12 replies to this topic

[Nothing Whatsoever]

After taking another look at how ranges were used in the table top game, I got to wondering if MWO should simply make weapons as realistic as possible, since we are using the Cryengine. We're really close with how most weapons feel, but we still have enough issues that need to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

So, considering that the original BT ranges were more for calculating the accuracy of the weapons at different distances, more so than listing their actual effective ranges against targets, I figured why not tweak weapon ranges along with tweaking/removing damage drop-off?

Ballistic Weapons

The idea here, that can sound controversial at first, is removing or reducing range limits and damage drop-off to have damage dealing in line with player use as the devs have mentioned in the past. On the one hand ballistics weapons are more realistic, and dealing damage is down to player skill and experience.

The elements that can be used to balance them besides range and using damage drop-off, would still be:

Projectile Speed
Rate of Fire
Projectile drop over Range
Damage per Projectile
Ammo per Ton
and Heat.

So leaving damage dealt to the player's ability to hit and not also to what preset range starts to decrease damage also places Clan Ballistics on a better playing field with IS weapons, since it will be about how the player uses the weapon than how the drop-off in damage is setup.

For example, if a player can still hit a Spider moving away at ~145 kph at about 540+ M with the 650m/s projectile speed change, shouldn't that skill be rewarded (assuming the hit registered)?

---

Energy Weapons: Lasers

With Lasers being hit-scan, these can retain a measure of damage drop-off after a certain extended range, but that range could also be extended uniformly for the types of lasers they are, be they

Regular Laser (could set the standard range at 450, for example),
ER Laser (standard range at 675)
or Pulse Laser (at 360)

And these standard ranges could potentially be the same regardless of if the weapon is IS or Clan, with the optics, damage, heat and beam length being the bigger differences between the laser being Large, Medium or Small.

So from there, lasers (for both IS and Clan) could do their full damage up to the standard effective ranges with drop-off at their 2x range: 900, 1350, 720, for example, with the other main differences then being damage, beam duration, cooldown and heat. So the variables to balance both IS and Clan can be:

Beam duration
Cooldown between beams
Heat
and Range before seeing damage drop off

---

Energy Weapons: PPCs

As for PPCs and ERPPCs, heat has helped them keep their flavor, and allowing them to be as effective as what the player can hit should be enough with removing their max range for damage fall-off and keeping their existing ranges.

So PPCs and ERPPCs would have as their main elements to balance:

Projectile Speed
Rate of Fire
and Heat

---

Missile Weapons

As for range, missiles should fly until they impact something, removing their air-burst at 270 M, 360 M and 1000 M.

So the variables to balance them will still be with:

Projectile Speed
Flight Paths
Missile Pattern (Rippling)
Ammo/Damage per Ton
and Min Range.

An alternative system for LRMs than current setup, is having missiles track to the crosshair / reticle during the flight until impact. With a speed increase, they should then not be as affected by ECM as they currently are. Then have Lock-On occur under specific circumstances such as on a TAG'ged or NARC'd Target, when the LRM user does not have a line of sight.

SSRMs could be where there would be a max range value maintained, along with the requirement to lock on simply to conserve ammo.

---

An Idea regarding Aiming differences between IS and Clan zoom

Regardless of any changes to weapon ranges, I thought that another way to have Clan weapons be able hit at further distances than IS weapons, is to provide them with better zoom options than IS mechs.
That way IS mechs can stay with x2 and x3, then the Advanced Zoom for x4.
Therefore Clan mechs could have x3, x5 and a special module for x6 or x7 to help hit at longer range than IS.

---

So, let me know what you think about the ideas on rethinking how range is used, and tweaking damage drop-off to ideally make the game more balanced, realistic and hopefully help lay a better foundation for trying to balance Clan Tech when it arrives; than trying to use the BT range charts that have more to do with accuracy than their potential effective range.

Edit: cleaning up post

Edited by Praetor Knight, 16 July 2015 - 05:02 PM.

[Skyfaller]

Imo, the 'redesign' should be:

Lasers:

Increased crit chance by making every damage 'packet' have its own chance to crit. In short, almost like a machine gun's chance to crit per bullet.

Otherwise the lasers are fine as they are now.

This change makes lasers very useful due to their innate nature to criss-cross a target when its fired... adding increased chances to crit gives some bite to a weapon that currently woefully underperforming compared to the other weapon types.

