443 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

You know. there are rules on TT for firing your MG at a much higher rate of fire. It will generate heat and chew threw ammo like a Rottie through rawhide but it is an optional rule.

We only got one option in MWO though so gotta go through it on a per bullet basis......

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

Than wouldn't it be wiser to argue for a reduction of armor values across the board? maybe 1/4th or 1/5th?

Except they already buffed the armor, doubt they'll nerf it. If they want to take it back to TT values, I'm good with that. Fear my AC/20!

[Thirdstar]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 February 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

No. A photon has no charge. A weaponized photon emitter would be a very fancy device. One could call it Laser, if you want to.

Charged particles are things like electrons and protons. Trying to accelerate them to sufficient speed that they can destroy armored objects is - maybe not futile, but kinda pointless. THere are better things and methods to accelerate things to destructive speeds. We have made good experience with using explosives (starting with gunpowder), the future may be rail guns. There are interesting prototypes in existence right now, though they still have severe issues.

Amazed that you had the patience to reply to that. I just facedesked really hard.

[Sifright]

Thirdstar, on 06 February 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

Amazed that you had the patience to reply to that. I just facedesked really hard.

Like i said man Korupt is totally trolling.

[Gaan Cathal]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 February 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Charged particles are things like electrons and protons. Trying to accelerate them to sufficient speed that they can destroy armored objects is - maybe not futile, but kinda pointless. THere are better things and methods to accelerate things to destructive speeds. We have made good experience with using explosives (starting with gunpowder), the future may be rail guns. There are interesting prototypes in existence right now, though they still have severe issues.

Going completely off topic, but the nature of charged particle beam interactions would suggest that a weaponised version would, along with requiring a small sun to power it, probably kill the crew of any armoured vehicle well before causing appreciable damage to the vehicle itself.

[anonymous175]

They can buff MGs when there are little infantry dudes shooting missile launchers at us in jeeps GDL style.

[Sifright]

Zeno Scarborough, on 06 February 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

They can buff MGs when there are little infantry dudes shooting missile launchers at us in jeeps GDL style.

Man you aren't even a gold and you are suffering golditus.

Truly it is a most infectious disease I'm amazed by the golds that seem to have survived the infection with their minds intact, so few come out with their intellects intact

[anonymous175]

Sifright, on 06 February 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

Man you aren't even a gold and you are suffering golditus.

Truly it is a most infectious disease I'm amazed by the golds that seem to have survived the infection with their minds intact, so few come out with their intellects intact

And you aren't Basic Orange enough to pull off Vassago Rain.

But keep up the good fight.

[Sifright]

Quote

Models

The Machine Gun is manufactured on the following planets:
Brand Planet Company
Gatling Gun 20mm Ares Quikscell Company
Gatling Gun 20mm Layover Quikscell Company
Gatling Gun 20mm Kalidasa Quikscell Company
Gatling Gun 20mm Gallery Quikscell Company
Armstrong MiniGun Ramora United Outworlders Corporation
Blackwell B75 Outreach Blackwell Heavy Industries
Bulldog Minigun Ingersoll Bulldog Enterprises
Bulldog Minigun Proserpina Bulldog Enterprises
Double-Gun New Avalon Achernar BattleMechs
Coventry Light Autogun Coventry Coventry Metal Works
GM MiniGun Salem General Motors
Johnston MiniGun New Syrtis Johnston Industries

Hey look guys it turns out the machine gun in MWO is actually a 20mm gattiling gun! who knew!?

stjobe, on 06 February 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Funny thing about the GAU-8, it weighs about half a ton for just the gun, and about 1.5 tons for the fully loaded complete weapon system. Its shells weigh about half a kg - which would mean 2000 to the ton.



Either way, I think we can safely say that the 500kg, 2000 rounds per ton BattleTech MG is a far cry from a M249.

Edit: Oh, and to buff the MG - just triple its damage. It'll instantly make it a viable light 'mech weapon, and a good backup weapon for larger 'mechs. It'll put it ahead of the Small Laser in theoretical DPS, but its short range, ammo dependency, risk of ammo explosion, and continuous-fire mechanic would put it roughly on par with the Small Laser in practice.

