196 replies to this topic

[Vollstrecker]

warner__, on 09 May 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

This I don't agree with, since if it's a map with a lot of cover you would expect to find it difficult to bring you're range weapons to bear, you would expect short/medium weapons to be the choice there. That isn't really the issue people are raising. The issue, if there is even one, would be where even on a more open map, say a desert or prairie, or an arctic map, long range weapons are still useless, where in-fact you would expect them to trump short/medium range weapons as they can be easily be brought to bear.

The example I provided was a case where a mech is being rushed by a mech moving twice as fast as it is (almost 3x since the Catapult is walking), so that's an extreme case. In an open map, there is no issue with backing up to maintain distance if you're pounding away at a brawler design.

To put that in perspective, switch that Jenner with a Hunchback. Hunchback will only be gaining roughly 6m a second on you. Closing the range from LRM range (640m again) to AC20 range (270m) will take a staggering 61.67 seconds. That's just for him to even be able to strike back. Even if you were standing still, you again would have 20.56 seconds to blast away with LRMs.

[Kudzu]

Mchawkeye, on 09 May 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

Hmmm...I still don't accept it.

The funny thing about facts is that you don't have to accept them for them to still be true.

Quote

the TT only allows you to fire once within your turn, at a given specific moment during your movement (can you move-fire-move? can't remember, it's been a while) but even then, over the course of that turn, your range at the point of you firing the trigger doesn't alter; neither you not the target. in the video game, which has to be treated differently, as it's a video game, you could (theoretically) have the trigger pulled permanently; you could fire any weapon at any point at any range, never mind the fact that, since this isn't turn based, the opposition movement is much more instant as is yours

A turn represents ten seconds of real time. The firing process is as abstraction within those ten seconds. Movement within that time frame is represented by a modifier to the to-hit roll-- the faster you are going the harder it is to hit you.

Quote

which is to say, weapon balancing range vs speed is better altered though play testing rather than a direct translation from the TT.

The TT is an excellent place to start, rather than the Battletech skinned COD games of MW past.

Quote

you can attribute size and speeds to anything on the table top, but if it wasn't an after thought or such, would you really have chosen a random number like 10.8kph? reeks of retcon, or, like Matchbox plastic kits, at least getting a scale to fit the box, so to speak.

Or it could just be basic math.

One hex is equal to 30 meters. A turn is 10 seconds. If you travel one hex per turn you are going 3 meters per second. 1 meter per second equals 3.6 kilometers per hour, so 3 meters per second equals 10.8 KPH. It's really not hard.

[Aegis Kleais]

Kudzu, on 09 May 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

A PPC hit on a stock Jenner is going internal no matter where it hits. A hit to the head or arm will take it off in one shot.

This isn't necessarily true in MWO.

MWO is keeping the weapon's tonnage and crit slots, but they are balancing everything else. You may see ranges that come from lore, you may see damage numbers that are higher, reload times that are lower, but in the end, the only way of knowing what kind of damage a PPC can do to a Jenner will be to try it out.

[Orzorn]

Aegis Kleais™, on 09 May 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

but in the end, the only way of knowing what kind of damage a PPC can do to a Jenner will be to try it out.

Oh, believe me, I will.

[Christopher Dayson]

Well looking at the mechlab we have off amounts of ammo per ton, and off amounts of armor so far. Or at least, according to those screen shots of the mechlab.

I imagine they're still tweaking things to try and make it for a more enjoyable experience all around. The problem is they're already tweaking with damage per 10 seconds, or at least the effect of that damage per ten seconds by changing the armor rates.

For example: Mech A in the TT has 8 points of armor in a given location. Normally a PPC hit to this location would erase the armor and do internal damage. If that mech has 16 points of armor there instead of 8, for the same tonnage, then all weapons were just reduced in damage by 50% effectively.

This change, while seemingly neutral because it affects all weapons equally (Since it's really an armor change) throws balance in the favor of small fast mechs over larger ones. If I can pilot a 40 ton mech (Lets go with a Cicada stock from 3025 TRO) that had 11 points of center torso armor, that becomes 22, it had 4 points of arm armor, it becomes 8, legs go from 6 to 12. All of the sudden the 'kill zone' of long range weapons becomes even less deadly.

I can spring across the battle field at my 120 kph sprint, take a double volley of LRM-15's without any real risk of serious damage because missiles scatter and my armor can absorb it. I then get into close range combat much more intact than I would have been otherwise. If I would have made it at all.

