239 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

El Bandito, on 10 August 2015 - 03:35 AM, said:

Phelan managed to almost single-handedly take out Vlad's Timberwolf in a Wolfhound. He only lost due to the overwhelming advantage the Clan tech had offered--in addition to his opponent having 40 tons on him.

Well, OP IS quirks, hit-reg, and broken hitboxes gave him the upper hand obviously.

[M4rtyr]

Spr1ggan, on 09 August 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

On the TT there are some super low TTK scenarios though. Such as a light mech hit with an AC20 or Gauss round.

True.. but a skilled player makes it so scoring a killer hit like that requires quite a bit of luck. Hard enough just to hit but then to hit CT or legs and even then most lights won't go down to just one.

There are alot of things that impacted actually hitting a target that don't exist in MWO though. Things like, oh falling down maybe? Yeah that only played a small factor in gameplay when you could risk falling over for just 20 damage taken. Granted that's something that would be hard to impliment in an FPS without simply making it random (don't condone that) it was a mechanic that played a roll in the larger scope of things and removed completely. Not to mention your own movement not impacting targeting at all.

It's basically too easy to score hits for a game with pinpoint damage designed on a premise where damage should be spread out over multiple areas.

[Gas Guzzler]

M4rtyr, on 10 August 2015 - 01:37 PM, said:

True.. but a skilled player makes it so scoring a killer hit like that requires quite a bit of luck. Hard enough just to hit but then to hit CT or legs and even then most lights won't go down to just one.

There are alot of things that impacted actually hitting a target that don't exist in MWO though. Things like, oh falling down maybe? Yeah that only played a small factor in gameplay when you could risk falling over for just 20 damage taken. Granted that's something that would be hard to impliment in an FPS without simply making it random (don't condone that) it was a mechanic that played a roll in the larger scope of things and removed completely. Not to mention your own movement not impacting targeting at all.

It's basically too easy to score hits for a game with pinpoint damage designed on a premise where damage should be spread out over multiple areas.

How is it then that most of the time I die with extensive damage across my entire mech, even in lighter mechs when playing non-scrubs?

[M4rtyr]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 August 2015 - 01:48 PM, said:

How is it then that most of the time I die with extensive damage across my entire mech, even in lighter mechs when playing non-scrubs?

Lighter mechs get damage spread more often because of their movement, I said the slower the mech the less survivable. especially if you have slow torso twist too.

[Dino Might]

This got way too long for me, but in defense of Stackpole (BWAHAHAHAHAHA)

Ok, seriously, though, for a gauss round to be spherical - the aerodynamics are the big problem. You put any spin on it not perpendicular to path of travel and you are missing your target by a HUGE amount. You can't do rifling, because you'd lose KE and need replacement barrels for every shot.

The one good thing it gets you is that it's not a good penetrator design. You want to deliver that KE to the mech and not punch clean through any airgaps in the internals. Say what you will about super advanced armor, but something going that fast with a penetrator design is going to put nice little holes in something without doing a lot of damage unless it hits something vital. Given that mechs had better be made to survive battle damage, I don't think a few holes are going to do that much unless they are through the pilot.

I'd go with a sabot-stabilized blunt headed, cylindrical projectile.

Also, is it just my browser, or is there some weird stuff with the forums - when scrolling across "report" on the previous post, my faction icon and a few other things jitter around. That's it - I'm leaving the Matrix. Gimme that red pill!

Edited by Dino Might, 10 August 2015 - 02:04 PM.

[M4rtyr]

lol people are still trying to be realistic reasoning into the least realistic of any sci-fi IP ever made. It's decent writing to create some suspense and make an interesting battle scene. Nothing about Battletech transalted to reality but that was some of the appeal, it was so out there it was always different.

Plus I always liked the extreme tech that barely works and is basically cobbled together. Shades of 40K there but without the creepy machince cultists... oh yeah ComStar, nvm.

[Bishop Steiner]

Dino Might, on 10 August 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

This got way too long for me, but in defense of Stackpole (BWAHAHAHAHAHA)

Ok, seriously, though, for a gauss round to be spherical - the aerodynamics are the big problem. You put any spin on it not perpendicular to path of travel and you are missing your target by a HUGE amount. You can't do rifling, because you'd lose KE and need replacement barrels for every shot.

The one good thing it gets you is that it's not a good penetrator design. You want to deliver that KE to the mech and not punch clean through any airgaps in the internals. Say what you will about super advanced armor, but something going that fast with a penetrator design is going to put nice little holes in something without doing a lot of damage unless it hits something vital. Given that mechs had better be made to survive battle damage, I don't think a few holes are going to do that much unless they are through the pilot.

