96 replies to this topic

[Indk]

Yeah lets ditch anything thats remotely interesting and just base everything off DPS that should be fun.

[Ialti]

FupDup, on 19 February 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

Even if we had infantry in MWO, machine guns would still be utter garbage. This is because we could just click-and-drag a single small or medium laser over an entire platoon of infantry and murder most of the gits in a single shot. Unless all non-MG weapons did next to zero damage against infantry, MGs as an anti-infantry weapon would be just as dumb as ever because a small/medium laser could do the same thing for less tonnage + more range + deal respectable damage to mechs (at the cost of a minute amount of heat generation).

Except that MG are cheaper to build, easier to equip, lighter, and that infantry can possibly be armored against lasers without being armored against bullets (the reverse is also true, but the MG is still situationally useful).

[Lonestar1771]

All of the ballistic weapons, with the exception of the Gauss, feel like PGI **** all over them.

[FupDup]

Ialti, on 19 February 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

Except that MG are cheaper to build, easier to equip, lighter, and that infantry can possibly be armored against lasers without being armored against bullets (the reverse is also true, but the MG is still situationally useful).

MG = 0.5 tons
MG ammo = 1 ton
MG + ammo = 1.5 tons (medium laser is 1)

The cost difference is pretty negligible, I mean who can't afford a medium (or even small) laser? Plus, you usually get at least one by default with most chassis. I dunno how they're easier to equip, just drag-and-drop into a hardpoint for any weapon in the game. In terms of usage, I'd say the ML is easier because it hits the target instantly (MG has projectile travel time, both need to be held over the target for some time). The ML's thick beam lets you "walk" it to your target easier than the small tracers of the MG, making it a little easier to aim.

The infantry's laser-reflective armor would need to be very obnoxiously, unrealistically thick and resilient to make an ML less effective against them than an MG.

Edited by FupDup, 19 February 2013 - 02:41 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

shintakie, on 19 February 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

At best they're a way to troll your own team by reducin salvage rewards if you win.

You can't destroy a mech without destroying an internal component. If an enemy mech is stripped down with their internals exposed, the MG becomes more lethal.

I think people are missing the entire point of MGs; they are not designed to be primary weapons. They are an weight-efficient way to harass your enemy and distract them while you put them down with heavier weapons. With this new patch, they now they have the added benefit of actually being a threat against critically damaged mechs with exposed internals.

[De La Fresniere]

Huntsman, on 19 February 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

While the devs intended solution for the machine gun has been known for some time...well, its finally upon us. It makes the weapon viable only as a tonnage-cheap add-on to already effective brawlers, while mechs that were pure garbage because they are light and the lionshare of their hardpoints are ballistic, such as the Cicada 3C and the Spider 5K, are still trash.

Not to mention how terribly unhelpful is it to have a weapon only become useful when the target is already half dead.

Why this convoluted crit system? Some misguided attempt to stick to TT rules in a spot where it's not workable to do so? Just ditch this crit garbage and buff the damage of the machine gun for crying out loud?

What I'm annoyed about is that they went *way* out of their way to make it a good crit weapon, just to match TT... but didn't bother to make it a quarter decent against armor. It's supposed to be 2/3 as good as a Small Laser!

Ah well...

[Pyrrho]

So we're going to now go full-theoretical and make assumptions about how the non-existant infantray would fare between a MG and a ML? Here is a nit. Let's pick it.

If someone wants an answer to the question "Why MG?" the most effective answer should be "Because I DAKKA can!".

[FupDup]

Pyrrho, on 19 February 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

So we're going to now go full-theoretical and make assumptions about how the non-existant infantray would fare between a MG and a ML? Here is a nit. Let's pick it.

The reason it's coming up is because some people want MGs to be only good against infantry. I am trying to show that such a notion still leaves them kinda useless to our current click-and-drag lasers unless infantry were ridonkulously resistant to lasers. It's all just to expose the flaw in the logic being used. Anti-infantry-only MGs simply would have no place on the battlefield of MWO even if infantry were in the game.

Edited by FupDup, 19 February 2013 - 02:50 PM.

[LogicSol]

De La Fresniere, on 19 February 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

What I'm annoyed about is that they went *way* out of their way to make it a good crit weapon, just to match TT... but didn't bother to make it a quarter decent against armor. It's supposed to be 2/3 as good as a Small Laser!

Ah well...

Actually I'm pretty sure they went "out of their way" to match them saying the MG will be a good crit weapon several months ago. Considering that they said MG would be good for crits, terrible for armor.

[danust]

Two Spiders just tore me up with MG's. They will destroy.

*I had damage already and Betty kept announcing critical damage as my weapons went down one by one. Then a Phract showed up and finished me.

Edited by Leedair, 21 February 2013 - 12:39 PM.

[Terror Teddy]

FupDup, on 19 February 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

MG = 0.5 tons
MG ammo = 1 ton

Sure, the small laser dont need ammo but lets comare them with what they do need:

X2 MG+1 Tonne Ammo=2 Tonnes
X2 SL+1 Heat Sink=2 Tonnes

SL has infinite ammo while the MG's can share ammo and have crit bonus and can fire constatly until running dry with extra crit bonus.

