443 replies to this topic

[Sifright]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

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

Funny then that so little in the game has anything to do with reality.

[Sir Trent Howell]

Battletech is science fiction. Trying to apply logic to an illogical system is, in itself, illogical.

At the end of the day, machine guns were anti-infantry weapons, not 'Mech killers. Seeing as how there are no infantry in game, there really isn't any point to having anti-infantry weapons.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Has anyone brought up the fact that most bullets fired are solid rounds, and that most cannon rounds have an explosive core?

[Thirdstar]

Sir Trent Howell, on 06 February 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

Battletech is science fiction. Trying to apply logic to an illogical system is, in itself, illogical.

At the end of the day, machine guns were anti-infantry weapons, not 'Mech killers. Seeing as how there are no infantry in game, there really isn't any point to having anti-infantry weapons.

Exactly. There is no point to having MGs in the current game other than HA HA value.

[MustrumRidcully]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

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.

It doesn't work quite like that. The effective damage per second of a MG is 0.4, it's damage per shot is 0.04. A "shot", however, consists of 10 bullets, but these 10 bullets still deal together only 0.04 damage. I don't know if the 10 bullets is just an animation thing, or actually means that the damage is spread across the 10 bullets (for 0.004 damage each), meaning the critical hits would be spread even worse. You fire 1 10-bullet burst that deals 0.04 damage every 0.1 seconds, leading to a total damage per second of 0.4. For my math, I did treat each 10-bullet burst as one single shot.

Confusing? Yeah.

[Sifright]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

MG 2 DAMAGE TT (with an even bigger damage against infantry.)
AC/2 2 DAMAGE TT

in battle tech machine guns are better against enemy mechs than AC/2s

Edited by Sifright, 06 February 2013 - 07:35 AM.

[Thirdstar]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

MG 2 DAMAGE TT (with an even bigger damage against infantry.)
AC/2 2 DAMAGE TT

I understand the frustration mate, but calm down

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

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.

Yeah, that explains ranges of 400m for an auto-cannon, but it doesn't explain why the heavier ammunition has a lower range. I find it even difficult to explain why it's so difficult to target a hit location on a mech. You could develop a game with pin-point precision and still have different hit locations valuable. Imagine the arm having only 1/3 the armour of a center torso - that might be good enough reason to "disarm" a mech instead of blowing him up via a Center Torso kill.

[Kousagi]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

that would be because none of it was.

Umm, every bit of it was... Every single tiny bit. Just cause the weapon ranges were lowered to fit on to a hex board does not mean the tech was not based on real life... Yes, BT rules had some standardization as well to balance things out, but the canon/lore still retains all of the real world use of a weapon.

[Sifright]

Thirdstar, on 06 February 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

I understand the frustration mate, but calm down

why are people so willfully ignorant and stupid?

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

MG 2 DAMAGE TT (with an even bigger damage against infantry.)
AC/2 2 DAMAGE TT

Please remember this when someone quotes TT and you want to dismiss it out of hand cause, "This isn't TT." I'm a TT player willing to ignore the TT rules for a better feel in the MMO. i point out on multiple occassions that Guardian ECM is not working as it is written on TT, and am told, "This isn't TT, L2P." So the shoe is on the other hand and now it's Ok to be just like TT.
differing Opinions are acceptable and expected. how you react to the opposing view, that defines the poster.

[Jack Corvus]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

I find it even difficult to explain why it's so difficult to target a hit location on a mech.

Because mechs are super-maneuverable, something no video game has ever shown. Mechs move like people, not stiff robots, and while I hate to make a graphic comparison like this, shooting at a mech is supposed to be as difficult as firing at a person, a person who will take cover and fire blindly around corners for supression, who is moving their body around a lot, who is a fast moving target that you are trying to strike with a very small round. Tabletop is an abstraction. We're supposed to imagine them moving around, and the die rolls decide the fate. Here, we don't have die rolls, we can aim precisely - but mechs are missing the other half of the equation, their human-like range of motion. Which has created a system where it's very easy to hit just the spot you want if you use a precise weapon.

[Sifright]

Kousagi, on 06 February 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

Umm, every bit of it was... Every single tiny bit. Just cause the weapon ranges were lowered to fit on to a hex board does not mean the tech was not based on real life... Yes, BT rules had some standardization as well to balance things out, but the canon/lore still retains all of the real world use of a weapon.

Heavy bore weapons having less range than smaller bore.