Ballistics:

Ballistics must lose their poinpoint front loaded (this means full damage applied instantly upon impact) damage capability. It is extremely unbalancing considering that missiles and lasers literally are 'cone spread' damage weapons.

In TT there is no such thing as pinpoint damage unless you had a very special targeting computer which took time to aim and fire...and even then it was subject to random hit location (but narrowed).

This can be achieved by EITHER of these 2 ways:

1- Change AC fire from front-loaded to burst fire. This means that instead of firing one bullet that does 20 damage (in the case of the AC20) it fires 10 bullets that each does 2 damage. The burst duration is anywhere between 0.5s and 1s depending on the weapon. The bigger the damage the weapon does the longer the burst duration.

The way this system works can be seen now with the AC2 and UAC5 using macro-fire. A 5x AC2 Jager with his macro making the 5 guns fire 0.2s apart in 'chain fire' (gun 1 fires, 0.2s later gun 2 fires, 0.2s later gun 3 fires, etc.. gun 1 does not fire again until the player clicks to shoot it again). The result is a 'burst' of bullets adding up to an AC10 worth of damage.

Here is a youtube video showing macro fired AC2s:



Notice how the enemy mechs are lit up in MANY different locations when they are on the receiving end...because the enemy mechs move and twist torso.

If this was an AC10 under this 'burst fire mode' system, that is how it would look like. All 10 bullets of 1 damage each would be firing from each gun in 0.6 seconds (that is how fast all 10 bullets leave the gun in the burst). If the aim is held true all 10 pnts of damage CAN be applied to the target's one armor location. If not, it gets spread.

This makes it closer to TT and eliminates the issue of pinpoint front loaded damage plus the issue of poptart/peek&shoot sniping where mechs barely expose themselves for a split second, fire off an AC10 or AC20 and pull back into cover and are rewarded with those 10 or 20 damage points inflicted on an enemy mech in one location at once.

Finally, since ballistics here are losing a lot of punch yet retain their tonnage and slot costs, they are compensated with an increase in effective range. ---- All AC's max effective range are doubled but their drop-off-to-zero range remains the same. This means an AC20 that has 270m range can now hit for 20 damage out to 540m but the weapon damage drops off to 0 at 810m like it does now.

Since the farther away a target is the harder it is to land a burst into, this change makes the AC's excellent at long range and close range.

PPCs: Remains front-loaded damage but AOE. The particle burst hits target in a ~5m radius from impact point, damage is split equally. Basically a very long range energy LBX.

LBX: Remains as it is. No change needed.

Gauss: Has same changes as ballistics listed above except that it has no dropoff range issues. It does full damage out to its very max range. Burst duration is 0.7s, generates no heat, remains equally prone to exploding. Essentially a special 'AC15' .

-------------------------OR----------------------------------

2- Re-work weapon convergence.

- CT and Side Torso mounted weapons fire straight ahead.
- Arm weapons require 'weapon lock' to achieve pinpoint convergence. This applies to all arms (those that can move left/right and those that cannot...aka Cataphracts and Catapults).
- Weapon lock takes 4 seconds and it converges on the locked target's range only. Efficiency reduces it by -0.5s, Targeting Computer by -0.5s (new equipment), Convergence Module by -1s. Shortest possible lock time is 2 seconds.
- Target lock for weapons can be shown in the lock-box of the targeted mech itself. The locked target square's corners become white or yellow when lock is achieved (visual cosmetic).
- If arm weapons are fired with no lock they just fire straight ahead.
- Locks are achieved by holding the arm aimpoint inside the target lock-box (just like missiles).
- Lock is maintained for 2 seconds after the aimpoint leaves the lock-box (just like missiles).
- There could be modules that keep the lock longer after the aimpoint leaves the lock box (just like target retention module).

-- Special Note: This target lock can also be used for SRM spread narrowing. They may dumb fire but their convergence range is set by the lock.

What this does:

Removes poinpoint damage capability. Only CT weapons will hit in same armor location. RT/LT weapons hit to the left and right of the CT aimpoint. Arm weapons would be firing straight ahead without converging if fired with no lock. Upon lock they will deliver poinpoint damage

By using this system, the front-loaded damage capability of ballistics is still present BUT not the pinpoint damage unless the player knows how to aim the torso/ct weapons well and/or has his arm weapons lock the target to achieve pinpoint convergence.

This system also affects lasers.


Both of these changes could be applied at once too. Resulting in an even better gameplay dynamics for both ballistics, missiles and lasers.

