443 replies to this topic

[KuruptU4Fun]

A particle accelerator is a device that uses electromagnetic fields to propel charged particles to high speeds and to contain them in well-defined beams.

A photon is a charged particle correct? So weaponizing it would bring about a photon gun or phaser. The science fiction behind it coming from Star Trek..

[Steven Dixon]

I'm from a military research town (we were largely the ones that designed and built things like the stealth bomber, SR-71, ect) and I can tell you that the military considers almost anything as a potential weapon and some of their programs are sometimes actually somewhat silly and not always practical. But as has been stated particle accelerators have limited military value (except as a stage in developing nuclear weapons) but it wouldn't surprise me if their were several military leaders who read about the Hadron collider and wondered how it could be used to make their country stronger and safer.

[DocBach]

Critical Fumble, on 06 February 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

So, because in the real world conventional infantryman weapons don't do anything to heavily armored vehicles, a weapon that goes by the same name in a science fiction universe shouldn't either? Bearing in mind that this same universe has "long" range missiles that have less reach than a modern sniper.

So is it that you're stuck on the name of the thing, and if they changed that you'd be ok with an effective light ballistic; or do you not follow that they've gimped at least two chassis because of the forced hardpoint mechanic combined with the current MG?

This science fiction universe says that their machine guns are for anti-infantry and light vehicle duty only. I come from a knowledge base that lets me know that machine guns are useless in Battletech because the rules FASA decided to implement regarding them, so they'd most likely be useless in a Mechwarrior game as they aren't intended to be main weapons against other 'Mechs.

"The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers. Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire, though they are more commonly found on Combat Vehicles and ProtoMechs. These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns. Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins." - Sarna.net (I hate using a wiki as a source but I'm at school right now and can't get to the actual books)

I'm not stuck on the name of the thing, I'm stuck on the intended purpose of the equipment.

If we're going to talk about weapons that could use a buff against critical items, why don't they look into making LB10-X pellets more effective against structure? That weapon is supposed to do critical damage to components by the source material, but its largely ineffective here.

[Kousagi]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

A particle accelerator is a device that uses electromagnetic fields to propel charged particles to high speeds and to contain them in well-defined beams.

A photon is a charged particle correct? So weaponizing it would bring about a photon gun or phaser. The science fiction behind it coming from Star Trek..

I did look that up to, and stand corrected on the weapon platform of it... As particle Beams are a reality. So... Particle Accelerators are already weapons.

[Steven Dixon]

DocBach, on 06 February 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

If we're going to talk about weapons that could use a buff against critical items, why don't they look into making LB10-X pellets more effective against structure? That weapon is supposed to do critical damage to components by the source material, but its largely ineffective here.

They are considering it and testing it right now they said, however we don't know what the results of these tests will be and if we will actually see it.

[KuruptU4Fun]

DocBach, on 06 February 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

If we're going to talk about weapons that could use a buff against critical items, why don't they look into making LB10-X pellets more effective against structure? That weapon is supposed to do critical damage to components by the source material, but its largely ineffective here.

They did that a while ago, but the crits are only effective against internal structure.

[Sifright]

DocBach, on 06 February 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

This science fiction universe says that their machine guns are for anti-infantry and light vehicle duty only. I come from a knowledge base that lets me know that machine guns are useless in Battletech because the rules FASA decided to implement regarding them, so they'd most likely be useless in a Mechwarrior game as they aren't intended to be main weapons against other 'Mechs.

"The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers. Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire, though they are more commonly found on Combat Vehicles and ProtoMechs. These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns. Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins." - Sarna.net (I hate using a wiki as a source but I'm at school right now and can't get to the actual books)

I'm not stuck on the name of the thing, I'm stuck on the intended purpose of the equipment.

If we're going to talk about weapons that could use a buff against critical items, why don't they look into making LB10-X pellets more effective against structure? That weapon is supposed to do critical damage to components by the source material, but its largely ineffective here.

then why do machine guns have the same base damage as AC/2s in TT and do MORE against infantry.

Instead of less than an AC2.

[Thirdstar]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

A particle accelerator is a device that uses electromagnetic fields to propel charged particles to high speeds and to contain them in well-defined beams.

A photon is a charged particle correct? So weaponizing it would bring about a photon gun or phaser. The science fiction behind it coming from Star Trek..

I'm being trolled aren't I?

[Kousagi]

Thirdstar, on 06 February 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

I'm being trolled aren't I?

http://www.fas.org/s...14/v3c14-3b.htm

Particle accelerator as a weapon....

edit in: heres a Older source too http://www.airpower....ug/roberds.html

Put out in 84.... pretty much says that particle beam weapon research was started by military types in 58.... so ya...

Edited by Kousagi, 06 February 2013 - 08:56 AM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Steven Dixon, on 06 February 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

I'm from a military research town (we were largely the ones that designed and built things like the stealth bomber, SR-71, ect) and I can tell you that the military considers almost anything as a potential weapon and some of their programs are sometimes actually somewhat silly and not always practical. But as has been stated particle accelerators have limited military value (except as a stage in developing nuclear weapons) but it wouldn't surprise me if their were several military leaders who read about the Hadron collider and wondered how it could be used to make their country stronger and safer.

