Machine Gun: Why?
#21
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:34 PM
#22
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:35 PM
FupDup, on 19 February 2013 - 02:21 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).
#23
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:36 PM
#24
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:40 PM
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.
#25
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:41 PM
shintakie, on 19 February 2013 - 02:08 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.
#26
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:43 PM
Huntsman, on 19 February 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:
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...
#27
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:43 PM
If someone wants an answer to the question "Why MG?" the most effective answer should be "Because I DAKKA can!".
#28
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:45 PM
Pyrrho, on 19 February 2013 - 02:43 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. 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.
#29
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:50 PM
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.
#30
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:50 PM
*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.
#31
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:52 PM
FupDup, on 19 February 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:
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.
#32
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:56 PM
FupDup, on 19 February 2013 - 02:45 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.
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.
#33
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:56 PM
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.
#34
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:57 PM
Terror Teddy, on 19 February 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:
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:
...
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.
#35
Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:57 PM
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.
#36
Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:00 PM
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?
#38
Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:02 PM
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
#39
Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:03 PM
LogicSol, on 19 February 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:
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?
#40
Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:04 PM
Lonestar1771, on 19 February 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:
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.
11 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 11 guests, 0 anonymous users