Edited by Skyfaller, 08 January 2014 - 10:24 AM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Skyfaller, on 08 January 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

Lasers:

Increased crit chance by making every damage 'packet' have its own chance to crit. In short, almost like a machine gun's chance to crit per bullet.

Otherwise the lasers are fine as they are now.

This change makes lasers very useful due to their innate nature to criss-cross a target when its fired... adding increased chances to crit gives some bite to a weapon that currently woefully underperforming compared to the other weapon types.

This can be nice to apply to lasers, especially for Pulse Lasers to provide them a unique attribute.

But I was thinking to boost the range on lasers so that they could apply more damage if the player can hold the beam on target at range. This could increase their utility for mechs that use them as a primary weapon, where the map layout would dictate the weapon ranges instead of having a preset damage drop-off.

Quote

Ballistics:

Ballistics must lose their poinpoint front loaded (this means full damage applied instantly upon impact) damage capability. It is extremely unbalancing considering that missiles and lasers literally are 'cone spread' damage weapons.

In TT there is no such thing as pinpoint damage unless you had a very special targeting computer which took time to aim and fire...and even then it was subject to random hit location (but narrowed).

Spoiler

This can be achieved by EITHER of these 2 ways:

1- Change AC fire from front-loaded to burst fire. This means that instead of firing one bullet that does 20 damage (in the case of the AC20) it fires 10 bullets that each does 2 damage. The burst duration is anywhere between 0.5s and 1s depending on the weapon. The bigger the damage the weapon does the longer the burst duration.

The way this system works can be seen now with the AC2 and UAC5 using macro-fire. A 5x AC2 Jager with his macro making the 5 guns fire 0.2s apart in 'chain fire' (gun 1 fires, 0.2s later gun 2 fires, 0.2s later gun 3 fires, etc.. gun 1 does not fire again until the player clicks to shoot it again). The result is a 'burst' of bullets adding up to an AC10 worth of damage.

Here is a youtube video showing macro fired AC2s:



Notice how the enemy mechs are lit up in MANY different locations when they are on the receiving end...because the enemy mechs move and twist torso.

If this was an AC10 under this 'burst fire mode' system, that is how it would look like. All 10 bullets of 1 damage each would be firing from each gun in 0.6 seconds (that is how fast all 10 bullets leave the gun in the burst). If the aim is held true all 10 pnts of damage CAN be applied to the target's one armor location. If not, it gets spread.

This makes it closer to TT and eliminates the issue of pinpoint front loaded damage plus the issue of poptart/peek&shoot sniping where mechs barely expose themselves for a split second, fire off an AC10 or AC20 and pull back into cover and are rewarded with those 10 or 20 damage points inflicted on an enemy mech in one location at once.

Finally, since ballistics here are losing a lot of punch yet retain their tonnage and slot costs, they are compensated with an increase in effective range. ---- All AC's max effective range are doubled but their drop-off-to-zero range remains the same. This means an AC20 that has 270m range can now hit for 20 damage out to 540m but the weapon damage drops off to 0 at 810m like it does now.

Since the farther away a target is the harder it is to land a burst into, this change makes the AC's excellent at long range and close range.

PPCs: Remains front-loaded damage but AOE. The particle burst hits target in a ~5m radius from impact point, damage is split equally. Basically a very long range energy LBX.

LBX: Remains as it is. No change needed.

Gauss: Has same changes as ballistics listed above except that it has no dropoff range issues. It does full damage out to its very max range. Burst duration is 0.7s, generates no heat, remains equally prone to exploding. Essentially a special 'AC15' .

I like the idea of having more options for ballistic weapons and then placing restrictions on which mechs can mount the different ballistics. For example have three or more AC/20 variants that then would be limited to the various mechs that can mount one.

So, I'm fine keeping the current ballistic weapons with some tweaks such as reducing the rate of fire on them so that their single strength is their punch. Something else that could be explored is adding a semi-auto fire function to them.

Quote

2- Re-work weapon convergence.