I'd go with a sabot-stabilized blunt headed, cylindrical projectile.

Also, is it just my browser, or is there some weird stuff with the forums - when scrolling across "report" on the previous post, my faction icon and a few other things jitter around. That's it - I'm leaving the Matrix. Gimme that red pill!

yup, but then, DU penetrators ignite and have a habit of causing massive internal damage and ammo cook offs. And I'd imagine having gone go through your gyro or reactor shielding, might just prove to be a bad thing. If it went thru the head? The pilot is dead, crit or not. (You don't want to see the inside of enemy tanks that have had these things go thru them)

Thing is...being a Military vehicle, there is next to no wasted space..... you are always going through something...whether it's myomer and ferro-titanium bones (which shattering those is a bonus) or gyros, computers, heatsinks, ammo, weapons, actuators, etc.

Airspace in a mech would be next to nonexistent.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 10 August 2015 - 03:32 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

M4rtyr, on 10 August 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

Lighter mechs get damage spread more often because of their movement, I said the slower the mech the less survivable. especially if you have slow torso twist too.

It is the same story with assault mechs... more so because my XL side torsos don't get opened up by dual gauss so easily.

We must not be playing the same game or something.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 August 2015 - 12:21 PM, said:

Tanks carry more than just D-U. And since approximately 20 countries use DU ammo, out of 240, I'll let you do the math. Also since DU is self igniting, yes, one could still call it explosive.

But the DU anti tank round makes my argument for a Gauss Penetrator even better.

Dino Might, on 10 August 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

This got way too long for me, but in defense of Stackpole (BWAHAHAHAHAHA)

Ok, seriously, though, for a gauss round to be spherical - the aerodynamics are the big problem. You put any spin on it not perpendicular to path of travel and you are missing your target by a HUGE amount. You can't do rifling, because you'd lose KE and need replacement barrels for every shot.

The one good thing it gets you is that it's not a good penetrator design. You want to deliver that KE to the mech and not punch clean through any airgaps in the internals. Say what you will about super advanced armor, but something going that fast with a penetrator design is going to put nice little holes in something without doing a lot of damage unless it hits something vital. Given that mechs had better be made to survive battle damage, I don't think a few holes are going to do that much unless they are through the pilot.

I'd go with a sabot-stabilized blunt headed, cylindrical projectile.

Also, is it just my browser, or is there some weird stuff with the forums - when scrolling across "report" on the previous post, my faction icon and a few other things jitter around. That's it - I'm leaving the Matrix. Gimme that red pill!

There is also evidence that not all Gauss Rifle slugs are spherical.

Chapter 02 of Star Lord describes the Poland Main Model A Gauss Rifle of the CES-3R Caesar as "[using] a series of magnets to accelerate a nickel-ferrous metal slug ten centimeters in diameter".
Since we know the needed volume to account for the Gauss Rifle slug's mass & the densities of nickel & iron/steel, we know that a sphere 10cm in diameter cannot be the solution.

Therefore, we know that the slugs fired by the Poland Main Model A Gauss Rifle are oblong/ovoid/ellipsoid rather than spherical.
We know that the volume of an ellipsoid is given by V = (4/3)*pi*a*b*c, where a is a major radius and b & c are minor radii.

Since we know that b = c = 10cm for the Poland Main Model A's slug, the formula simplifies to V = (4/3)*pi*a*b^2.
Since we know that the 125 kg slug must have a volume between 14,029.2 cm^3 (if composed purely of nickel) and 15,923.6 cm^3 (if composed purely of iron/steel), we need simply solve for a.

For nickel:
a = ((3/4)*14,029.2)/(100*pi) = 33.492 cm

for iron/steel:
a = ((3/4)*15,923.6)/(100*pi) = 38.015 cm

So, we know that the Poland Main Model A's slug is 10 cm in diameter and between 33 and 38 cm long.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 10 August 2015 - 03:46 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 10 August 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

There is also evidence that not all Gauss Rifle slugs are spherical.

Chapter 02 of Star Lord describes the Poland Main Model A Gauss Rifle of the CES-3R Caesar as "[using] a series of magnets to accelerate a nickel-ferrous metal slug ten centimeters in diameter".
Since we know the needed volume to account for the Gauss Rifle slug's mass & the densities of nickel & iron/steel, we know that a sphere 10cm in diameter cannot be the solution.

Therefore, we know that the slugs fired by the Poland Main Model A Gauss Rifle are oblong/ovoid/ellipsoid rather than spherical.
We know that the volume of an ellipsoid is given by V = (4/3)*pi*a*b*c, where a is a major radius and b & c are minor radii.

