443 replies to this topic

[Statixstorm]

the GAU-8 is a 30mm, you are comparing it to the BT MG which is .50 cal. In the BT universe it would fall between the AC2 and AC5, I would consider it a RAC2.

I would love to see the tank that takes a thousand 20mm hits with only "some scratches"

[Sifright]

Statixstorm, on 06 February 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

the GAU-8 is a 30mm, you are comparing it to the BT MG which is .50 cal. In the BT universe it would fall between the AC2 and AC5, I would consider it a RAC2.

I would love to see the tank that takes a thousand 20mm hits with only "some scratches"

no the BT Machine gun is not a blasted .50 cal

CITATION NEEDED PLEASE.

THE GAU-8 IS HALF THE WEIGHT.

[Fooooo]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 February 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

The point was made before, but it may be a point worth making. We'll see what we get.

The latest we heard on the issue was that both a crit buff and a damage buff was in the workings. I am highly skeptical on the crit buff - I am afraid the developers overestimate crits in MW:O. You basically need a 5+ damage in-one-shot weapon to have a decent hope of killing an item, unless the item really occupies a lot of crit slots like the AC/20 (or someone equipped only one item in a section).

snip!........

AFAIK, the crit buff is actually a buff to the DMG on a crit.

Its a new modifier that works for ALL weapons. The modifier relates to how much dmg is caused on a crit, so for the MG if the modifier is set at say 500%, then if the MG rolls a 3x crit it will be (500% of MG dmg X 3 = critdmg or MG dmg X 3 + 500% = critdmg).

AFAIK........ if the 3x roll means 3 crits instead of 1 at 3xdmg then it 500% of MG dmg applied to 3 different components.

Edited by Fooooo, 06 February 2013 - 05:42 AM.

[Thirdstar]

'Crit seeking' is a silly buff and anyone who things it will help with making MGs useful needs to sit down and THINK about the game mechanics.

[Sifright]

Fooooo, on 06 February 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

AFAIK, the crit buff is actually a buff to the DMG on a crit.

Its a new modifier that works for ALL weapons. The modifier relates to how much dmg is caused on a crit, so for the MG if the modifier is set at say 500%, then if the MG rolls a 3x crit it will be (500% of MG dmg X 3 = critdmg).

AFAIK........ if the 3x roll means 3 crits instead of 1 at 3xdmg then it 500% of MG dmg applied to 3 different components.

so it will do an ungodly 0.6 damage split across 3 components? my GOD THE POWER.

Or i could fire another srm 2 and do 5 damage? for a mere half tonne more weight

Thirdstar, on 06 February 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

'Crit seeking' is a silly buff and anyone who things it will help with making MGs useful needs to sit down and THINK about the game mechanics.

Yes, i've never understood that. Maybe if mech internals and armour values were inversed this would be important but once you have a mechs internals open they die in a few seconds any way.

[Tarman]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

so it will do an ungodly 0.6 damage split across 3 components? my GOD THE POWER.

Or i could fire another srm 2 and do 5 damage? for a mere half tonne more weight



Yes, i've never understood that. Maybe if mech internals and armour values were inversed this would be important but once you have a mechs internals open they die in a few seconds any way.

Not from a ballistic hardpoint you're not firing SRMs.

[Fooooo]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

so it will do an ungodly 0.6 damage split across 3 components? my GOD THE POWER.

Or i could fire another srm 2 and do 5 damage? for a mere half tonne more weight



Yes, i've never understood that. Maybe if mech internals and armour values were inversed this would be important but once you have a mechs internals open they die in a few seconds any way.

The 500% was just a number I pulled from thin air, obviously you would adjust it to what makes the MG crits worth it.


However you still have the point you and others have mentioned.

That by the time you get to internals, your better off using an ac/10 or higher dmg weapon anyway as you will clean knockout any component in 1 hit (basically) and also do more dmg to the internal structure in the process. Add to that , that mechs generally don't live long once their CT is at internals and yeah.....


I guess they could make the modifier a negative value for other weapons (and somehow make it apply for internal structure dmg as well) which would mean using MGs kills mechs components + internal structure faster than any other weapon but they are useless on outer armor........

Not sure how many would like that tho.

Edited by Fooooo, 06 February 2013 - 05:51 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Ok, so instead of getting embroiled in the MGs are anti-infantry weapons blah blah blah..... I will just ask this:

How will you buff the MG while still keeping the AC/2 viable?

MG = AC/2 except AC/2 is insta-damage to a single point and MG are DOTs which may or may not keep on target etc.?

[Sifright]

cdlord, on 06 February 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

Ok, so instead of getting embroiled in the MGs are anti-infantry weapons blah blah blah..... I will just ask this:

How will you buff the MG while still keeping the AC/2 viable?

