given the ardent defence of most things canon, I don't understand the exception here. An MG buff is good for the FPS -and- more TT/canon faithful.

Partly because you cannot mount 4 AC2s on 'most' Mechs. partly because ACs use DU shells(in the lore) and MGs are fed bullets. partly because I have seen MGs in action and I have seen Warthogs firing their ACs there is a huge difference between the two. So my inner gamer and inner jarhead are in total agreement on how a MG should work.

I have said I disagree, but if the DEVs make the changes you want I will test them. I think it would be a mistake, but in the end it is their game I am the Beta tester. They make it, I try to break it. I am just giving my opinion and defending it.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Jack Corvus, on 06 February 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

Uh, no offense man, but how old are you? Because it sounds like you 'grew up' with the internet and assume that before it, we didn't share knowledge via libraries and encylopedias.

Lol, or hard line phones to call the companies making said machine gun...

[Joseph Mallan]

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.

Actually sorta. They knew better but if they followed true physics, maps would be the size of a living room not a TT. That was a quote I once read... 2 decades ago.

[Cybermech]

MG's, flamers are being looked at.
would not expect anything soon but its clear that somethings were not right.
but really want them to spend the last while on MG's or the other weapons first?

Edited by Cybermech, 06 February 2013 - 07:27 AM.