[stjobe]

To everyone citing real-life machine guns not affecting real-life tank armour:
BattleTech 'mech armour is ablative. There's no such thing as ablative armour in real-life.
BattleTech Machine Guns weigh 500 kg. There's no such thing as a 500 kg machine gun in real-life.
BattleTech Machine Guns to 2 points of damage to a 'mech. There's no such thing as a 'mech in real-life.
BattleTech AC/2s also do 2 points of damage to a 'mech. There's no such thing as arguing one is true to lore and the other not.

Either you accept that the BattleTech Machine Gun does as much damage to a 'mech as the AC/2, and should therefore do that in MWO as well, or you're simply dishonest for whatever reason.

AC/2 = 2 damage per BT round.
MG = 2 damage per BT round.

There's no getting around this cold, hard fact. No amount of real-life experience with M249s or 120mm smoothbore Rheinmetall guns, or even GAU-8s will alter this simple fact, no amount of discourse around depleted uranium shells or whether a shell is a bullet or a bullet a shell will alter this simple fact. No amount of hand-waving, ear-covering, shouting of "but it SAYS quintessential!" will alter this simple fact:

MGs do 2 damage per round to a 'mech in BattleTech.

[Sifright]

stjobe, on 06 February 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

To everyone citing real-life machine guns not affecting real-life tank armour:
BattleTech 'mech armour is ablative. There's no such thing as ablative armour in real-life.
BattleTech Machine Guns weigh 500 kg. There's no such thing as a 500 kg machine gun in real-life.
BattleTech Machine Guns to 2 points of damage to a 'mech. There's no such thing as a 'mech in real-life.
BattleTech AC/2s also do 2 points of damage to a 'mech. There's no such thing as arguing one is true to lore and the other not.

Either you accept that the BattleTech Machine Gun does as much damage to a 'mech as the AC/2, and should therefore do that in MWO as well, or you're simply dishonest for whatever reason.

AC/2 = 2 damage per BT round.
MG = 2 damage per BT round.

There's no getting around this cold, hard fact. No amount of real-life experience with M249s or 120mm smoothbore Rheinmetall guns, or even GAU-8s will alter this simple fact, no amount of discourse around depleted uranium shells or whether a shell is a bullet or a bullet a shell will alter this simple fact. No amount of hand-waving, ear-covering, shouting of "but it SAYS quintessential!" will alter this simple fact:

MGs do 2 damage per round to a 'mech in BattleTech.

+1 billion

[Kousagi]

stjobe, on 06 February 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

To everyone citing real-life machine guns not affecting real-life tank armour:
BattleTech 'mech armour is ablative. There's no such thing as ablative armour in real-life.
BattleTech Machine Guns weigh 500 kg. There's no such thing as a 500 kg machine gun in real-life.
BattleTech Machine Guns to 2 points of damage to a 'mech. There's no such thing as a 'mech in real-life.
BattleTech AC/2s also do 2 points of damage to a 'mech. There's no such thing as arguing one is true to lore and the other not.

Either you accept that the BattleTech Machine Gun does as much damage to a 'mech as the AC/2, and should therefore do that in MWO as well, or you're simply dishonest for whatever reason.

AC/2 = 2 damage per BT round.
MG = 2 damage per BT round.

There's no getting around this cold, hard fact. No amount of real-life experience with M249s or 120mm smoothbore Rheinmetall guns, or even GAU-8s will alter this simple fact, no amount of discourse around depleted uranium shells or whether a shell is a bullet or a bullet a shell will alter this simple fact. No amount of hand-waving, ear-covering, shouting of "but it SAYS quintessential!" will alter this simple fact:

MGs do 2 damage per round to a 'mech in BattleTech.

Funny bit then, is that In MWO the MG is not far off its target from TT. With every weapons rate of fire dropped to roughtly 1/3, the MG's is at 1/2. Now I don't have the Arena rules from which they based our rate of fires on, so can't tell ya what the official TT rules are on that. Though the MG's still do their full 2 damage in 5 sec's time frame.

Edited by Kousagi, 06 February 2013 - 02:27 PM.