No ability to target things directly.

mechs would be objectively worse than tanks in every way.

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

Please remember this when someone quotes TT and you want to dismiss it out of hand cause, "This isn't TT." I'm a TT player willing to ignore the TT rules for a better feel in the MMO. i point out on multiple occassions that Guardian ECM is not working as it is written on TT, and am told, "This isn't TT, L2P." So the shoe is on the other hand and now it's Ok to be just like TT.
differing Opinions are acceptable and expected. how you react to the opposing view, that defines the poster.

Explain how the hell having machine guns being utterly useless is better for the game?

Can you?

Edited by Sifright, 06 February 2013 - 07:43 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

Yeah, that explains ranges of 400m for an auto-cannon, but it doesn't explain why the heavier ammunition has a lower range. I find it even difficult to explain why it's so difficult to target a hit location on a mech. You could develop a game with pin-point precision and still have different hit locations valuable. Imagine the arm having only 1/3 the armour of a center torso - that might be good enough reason to "disarm" a mech instead of blowing him up via a Center Torso kill.

Nor does it explain how an AC2 and an AC20 CAN have the same mm size but such different performance. But long ago we defined this inconsistency as FASAphysics! and went back to tossing dice and moving puter.

[Thirdstar]

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...

This is quite absurd, i'm sorry.

Lasers don't really work like that in RL.
I have no clue what's the RL parallel to PPCs because the effect described requires space magic.
Missiles in the 1970s had better tracking abilities than those in BT.

Mechs in general are absurd, they should collapse under their own weight without, wait for it, space magic.

There's being a fan, and then there's being bloody silly. Guess which one you're being.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

Heavy bore weapons having less range than smaller bore.

No ability to target things directly.

mechs would be objectively worse than tanks in every way.



Explain how the hell having machine guns being utterly useless is better for the game?

Can you?

One less thing to argue over.
(EDIT)
I misread your quote the first time. It doesn't but since it was always described as being for infantry slaughtering I don't see why we need to make it an anti Mech weapon.

We will just continue to disagree.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 February 2013 - 07:47 AM.

[Kousagi]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

Heavy bore weapons losing range.

No ability to target things directly.

mechs would be objectively worse than tanks in every way.



Explain how the hell having machine guns being utterly useless is better for the game?

Can you?

Did ya know, that the AC size does not mean bore size! crazy idea I know... This is part of the standardization. This was a balancing thing, though this does not mean that the concept of HOW a AC works is not based on real life. As if you didn't know AC's are not single shot weapons, they fire from 4-20+ round bursts. The "size" is only a indication of how much damage they did in in each burst.

There was later rules allowing you to directly target things, I do believe they were level 3 ones though.

Though, you are taking game board rules and saying they are not real world? No ****.. i mean, the world is not turn based game on a hex board.

[Sifright]

Kousagi, on 06 February 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

Did ya know, that the AC size does not mean bore size! crazy idea I know... This is part of the standardization. This was a balancing thing, though this does not mean that the concept of HOW a AC works is not based on real life. As if you didn't know AC's are not single shot weapons, they fire from 4-20+ round bursts. The "size" is only a indication of how much damage they did in in each burst.

There was later rules allowing you to directly target things, I do believe they were level 3 ones though.

Though, you are taking game board rules and saying they are not real world? No ****.. i mean, the world is not turn based game on a hex board.

.....

So you think increasing the number of rounds fired out of a cannon would drop the total range you can shoot?

makes perfect sense would read your post again and not consider you a fanboy at all.

[Critical Fumble]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

Explain how the hell having machine guns being utterly useless is better for the game?

Can you?

Communism!

If we can't get MGs acceptable, and they won't toss some other featherweight ballistic in, can they trade out all but one ballistic hard point on all mechs for an omni point?

[DocBach]

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

we are still in the battletech universe .... a place where machine guns simply are not a good choice against an armored target

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 ...

if you realy dont like to use machine guns in the battletech universe just use something else

THIS, so MUCH THIS. My best friend was the 2nd tank in the Thunder Runs into Baghdad, he said it felt like playing a video game with the cheats on. They were getting shot by hundreds of bullets and they didn't even scratch the paint. Machine guns aren't anti-Mech weapons, and they aren't suppose to be.

Hell, most of the time our MRAP, which was just an armored paddy wagon, was shot by automatic fire we usually didn't even realize it until someone told us "hey you guys just took fire from that alley."

Edited by DocBach, 06 February 2013 - 07:54 AM.