Since we know that b = c = 10cm for the Poland Main Model A's slug, the formula simplifies to V = (4/3)*pi*a*b^2.
Since we know that the 125 kg slug must have a volume between 14,029.2 cm^3 (if composed purely of nickel) and 15,923.6 cm^3 (if composed purely of iron/steel), we need simply solve for a.

For nickel:
a = ((3/4)*14,029.2)/100 = 105.219 cm

for iron/steel:
a = ((3/4)*15,923.6)/100 = 119.427 cm

So, we know that the Poland Main Model A's slug is 10 cm in diameter and between 105 and 119 cm long.

And while it could be misnamed, while most Gauss are Coil Guns, one must note that the Yen Lo Wang was renovated to carry a Von Ryan "Rail Gun"- If this is not a misnomer, then it cannot, I believe use spherical ammo.... as rail gun ammo is loaded in carrier sleds. (Aka sabots). On a 30 cm Sphere, that is one huge sabot.... and one massively inefficient delivery system in total.

I guess I shouldn't say "can not"...but that realistically, no weapon designer worth their salt would design it such.

But also interesting simply in that it is referred to as a rail gun.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 10 August 2015 - 03:47 PM.

[Spr1ggan]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 August 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

And while it could be misnamed, while most Gauss are Coil Guns, one must note that the Yen Lo Wang was renovated to carry a Von Ryan "Rail Gun"- If this is not a misnomer, then it cannot, I believe use spherical ammo.... as rail gun ammo is loaded in carrier sleds. (Aka sabots). On a 30 cm Sphere, that is one huge sabot.... and one massively inefficient delivery system in total.

I guess I shouldn't say "can not"...but that realistically, no weapon designer worth their salt would design it such.

But also interesting simply in that it is referred to as a rail gun.

Iirc in Mechcommander Gold, there was a Mad Dog you could salvage that carried a rail gun. It had a different firing animation to the gauss rifle as well.

After using it, i tried to find info on sarna about rail guns in BT. Couldn't find **** though.

Here's a vid i found from Mechcommander though.

Edited by Spr1ggan, 10 August 2015 - 04:48 PM.

[Mavairo]

El Bandito, on 09 August 2015 - 08:03 AM, said:

Personal preferences aside, RNG--especially controlled RNG with delayed convergence--will not actually affect skill all that much. In every popular game with RNG, no matter the type--be it TCG, TT, FPS, RPG, MOBA, skilled player will always perform better than non-skilled ones.

The non-skilled ones actually tend to cry about RNG the loudest.

Honestly I find that games with RNG tend to have a much higher skill cap as there is a tremendously greater amount of variables to be accounted for, or min maxed.

[Alek Ituin]

Kiiyor, on 09 August 2015 - 05:23 AM, said:

He IS into physics - the wrong ones.

"Phelan urged his mech forwards, but his venerable war machine stood on some moderately soft ground and was left flailing as it sank to the knees".

That's a terminal lack of nanotube alloys and super-strength fibers right there.

Bishop Steiner, on 10 August 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

And while it could be misnamed, while most Gauss are Coil Guns, one must note that the Yen Lo Wang was renovated to carry a Von Ryan "Rail Gun"- If this is not a misnomer, then it cannot, I believe use spherical ammo.... as rail gun ammo is loaded in carrier sleds. (Aka sabots). On a 30 cm Sphere, that is one huge sabot.... and one massively inefficient delivery system in total.

I guess I shouldn't say "can not"...but that realistically, no weapon designer worth their salt would design it such.

But also interesting simply in that it is referred to as a rail gun.

Well... Despite my contempt for rail guns, they can be made significantly smaller and/or lighter than a coil gun. And one would assume that stuffing a giant magnetic cannon on to a Medium Mech would require some serious weight and/or space saving measures.

So while a larger/bulkier Mech could get away with a larger/bulkier (and wholly superior) coil gun, smaller Mechs would need rail guns to achieve the same effect.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 10 August 2015 - 07:06 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Alek Ituin, on 10 August 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

That's a terminal lack of nanotube alloys and super-strength fibers right there.



Well... Despite my contempt for rail guns, they can be made significantly smaller and/or lighter than a coil gun. And one would assume that stuffing a giant magnetic cannon on to a Medium Mech would require some serious weight and/or space saving measures.

So while a larger/bulkier Mech could get away with a larger/bulkier (and wholly superior) coil gun, smaller Mechs would need rail guns to achieve the same effect.

superior? You and I ain't reading the same engineering journals, apparently.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries has a...