Want to take a side bet on how many generals tried convincing a politician to fund it? lol

[Sifright]

Thirdstar, on 06 February 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

I'm being trolled aren't I?

i think so.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

then why do machine guns have the same base damage as AC/2s in TT and do MORE against infantry.

Instead of less than an AC2.

The base damage is the same yes, but the difference is in what you're trying to hit. Cannon shells have an explosive charge in them, against a armored mech it creates a big hole in the armor. Against a group of soldiers it detonates underground adding shrapnel to the explosive force of the detonation. on the flip side rifle rounds are solid and designed to go thru targets. Since infantrymen are soft tissue they do just that, but a solid bullet against hardened armor (like depleted uranium armor) our Abrams uses now it does absolutely nothing but make little ping ping noises...

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 06 February 2013 - 08:44 AM.

[DocBach]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

then why do machine guns have the same base damage as AC/2s in TT and do MORE against infantry.

Instead of less than an AC2.

Autocannons are suppose to use HEAP rounds - High Explosive, Armor Piercing. They are made to do damage against armored targets like 'Mechs. Machine guns aren't armor piercing in Battletech - the burst does damage to a 'Mech, just not as much as the round is ineffective against armor. It can do a maximum of six damage against Infantry, to simulate that it loses effectiveness against armored targets.

They balanced AC/2's against machine guns with range and weight - the AC/2 is the longest ranged weapon in the game, yet weighs as much as 12 machine guns.

Edited by DocBach, 06 February 2013 - 08:42 AM.

[EmperorMyrf]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

Yea i'm so worried about how over powered that will be.

Why if i stand still for exactly 25 seconds my cockpit could be taken out!

or if im in an atlas they could take out my center torso in a mere 3 minutes!

Of course one single MG isn't going to do much, but stacking them with little limitations would be lethal with a buff. Some people have been yearning for the MG to be 1 DPS. This means a 20 ton piranha can pull off a DPS of at least 12, which is higher than some heavy mechs, and it can do it with 0 heat buildup.


Obviously I chose a worst case scenario with the piranha, but I'm just saying that any buffs need to be dealt with delicately to prevent possible future abuse.

[Sifright]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

The base damage is the same yes, but the difference is in what you're trying to hit. Cannon shells have an explosive charge in them, against a armored mech it creates a big hole in the armor. Against a group of soldiers it detonates underground adding shrapnel to the explosive force of the detonation.

NO IT ISNT.

IT DOES 2 DAMAGE TO MECHS>

IT DOES MORE TO INFANTRY.

STOP HIDING FROM THAT

[Livewyr]

At it again Abrahms?

Why are you so bad at posting? (number 14? or is it 15 now?)

[Steven Dixon]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Want to take a side bet on how many generals tried convincing a politician to fund it? lol

Or how many succeeding in convincing a politician to fund it, I've seen some really wacky DARPA projects. Reality is seriously stranger than fiction.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

NO IT ISNT.

IT DOES 2 DAMAGE TO MECHS>

IT DOES MORE TO INFANTRY.

STOP HIDING FROM THAT

One why are you yelling?

Two, ever seen a bullet go thru ballistic jelly?


This is what happens when a bullet hits steel plate (aka armor)

[KuruptU4Fun]

Steven Dixon, on 06 February 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Or how many succeeding in convincing a politician to fund it, I've seen some really wacky DARPA projects. Reality is seriously stranger than fiction.

LOL, watch a ST:TNG episode and see how many times they are using a tablet (or a PADD as it's called). Science fiction becomes fact. Now if you're watching several episodes you'll see someone walking around with several tablets. Then ask yourself: "Why would they need to do that?" knowing what our tablets are capable of doing today....

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 06 February 2013 - 09:00 AM.

[ICEFANG13]

Why in the world are we so concerned with real life stuff for MGs? This is not real life, I'd like it to be realistic, but we can't say do this or don't do this because its not 100% realistic.

MGs in TT, I don't know how they work, but why not just make them real weapon systems? Or remove them to not confuse people?

Making MGs 'crit seeking' will not be helpful unless they are insane at it, like the ability to core a mech if the center is exposed in a couple of seconds insane. Otherwise, bring something else.

I noticed something interesting the other day, that I'm sure everyone knows, but perhaps thinks about. 1 MG does as much damage as 10 do, except the 10 do the damage faster (which is better of course), but if you only have 1 ton of ammo, then the 1 MG will do 80 damage over 200 seconds, the 10 will still do 80 damage, just over 20 seconds.

I mean, its obviously terrible and worthless now:
A/C-2: 150 over 37.5 seconds
A/C-5: 150 over ~51 seconds
A/C-10: 150 over 37.5 seconds
A/C-20: 140 over 28 seconds.

I mean come on, this kinda proves that even at double power, the MG would start becoming useful sort of, it would still take twice as long as the worst on the list to deal 160 damage (100 seconds). It needs serious rework, not just buff.

I make a list of reasons and whys we should do more than just crit seek or buff DPS, but at a bare minimum, 1 DPS is needed. Its all in this thread why we should just rework them to be different weapons instead of simple buffs.

http://mwomercs.com/...68#entry1662568