These are weapons designed for the kill supporters who sneak in while the big boys are brawling to cover the enemy chassis in lead that MIGHT take out something vital.

After all, X4 MG's on my spider with 1 tonne of ammo is only 3 Tonnes

Also, the discussion IF MG's could do damage on armor is kinda redundant since eveything use ablative armor.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 19 February 2013 - 02:54 PM.

[Pyrrho]

FupDup, on 19 February 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

The reason it's coming up is because some people want MGs to be only good against infantry. I am trying to show that such a notion still leaves them kinda useless to our current click-and-drag lasers unless infantry were ridonkulously resistant to lasers. Anti-infantry-only MGs simply have no place on the battlefield of MWO even if infantry were in the game.

Just a quick point of reference: MG is not (nor has it ever been) an anti-infantry-only weapon. I have made 'mechs explode with them. We can get into this whole quintessential versus dedicated debate again, but it has been done and re-done.

http://mwomercs.com/...ff/page__st__60

Some required reading:

quin·tes·sen·tial

/ˌkwintəˈsenCHəl/
Adjective
Representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class: "the quintessential anti-infantry weapon".

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

[Lonestar1771]

Bhael Fire, on 19 February 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

I think people are missing the entire point of MGs; they are not designed to be primary weapons. They are an weight-efficient way to harass your enemy and distract them while you put them down with heavier weapons. With this new patch, they now they have the added benefit of actually being a threat against critically damaged mechs with exposed internals.

I think you are missing the point.... How do MGs distract any one any better than say, a ML or MPL? Not to mention you have to get with in 90m to "distract and harrass". Nobody is looking for them to be primary weapons, they just want them to be USEFUL.

[FupDup]

Terror Teddy, on 19 February 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

Sure, the small laser dont need ammo but lets comare them with what they do need:

X2 MG+1 Tonne Ammo=2 Tonnes
X2 SL+1 Heat Sink=2 Tonnes

SL has infinite ammo while the MG's can share ammo and have crit bonus and can fire constatly until running dry with extra crit bonus.

These are weapons designed for the kill supporters who sneak in while the big boys are brawling to cover the enemy chassis in lead that MIGHT take out something vital.

After all, X4 MG's on my spider with 1 tonne of ammo is only 3 Tonnes

An SL is relatively heat-neutral, meaning than equipping a SHS might not even be necessary...especially if you get the DHS upgrade. Lasers are also just as good if not better at kill-supporting for sneaky mechs (I'm a career Raven pilot so I know).

Pyrrho, on 19 February 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

Just a quick point of reference: MG is not (nor has it ever been) an anti-infantry-only weapon. I have made 'mechs explode with them. We can get into this whole quintessential versus dedicated debate again, but it has been done and re-done.
...
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

I see what our issue is. I forgot to mention that I don't like MGs being useless against mechs. I was merely arguing against those folks that do believe in anti-infantry-only MGs. I completely agree with you in this area.

Edited by FupDup, 19 February 2013 - 02:59 PM.

[Pyrrho]

Lonestar1771, on 19 February 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

I think you are missing the point.... How do MGs distract any one any better than say, a ML or MPL? Not to mention you have to get with in 90m to "distract and harrass". Nobody is looking for them to be primary weapons, they just want them to be USEFUL.

90m != 200m, max effective range. So, you can be pelting people with sand from outside of an ECM bubble.

[shintakie]

Bhael Fire, on 19 February 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

You can't destroy a mech without destroying an internal component. If an enemy mech is stripped down with their internals exposed, the MG becomes more lethal.

I think people are missing the entire point of MGs; they are not designed to be primary weapons. They are an weight-efficient way to harass your enemy and distract them while you put them down with heavier weapons. With this new patch, they now they have the added benefit of actually being a threat against critically damaged mechs with exposed internals.

Small lasers aren't considered primary weapons either, but you can use them as primary weapons quite effectively in MWO. Why can't machine guns, which weigh the same, do the same as well?

[Lonestar1771]

Pyrrho, on 19 February 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

90m != 200m, max effective range. So, you can be pelting people with sand from outside of an ECM bubble.

Still missing the point.

[Pyrrho]

I am glad we got that straightened out. I am still perplexed how something that is perceived as so useless can instill such vigor and debate. If they are so useless, snicker to yourself and move on. Ignore me!

PS: Seriously, FupDup, thanks for clarification. I didn't mean to use the royal "We" to mean that we are getting into a debate right now

[De La Fresniere]

LogicSol, on 19 February 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Actually I'm pretty sure they went "out of their way" to match them saying the MG will be a good crit weapon several months ago. Considering that they said MG would be good for crits, terrible for armor.

I know that's what they said, but I can only guess at what inspired that particular choice. The crit thing is from BT, the "bad against armor"... invented?

[Pyrrho]

Lonestar1771, on 19 February 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Still missing the point.

You may be, but not everyone is situationally aware of what is going on. When the LRM boat in the backfield starts taking rear damage, and they don't realize from what or why, they **may stop shooting LRMs. This is harrasment. It is done by MGs sometimes. It isn't that they do it any better or worse, it is that they do it. If you love lasers then use them. There should be no need to hem and haw about something that someone else chose that you wouldn't have.

Edited by Pyrrho, 19 February 2013 - 03:05 PM.