[Alek Ituin]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 August 2015 - 07:15 PM, said:

superior? You and I ain't reading the same engineering journals, apparently.

One requires constant replacement rails, saboted munitions, can't fire anything but solid shot AP, and has to be gigantic unless hooked to an incredibly powerful generator (like the fusion generator in the core of a walking weapons platform...).

The other can be made small while remaining efficient, does not damage itself during operation, can fire a large variety of munition types, and can be fired multiple times without failing.


I don't know about you, but the second one sounds much better.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 10 August 2015 - 07:32 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Alek Ituin, on 10 August 2015 - 07:32 PM, said:

One requires constant replacement rails, saboted munitions, can't fire anything but solid shot AP, and has to be gigantic unless hooked to an incredibly powerful generator (like the fusion generator in the core of a walking weapons platform...).

The other can be made small while remaining efficient, does not damage itself during operation, can fire a large variety of munition types, and can be fired multiple times without failing.


I don't know about you, but the second one sounds much better.

rail issue is a simple material issue. They simply need to find the right combo.

Let's see Darpas 45 stage coilgun manages a 22% efficiency? And to get high efficiency require ones much more massive than a railgun.

Ever wonder why the Navy, which is looking for capital ship applications is focused on rail guns, not coilguns, when neither mass, nor energy limitations are a consideration?

simply put, BOTH models require massive leaps in material and power transfer sciences before any practical versions will be in use.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 10 August 2015 - 07:39 PM.

[Telmasa]

Mavairo, on 10 August 2015 - 06:31 PM, said:

Honestly I find that games with RNG tend to have a much higher skill cap as there is a tremendously greater amount of variables to be accounted for, or min maxed.

You speak heresy.

RNG is a direct counter to skill cap. It directly intervenes and prevents player's skill from being the dominant, determinant factor in a game, because no matter *WHAT* you do, the results are randomized out of your own hands.

Wargaming has turned the injection of RNG into every possible thing into an art-science with all three of their games.

I guarantee you, if there were no RNG - or a highly reduced one - with World of Tanks, the "unicum" players would be at 80-90%+ win rates, instead of being 'capped' at roughly 55-65%, and *that* only by constantly abusing the matchmaker's various gimmicks, gold ammo, gold consumables, riding the power creep, and so on.

Edited by Telmasa, 10 August 2015 - 07:38 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Telmasa, on 10 August 2015 - 07:37 PM, said:

RNG is a direct counter to skill cap. It directly intervenes and prevents player's skill from being the dominant, determinant factor in a game, because no matter *WHAT* you do, the results are randomized out of your own hands.

Most RNG's take the current second. Run it through an equation to determine which "random" number is generated. That information is irrelevent, btw. It doesn't matter which algorithms are used to calculate random numbers.

H4xers can reverse engineer RNG's and synchronize their firing to the time they need to get their desired results, the same way people have reverse engineered Vegas slot machines to hit the jackpot.

RNG's don't necessarily fix anything or make the game more fair. In a way the concept of a deterministic machine producing random results is a bit of a contradiction.

[Alek Ituin]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 August 2015 - 07:36 PM, said:

rail issue is a simple material issue. They simply need to find the right combo.

Let's see Darpas 45 stage coilgun manages a 22% efficiency? And to get high efficiency require ones much more massive than a railgun.

Ever wonder why the Navy, which is looking for capital ship applications is focused on rail guns, not coilguns, when neither mass, nor energy limitations are a consideration?

simply put, BOTH models require massive leaps in material and power transfer sciences before any practical versions will be in use.

The reason the Navy focused on rail guns is because they're only practical when mass nor energy requirements are an issue. Plus, the Navy doesn't need anything BUT solid shot AP, for either ship-to-ship or bombardment applications. Lord knows they have enough missiles to fill any roles a rail gun cant.

DARPA is focusing on coil guns because they don't *need* to be massive to work, they're logistically superior, and they can fire numerous munition types (an absolute requirement for a support weapon). It's also much more feasible to get a coil gun working in an AFV, with such limited power output in addition to limited space. Mortars don't need to be high velocity anyway, it'd just defeat the purpose of having a mortar.

But you're right about neither of them being practical right now.


As for our space future giant stompy robots, I still maintain that space future coil guns will be superior. And despite current limitations, space future rail guns could be made significantly smaller since they're made of space future materials and hooked up to space future fusion generators. Meanwhile, space future coil guns are bulkier, but still don't damage themselves during operation.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 10 August 2015 - 07:54 PM.