Spoiler

- CT and Side Torso mounted weapons fire straight ahead.
- Arm weapons require 'weapon lock' to achieve pinpoint convergence. This applies to all arms (those that can move left/right and those that cannot...aka Cataphracts and Catapults).
- Weapon lock takes 4 seconds and it converges on the locked target's range only. Efficiency reduces it by -0.5s, Targeting Computer by -0.5s (new equipment), Convergence Module by -1s. Shortest possible lock time is 2 seconds.
- Target lock for weapons can be shown in the lock-box of the targeted mech itself. The locked target square's corners become white or yellow when lock is achieved (visual cosmetic).
- If arm weapons are fired with no lock they just fire straight ahead.
- Locks are achieved by holding the arm aimpoint inside the target lock-box (just like missiles).
- Lock is maintained for 2 seconds after the aimpoint leaves the lock-box (just like missiles).
- There could be modules that keep the lock longer after the aimpoint leaves the lock box (just like target retention module).

-- Special Note: This target lock can also be used for SRM spread narrowing. They may dumb fire but their convergence range is set by the lock.

What this does:

Removes poinpoint damage capability. Only CT weapons will hit in same armor location. RT/LT weapons hit to the left and right of the CT aimpoint. Arm weapons would be firing straight ahead without converging if fired with no lock. Upon lock they will deliver poinpoint damage

By using this system, the front-loaded damage capability of ballistics is still present BUT not the pinpoint damage unless the player knows how to aim the torso/ct weapons well and/or has his arm weapons lock the target to achieve pinpoint convergence.

This system also affects lasers.


Both of these changes could be applied at once too. Resulting in an even better gameplay dynamics for both ballistics, missiles and lasers.

If Convergence can be tackled this can be a good idea to check out.

So something else that could be looked at is the idea of a global cooldown to have an enforced chain-fire regardless of weapon group setups.

[Gryphorim]

I love the idea of new weapon ranges, and yes, i do believe they need adjusting, lasers most of all. Love the idea of using ballistic drop and player aim to limit the effective range of ballistics, as well. However, the ranges shown in the table would require most of the maps to be remade to account for the changes. As for missiles, the LRMs you have described are actually Thunderbolt LRM5s, which are not yet available. Other than that, one of the principle appeals to missile weapons in the Mechwarrior games has always been the massive salvo sizes, and I cannot agree with trimming these down, no matter how much it goes against real world design (I work with aircraft armaments).

[Cyberiad]

I agree with Torso weapons only being able to fire straight. I disagree with the arm convergence lock on. It should just be based on how fast the arms can move to converge to a point. I also think missiles should just obey the laws of physics. When the boosters are firing they should accelerate and then follow a ballistic trajectory. I think ballistic weapons should have damage based on the round and the velocity of the round when it hits the target. The velocity fall-off should follow realistic falloff curves and also curve towards the ground according to gravitational acceleration.

[Durant Carlyle]

I do think weapon ranges should be tweaked. However, my method would be different.

All weapon ranges should revert back to tabletop values. There should be no damage beyond the tabletop "long range" value (the current Optimal range in MW:O). Projectiles and beams should explode or cease to exist at Optimal range like missiles do.

The devs have recently stated (Twitter maybe? Don't remember where exactly.) that they wanted short-range combat, and this would accomplish that nicely.

Most combat in BattleTech lore happens within 300 meters. A large laser is a long-range weapon, and LRMs can actually be considered a long-range weapon. It would also make ER weapons mean something.

Maybe they could even involve the tabletop range categories as new damage falloff limits. As in: Short range is 100% damage, Short to Medium range is 75% damage, and Medium to Long range is 50% damage. Farther than Long range is zero damage. This would include the increasing range penalties to Gunnery checks from tabletop into MW:O. Missile weapons would be exempt from this damage falloff, and they would do their full damage all the way out to Optimal. Minimum range for PPC would be 50% damage due to the field inhibitor. Minimum ranges for ballistic weapons would be 75% damage due to difficulty of aiming at close range, and minimum ranges for missile weapons would be zero damage due to the missiles not arming.

Proposed Inner Sphere weapons table:

Weapon name: Min range if applicable, Short range 100% damage, Medium range 75% damage, Long range 50% damage

Energy:
ER Large Laser: 0-210m, 211-420m, 421-570m
Flamer: 0-30m, 31-60m, 61-90m
Large Laser: 0-150m, 151-300m, 301-450m
Medium Laser: 0-90m, 91-180m, 191-270m
Small Laser: 0-30m, 31-60m, 61-90m
PPC: 0-90m (Min range 50% damage), 91-180m, 181-360m, 361-540m
ER PPC: 0-210m, 211-420m, 421-690m
Large Pulse Laser: 0-90m, 91-210m, 211-300m
Medium Pulse Laser: 0-60m, 61-120m, 121-180m
Small Pulse Laser: 0-30m, 31-60m, 61-90m