[Training Instructor]

Either remove machine guns or make them useful. At this point you're just begging newer players to equip them thinking they make a difference.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 06 February 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

To everyone citing real-life machine guns not affecting real-life tank armour:
BattleTech 'mech armour is ablative. There's no such thing as ablative armour in real-life.
BattleTech Machine Guns weigh 500 kg. There's no such thing as a 500 kg machine gun in real-life.
BattleTech Machine Guns to 2 points of damage to a 'mech. There's no such thing as a 'mech in real-life.
BattleTech AC/2s also do 2 points of damage to a 'mech. There's no such thing as arguing one is true to lore and the other not.

Either you accept that the BattleTech Machine Gun does as much damage to a 'mech as the AC/2, and should therefore do that in MWO as well, or you're simply dishonest for whatever reason.

AC/2 = 2 damage per BT round.
MG = 2 damage per BT round.

There's no getting around this cold, hard fact. No amount of real-life experience with M249s or 120mm smoothbore Rheinmetall guns, or even GAU-8s will alter this simple fact, no amount of discourse around depleted uranium shells or whether a shell is a bullet or a bullet a shell will alter this simple fact. No amount of hand-waving, ear-covering, shouting of "but it SAYS quintessential!" will alter this simple fact:

MGs do 2 damage per round to a 'mech in BattleTech.

And as so many MW gamers type in Caps when a TT player utter those words... this isn't BattleTech

[Ashnod]

cdlord, on 06 February 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

NOT a machinegun..... More equivalent to a RAC/2.....

No that's about a machine gun from BT they use 50 cals and mini guns as well as Vulcan cannons in the MG spot

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

And as so many MW gamers type in Caps when a TT player utter those words... this isn't BattleTech

Mechwarrior is part of the battletech universe

[Trauglodyte]

In the grand scheme of TT, would it have made sense to make it do 1 point, thereby making it do less damage than the AC/2? No, it would not because then it would be less viable than the Flamer and the Small Laser and making it a completely terrible and unwanted weapon. Some people, and Joseph Malan is one of them (he's said it several times), that he pulled MGs and Flamers off of every one of his mechs because they were, in his mind, useless and that was dead weight that could have been used for something else. In truth, that is correct because you'd need to spend 1.5 tons and 2 criticals to do less damage than a Small Laser with the same range while risking a 400 point ammo explosion. Unless you were playing a situation where infantry were involved, there is no reason to bring a MG on a mech in TT because the threat was much greater than the benefit. I love the Warhammer like all get out but the MGs came off every time, bar none.

Secondly, let's stop trying to bring real life into the table top and virtual realities of BattleTech. A lot of people are making while analogies and they're all really really bad. The computers and cellular systems conceived and built at the end of WWII are WAY out of date compared to what we have on our phones. How do you think that would, therefor, translate to a walking 100 ton Mech? On top of that, let's stop with the whole terminology issue with Machine Guns, Auto Cannons, and Gatling Weapons because, again, a lot of you are way freaking wrong.

Gatling Gun http://en.wikipedia....iki/Gatling_gun

It was essentially 6 long rifles, used by Civil War soldiers mind you, with a self contained cartridge in a magazine fed breach system. It had to rotate rifles to keep heat and melting down as well as to discharge the casings. IT was the forefront of the machine gun. Now, fast forward a few years to the

Maxim Gun http://en.wikipedia....xim_machine_gun

The term "machine" was used because it was the first rotating rifle based weapon that did not utilize human power to load, fire, and clear a shell. This is all done by way of using the pressure expelled from the case to move the inner workings to eject the shell and then load another. In other words, pull the trigger and it fires.

Chain Gun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_gun

A Chain Gun is just a machine gun or auto cannon that uses mechanized workings to expel and reload shells as opposed to internal pressure.

Now then, looking at the definition, we are now forced to define Machine Gun and Auto Cannon. So, here: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Autocannon

The thing to zero in on is not so much the size of the projectile (that is important) but rather the nature of the projectile. Guns - I can hear my Drill Sergeant yelling at me and making me do pushups for typing that - fire small size solid core shells with the intent of harming and killing personnel. By way of the Geneva Conventions, it is strictly prohibited to fire a weapon of a certain size or greater against people. Its why a lot of older veterans joke about .50cals and not shooting the man but shooting his equipment (a lot like to say that they zeroed in on their belt buckles). The cannon and auto cannon, on the other hand, fire much larger size shells with enhanced cores by way of explosives, HEAT, depleted uranium, etc. Furthermore, auto cannons can take advantage of sabot rounds http://en.wikipedia....iki/Sabot_round to enhance their penetration capabilities.