MG = AC/2 except AC/2 is insta-damage to a single point and MG are DOTs which may or may not keep on target etc.?

AC/2 Has much higher range you have more time to jink and move and you keep your accuracy better as you re aim between shots more effectively.

even if the MG was buffed to 1 DPS it wouldn't knock the AC/2s 4dps off the best ac weapon point.

Tarman, on 06 February 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

Not from a ballistic hardpoint you're not firing SRMs.

I don't use mechs that have ballistic hard points if they can't fit at least ac/2s

Why would i ride a crippled horse?

[MustrumRidcully]

Fooooo, on 06 February 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

AFAIK, the crit buff is actually a buff to the DMG on a crit.

Its a new modifier that works for ALL weapons. The modifier relates to how much dmg is caused on a crit, so for the MG if the modifier is set at say 500%, then if the MG rolls a 3x crit it will be (500% of MG dmg X 3 = critdmg).

AFAIK........ if the 3x roll means 3 crits instead of 1 at 3xdmg then it 500% of MG dmg applied to 3 different components.

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.


---

I wonder if the entire crit system wouldn't be better if it was based on generating crits dependent on how much damage a hit location took.

Say, for every 20 % of damage taken, the mech has a chance to suffer a critical (the usual x % for 1 crit, y % for 2 crits, and z % for 3 crits), and lose a component (no component hit points). "Crit-Seeking" weapons would not actually gain any special benefits for the crits, just deal more damage against internal structure.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 February 2013 - 06:03 AM.

[Tarman]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

AC/2 Has much higher range you have more time to jink and move and you keep your accuracy better as you re aim between shots more effectively.

even if the MG was buffed to 1 DPS it wouldn't knock the AC/2s 4dps off the best ac weapon point.



I don't use mechs that have ballistic hard points if they can't fit at least ac/2s

Why would i ride a crippled horse?

Sounded like you were on a different tack than you are, nm.


Whatever they do to the MG, it needs to be something. High critter, moar DPS, anything at all that would make it have a reason to live. There needs to be a viable small-weight ballistic under the AC2. Missiles and energy have their cheap slot-fillers but as you say the AC2 is the lightest viable ballistic, it's still 7t with a single stack of ammo. Not really a backup weapon.

[Terror Teddy]

pistolero, on 06 February 2013 - 03:20 AM, said:

but if you like " real world" examples so much ... imagine to fire a . 50 cal heavy machine gun on a modern day battle tank
the only result will be funny "pling" and "plong" noises ...

Well, the only reason MG's do ANY damage in the BT universe is because everyone suddenly decided that ablative armor was the thing to use.

MG's just shave off those layers of onion armor a tad bit slower.

[Sifright]

Terror Teddy, on 06 February 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

Well, the only reason MG's do ANY damage in the BT universe is because everyone suddenly decided that ablative armor was the thing to use.

MG's just shave off those layers of onion armor a tad bit slower.

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.

[Jack Corvus]

These threads always get weird as soon as someone starts using real world examples. BattleTech isn't the real world. It's a game. The novels try to be realistic, but the game is intentionally not - ranges are short to make things playable. Damage is a simplification in order that the effort of playing not become too bogged down by ultra-fine detail.

Also, stop comparing anti-vehicle rotary cannons to machine guns. That's just being deliberately ridiculous.

[Gaan Cathal]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 05:37 AM, said:

I still don't think MGs should get a damage buff. They are not using DU ammo that ACs do. Now if the DEVs buff them I will test my armor against them and report my findings.

Why assume it doesn't use DU? An AC/2 does and that is just as effective against mechs, per canon.

And r.e the 50 cal comments, almost half the examples in Sarna are 20mm MGs.

[The Mecha Streisand]

Kanatta Jing, on 06 February 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

Word is that the Machine Gun will soon have the magical ability to destroy internal components bypassing armor.

Meaning that Spider's will soon be out in force looking for people who have hidden their ammo in their legs.

We'll have to start using CASE. It's terrible.

The ONLY way I'd hangar the Raven for a Spider again. That 4xMG Spider was kinda fun, even if it did like ZERO damage per hour with all four guns blazin' on target...

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

THE GAU-8 IS HALF THE WEIGHT.

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)

[The Mecha Streisand]

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

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

More like 11 times or so. And an M-2 .50 caliber MG can ring an M-113's bell at 1,800 meters. Just sayin'...

Edited by 30plusRAbbi, 06 February 2013 - 06:42 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

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)

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.

[Joseph Mallan]

Gaan Cathal, on 06 February 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Why assume it doesn't use DU? An AC/2 does and that is just as effective against mechs, per canon.

And r.e the 50 cal comments, almost half the examples in Sarna are 20mm MGs.

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)