Ballistic:
AC/2: 0-120m (Min range 75% damage), 121-240m, 241-480m, 481-720m
AC/5: 0-90m (Min range 75% damage), 91-180m, 181-360m, 361-540m
AC/10: 0-150m, 151-300m, 301-450m
AC/20: 0-90m, 91-180m, 181-270m
Gauss Rifle: 0-60m (Min range 75% damage), 61-210m, 211-450m, 451-660m
LB 10-X AC: 0-180m, 181-360m, 361-540m
Machine Gun: 0-30m, 31-60m, 61-90m
Ultra AC/5: 0-60m (Min range 75% damage), 61-180m, 181-390m, 391-600m

Missile:
LRMs: 0-180m (Min range zero damage), 181-630m full damage
SRMs: 0-270m full damage
Streak SRMs: 0-270m full damage

I know this won't be popular at all, but that's the way I think weapons in MW:O should behave.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 10 January 2014 - 10:28 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Gryphorim, on 10 January 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

However, the ranges shown in the table would require most of the maps to be remade to account for the changes.

The table was more to just show what I looked at to see about how BT ranges could be adapted to a real time game using a different scale for BT hexes. So, there can easily be better numbers used.

With the maps, the main concern might be with the older, smaller maps, but the bigger maps might be okay as they are if weapons can hit for more damage at range. For example, Tourmaline and Alpine should be more or less similar to current battles, aside from more mechs being able to trade fire at further ranges, if weapon ranges do get extended.

I'm open to whatever works best for the game.

Quote

As for missiles, the LRMs you have described are actually Thunderbolt LRM5s, which are not yet available. Other than that, one of the principle appeals to missile weapons in the Mechwarrior games has always been the massive salvo sizes, and I cannot agree with trimming these down, no matter how much it goes against real world design (I work with aircraft armaments).

Ah, thank you, there's still plenty of lore to keep reading, such as reading more on the Thunderbolts.

The main reason I brought that up the idea of fewer missiles was to help workaround issues with hit reg that seem to occur with larger salvos.

SiliconLife, on 10 January 2014 - 05:58 PM, said:

I agree with Torso weapons only being able to fire straight. I disagree with the arm convergence lock on. It should just be based on how fast the arms can move to converge to a point.

I'm on the fence with the arm convergence, I'd say at least explore it with testing to see if is an option to pursue; and I wonder how much can the game engine handle to do that, which was why I wondered if a system to enforce chain-fire might be another alternative to also explore within the game engine limits.

Quote

I also think missiles should just obey the laws of physics. When the boosters are firing they should accelerate and then follow a ballistic trajectory. I think ballistic weapons should have damage based on the round and the velocity of the round when it hits the target. The velocity fall-off should follow realistic falloff curves and also curve towards the ground according to gravitational acceleration.

If the engineers can code this, that would be awesome.

Durant Carlyle, on 10 January 2014 - 10:26 PM, said:

I do think weapon ranges should be tweaked. However, my method would be different.

Spoiler

All weapon ranges should revert back to tabletop values. There should be no damage beyond the tabletop "long range" value (the current Optimal range in MW:O). Projectiles and beams should explode or cease to exist at Optimal range like missiles do.

The devs have recently stated (Twitter maybe? Don't remember where exactly.) that they wanted short-range combat, and this would accomplish that nicely.

Most combat in BattleTech lore happens within 300 meters. A large laser is a long-range weapon, and LRMs can actually be considered a long-range weapon. It would also make ER weapons mean something.

Maybe they could even involve the tabletop range categories as new damage falloff limits. As in: Short range is 100% damage, Short to Medium range is 75% damage, and Medium to Long range is 50% damage. Farther than Long range is zero damage. This would include the increasing range penalties to Gunnery checks from tabletop into MW:O. Missile weapons would be exempt from this damage falloff, and they would do their full damage all the way out to Optimal. Minimum range for PPC would be 50% damage due to the field inhibitor. Minimum ranges for ballistic weapons would be 75% damage due to difficulty of aiming at close range, and minimum ranges for missile weapons would be zero damage due to the missiles not arming.