Taking all of that into account and the fact that I truly love the BT machine gun and REALLY want its damage boosted, we are not firing HEAT, DU, Scatter, or Sabot rounds from our weapons at infantry. And while I said "infantry", the MG is a dual purpose weapon designed first to kill grunts and to chip away at mechs second. I have no problem with that BUT I do have an issue with doing 0.4 damage per second with sustained fire by way of a weapon that doesn't even work with a full ballistic extended range (MGs end at 200m instead of the 270 that it should have).

So, with all of that on the table, can the pro-MG damage and pro-Infantry weapon people tell me that we cannot meet in the middle and come up with a system by which we can do reasonable damage to armor and then improved damage to internals? Nobody is asking for the 1dps of a Small Lasear or the 4dps of the AC/2. In my mind, it would work just fine doing the following:

0.075 damage per round, 10 rounds per second = 0.75dps
0.15 damage per round, 10 rounds per second = 1.5dps to internals

Doing the above puts the MG at the ballistic balance of 150 damage per ton of ammor (200 rounds x 0.75 = 150), increases the damage by way of making it somewhat reasonable to everyone, and achieves the PGI desire of making it deadlier when armor is gone. Can anyone that reads this tell me that is a horrible horrible idea?

Edited by Trauglodyte, 06 February 2013 - 02:48 PM.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

And as so many MW gamers type in Caps when a TT player utter those words... this isn't BattleTech

I knew someone would come up with that cheap quip. Kind of disappointed it was you Joe, since you seem like a decent poster apart from your irrational aversion to a viable MG in MWO.

[Ashnod]

@traug

In TT though machine guns do no heat for damage or if you set it to rapid fire it can out damage the small laser for a sum of heat

[stjobe]

Trauglodyte, on 06 February 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

Can anyone that reads this tell me that is a horrible horrible idea?

I can. It's too weak a buff to make the MG viable.

Everyone keeps focusing on the DPS of the MG and how it cannot for any reason whatsoever be greater than the Small Laser.

Nobody seems to care or take into consideration the nature of the delivery mechanic of the MG. The MG is unique in MWO in that it's a continuous-fire weapon, dealing its damage in miniscule increments, and needing 100% time-on-target to do its full DPS.

Compare it to the Small Laser. 3 damage over 0.75 seconds, 2.25 seconds cooldown after that, resulting in a DPS of 1.

Now imagine a 1 DPS MG. It would need to be held on-target for the full 3 seconds to do the same damage as a Small Laser does in 0.75 seconds. No twisting your torso away to spread incoming damage, no maneuvering for a better shot angle; you need to be on-target for every tenth of a second during those three seconds to match the Small Laser's DPS. And you will STILL spread your damage all over the target, whereas the Small Laser due to its shorter time-on-target doesn't spread anywhere close to as much.

This is partly why I argue that the easiest, simplest, and most effective method to make the MG a viable light-weight ballistic alternative is to just triple its damage. Yes, it will put it above the Small Laser in theoretical DPS, but it has enough drawbacks to justify it: shorter range, ammo dependency, risk of ammo explosion, and its continuous-fire mechanic.

Also, there is no current or planned 'mech that has more than four ballistic hardpoints, so there's no boating them. The Piranha is a broken design and will never see the light of MWO.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 06 February 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

I knew someone would come up with that cheap quip. Kind of disappointed it was you Joe, since you seem like a decent poster apart from your irrational aversion to a viable MG in MWO.

Yeah...I know. I felt both dirty and vindicated doing it... Sorry

Does that count for something or should I cry cause we don't agree on this topic still?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 February 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[Kousagi]

So, found Solaris rule book. Basically, by Mechwarrior RPG rules ( theres a note in it that they can be adapted to Battletech as level 3 rules if the GM so wishs) that each round is 2.5 seconds. MG's are one of the weapons that can fire every round, but so are small lasers.

So going by that, in MWO, small lasers had their "round" bumped to 3 seconds. So long as the MG is brought in around this same level, it should be fine. So with a damage buff to .066 per bullet its at 3 secs for 2 damage, or .08 per bullet for 2 damage in 2.5 secs.