Proposed Inner Sphere weapons table:

Weapon name: Min range if applicable, Short range 100% damage, Medium range 75% damage, Long range 50% damage

Energy:
ER Large Laser: 0-210m, 211-420m, 421-570m
Flamer: 0-30m, 31-60m, 61-90m
Large Laser: 0-150m, 151-300m, 301-450m
Medium Laser: 0-90m, 91-180m, 191-270m
Small Laser: 0-30m, 31-60m, 61-90m
PPC: 0-90m (Min range 50% damage), 91-180m, 181-360m, 361-540m
ER PPC: 0-210m, 211-420m, 421-690m
Large Pulse Laser: 0-90m, 91-210m, 211-300m
Medium Pulse Laser: 0-60m, 61-120m, 121-180m
Small Pulse Laser: 0-30m, 31-60m, 61-90m

Ballistic:
AC/2: 0-120m (Min range 75% damage), 121-240m, 241-480m, 481-720m
AC/5: 0-90m (Min range 75% damage), 91-180m, 181-360m, 361-540m
AC/10: 0-150m, 151-300m, 301-450m
AC/20: 0-90m, 91-180m, 181-270m
Gauss Rifle: 0-60m (Min range 75% damage), 61-210m, 211-450m, 451-660m
LB 10-X AC: 0-180m, 181-360m, 361-540m
Machine Gun: 0-30m, 31-60m, 61-90m
Ultra AC/5: 0-60m (Min range 75% damage), 61-180m, 181-390m, 391-600m

Missile:
LRMs: 0-180m (Min range zero damage), 181-630m full damage
SRMs: 0-270m full damage
Streak SRMs: 0-270m full damage

I know this won't be popular at all, but that's the way I think weapons in MW:O should behave.

With the bigger maps, I'm fine adapting to whatever weapon changes we have; so my concern was with trying to emulate realistic weapon performance from BT guidelines, and I was also concerned with BT values being too constricting with the potential scaling that the cryengine can handle.

So that's what helped me question why does a BT hex have to be 30 M for MWO? What if the hex could be scaled differently to translate BT to MWO through the game engine?

That's the only reason I used 90 M for a hex to multiply in the table, since that number got close to most of the current MWO weapon ranges at the three ranges.

So, I'd be happy to look at other alternatives that could the scale between the weapons, but I would prefer if they could match what the cryengine can handle to simulate BT as best it can.

[Gladewolf]

I like the LRM reduction idea...that would enable the use of the same random hit system streaks now use, which makes a lot more sense than the current hit spread system.

[101011]

I think the LRM reduction does not make any sense. In every single MW game, a LRM 20 has fired twenty missiles. In the books, they fire twenty missiles. On TT, they fire twenty missiles.

On hit-scan lasers, I feel the same. There is a 4.5 ton difference between a large laser and a small laser. Why suggest that they both are equivalent in terms of power. While some of that tonnage comes from a more powerful beam, surely another major factor is beam cohesion. A tighter beam will concentrate heat, thus dealing more damage while also improving beam cohesion at range. A small laser, being smaller, has a smaller focusing lens, and therefore loses cohesion at just 180 meters, whereas a large laser has a larger focusing lens, and therefore loses cohesion at 900 meters.

On ballistics, I feel that while they should extend the range some if they are trying to be "realistic", they shouldn't remove it all together. These shells do damage solely with kinetic impact, and air resistance combined with gravity will reduce said impact. I think it would be really cool if maps affected all these factors, e.g., HPG manifold, with reduced gravity and no atmosphere, would be better for weapon fire than, say, Morder.

I suggest that missiles, instead of having a hard range, have a soft range, where missiles have a x% to lose lock and continue in a straight direction, where x is based off of whether the attacker has lock, and if not, how long ago lock was lost, combined with distance past 1000 meters, so that it would be rare for missiles to hit a target past 2000 meters, but not impossible. The same would go with Clan LRMS in the min range instead of some magical payload decrease.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

101011, on 05 April 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:

I think the LRM reduction does not make any sense. In every single MW game, a LRM 20 has fired twenty missiles. In the books, they fire twenty missiles. On TT, they fire twenty missiles.

Yes, but they were broken up at five missiles per hit section so that LRM 20 got 12 missiles to hit, 5 could hit one section, a second group of 5 hit somewhere else and then a last group of two.

Quote

On hit-scan lasers, I feel the same. There is a 4.5 ton difference between a large laser and a small laser. Why suggest that they both are equivalent in terms of power. While some of that tonnage comes from a more powerful beam, surely another major factor is beam cohesion. A tighter beam will concentrate heat, thus dealing more damage while also improving beam cohesion at range. A small laser, being smaller, has a smaller focusing lens, and therefore loses cohesion at just 180 meters, whereas a large laser has a larger focusing lens, and therefore loses cohesion at 900 meters.

The are not equal in power though. Range in the original board game was trying to mimic user accuracy and the Clans have better range numbers.

The idea is to modify how Lasers work so that they can better compete against the other two weapon systems.

So adjusted numbers:
ER Large Laser - Would be the same on either IS or Clan
Range: 675
Max: 1350 (damage reduction from 675 to 1350)
Beam: 0.70 Seconds
Damage: 9

Large Laser
Range: 450
Max: 900 (damage reduction from 450 to 900)
Beam: 0.80 Seconds
Damage: 9

Medium Laser
Range: 450
Max: 900 (damage reduction from 450 to 900)
Beam: 0.80 Seconds
Damage: 5

Small Laser
Range: 450
Max: 900 (damage reduction from 450 to 900)
Beam: 0.80 Seconds
Damage: 3

The actual ranges and beam duration tweaks can be whatever works, and if mechs are trading blow for blow, the one using the larger weapons will still be dealing more damage at range, if the players can aim and hold beam on target. The Smaller Lasers would still be doing less damage, but could still do damage at further ranges then they are currently capable.

Quote

On ballistics, I feel that while they should extend the range some if they are trying to be "realistic", they shouldn't remove it all together. These shells do damage solely with kinetic impact, and air resistance combined with gravity will reduce said impact. I think it would be really cool if maps affected all these factors, e.g., HPG manifold, with reduced gravity and no atmosphere, would be better for weapon fire than, say, Morder.

Map specific changes would be welcome, and the rounds are described as being HEAP (High Explosive Armor Piercing) so the rounds should still be effective at range, if they are supposed to be superior to current military ordinance being used as a point of comparison.

Quote

I suggest that missiles, instead of having a hard range, have a soft range, where missiles have a x% to lose lock and continue in a straight direction, where x is based off of whether the attacker has lock, and if not, how long ago lock was lost, combined with distance past 1000 meters, so that it would be rare for missiles to hit a target past 2000 meters, but not impossible. The same would go with Clan LRMS in the min range instead of some magical payload decrease.

Recently, I've been reconsidering how LRMs would work. Updated the OP.

So for example, I can see fired LRMs track to the reticle/crosshair until they impact something without needing to lock onto a specific target so that the player needs a line of sight on the intented target. And that could also reduce the impact ECM would have on LRMs, if such an idea ends being viable.

Then consider having Lock-On only occur on a TAG'ged, NARC'd or UAV revealed Target, when the LRM user does not have a line of sight.

[Bobzilla]

Increases in range across the board would just make this a long range game with minimal close range encounters. It would turn into a big stand off more so than it is now. Any weapons that travel slow would not be used, too easy to avoid at range.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Bobzilla, on 09 April 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

Increases in range across the board would just make this a long range game with minimal close range encounters. It would turn into a big stand off more so than it is now. Any weapons that travel slow would not be used, too easy to avoid at range.

I dunno, considering current 'meta' weapons and the incoming Clan weapons, the devs will need to do something.

The devs could set range archetypes, if my spit-balling with numbers is currently too generous.

For example, anything within 270 M could be set as brawling range. 270 to 570 could be mid range, and 570 plus could be long range and build from there.



Another thing that the devs could explore, separate to the ideas I'm exploring with this thread, could be to prevent current massed weapon group fire. Go back to an enforced chain fire with grouped weapons, and have the Alpha key be available to alpha fire with better trade-offs / drawbacks if firing more than one weapon at once, and go from there with balancing.

[Bobzilla]

Praetor Shepard, on 09 April 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

I dunno, considering current 'meta' weapons and the incoming Clan weapons, the devs will need to do something.

The devs could set range archetypes, if my spit-balling with numbers is currently too generous.

For example, anything within 270 M could be set as brawling range. 270 to 570 could be mid range, and 570 plus could be long range and build from there.



Another thing that the devs could explore, separate to the ideas I'm exploring with this thread, could be to prevent current massed weapon group fire. Go back to an enforced chain fire with grouped weapons, and have the Alpha key be available to alpha fire with better trade-offs / drawbacks if firing more than one weapon at once, and go from there with balancing.

See that's my worry, brawling 0-300. Long range 0-3000m