Ok so then the obvious answer becomes: Let the weapons fire twice as fast as they should otherwise, so have a 5 second fire rate instead of 10. Except that then it's really to late, the light mech is in the minimum range of the bigger weapons and rendering them mostly useless.

In the end, for all they were saying they wanted to use TT rules, we know they aren't, or at least haven't in the past. Until we know where armor per ton, ammo per ton, heat and damage end up we can't really say wether any given range is to long, to short, or just right.

All I can say is given what we've seen, there's a lot less risk for the light mechs than there should be, a lot less. Not sure I agree with that.

[Mike Silva]

Garth Erlam, on 09 May 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

If you can hit it, sure. Ever played a Scout in TF2? It's a lot like that (for me.) Atlas' are a hell of a lot less intimidating when you're doing more than double their speed and staying out of their arc of fire. People, I find, are far too focussed on doing as much damage in a trigger pull as possible - everyone wants to alpha strike and take out a 'Mech. What I've found is it's the pilots who dodge, manoeuver, position, and skirmish that do the best.

That said, Scout is my most played class in TF2, and I regularly take on Heavies and Soldiers 1 v 1. While it's not the same game, I find a similar vein in MWO, where quick, manouevrable light 'Mechs absolutely run rings (literally) around Assault 'Mechs.

So uh... you guys going to give me an engineer equivalent in MWO?

[Paradat]

neodym, on 08 May 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

wait,LRM minimum range? no weapon should have minimum range,I didnt had minimum range in MW2,MW3 or MW4.... theres no logic in blocking LRM from firing just becose target is 199m away..... I honestly think you should fire any weapon any time,even LRM without lock on.... like theres no racional logic like "you know,the antimatter in the warheads suck ongoing tachyions into polaron singularity so you cant fire it under 200m"

They did have a minimum range in the original game. Most rocket/missiles do have a minimum range

Edited by Paradat, 09 May 2012 - 02:42 PM.

[Mchawkeye]

Kudzu, on 09 May 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

The funny thing about facts is that you don't have to accept them for them to still be true.


A turn represents ten seconds of real time. The firing process is as abstraction within those ten seconds. Movement within that time frame is represented by a modifier to the to-hit roll-- the faster you are going the harder it is to hit you.


The TT is an excellent place to start, rather than the Battletech skinned COD games of MW past.


Or it could just be basic math.

One hex is equal to 30 meters. A turn is 10 seconds. If you travel one hex per turn you are going 3 meters per second. 1 meter per second equals 3.6 kilometers per hour, so 3 meters per second equals 10.8 KPH. It's really not hard.

Points for patronisation there. Thanks for that. Bit unnecessary though, don't you think?

The maths is basic, I think my tiny brain can just about understand that. just about (being this stupid is tough). My point was that realistic speed vs weapon range was not a consideration when designing for the TT; at the very least, it's not as important as it is for the video game; which is to say they worked out what speed that hex was the equivalent too post hoc is all I'm saying. Mechs moved a distance every turn, not at a speed. Or maybe that was just the people I played the game with.
the speed/distance is an odd distinction to be made, for sure. But made it must be, I think.


I agree that the TT is the place to start, of course; it simply isn't always the place to end.

[Yeach]

Mason Grimm, on 09 May 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Best Post of the Day!!!!

Now where is my Metric Edition Banhammer!!!!!

Actually it was a post yesterday. But thanks.

MaddMaxx, on 09 May 2012 - 05:08 AM, said:

It would have been way better had he gotten the Highway speed bit actually right?

P.S. That metric thing you seek is over here...

MaddMaxx
I'm in Alberta where the highways speeds are 110 kph.
But due to road construction and this thing called traffic I rounded it down to an average of 100 kph.

[Yeach]

Mchawkeye, on 08 May 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Uh, ok, but where did I mention mech speed?

Table top balance range/speed does not apply here. Table top was turn based, hexes or Cm, not actual KPH (or is it proper MPH?) so the direct TT-VG balance is off already.

Whilst I don't know what it SHOULD do, a balance between attack speed and weapon ability should exist and I think does, from the look of it.

It does because weapon range and mech speed have a relationship

Range of LRMs is 21 hexes
Range of AC20 is 9 hexes
A Hunchback moves at max speed of 6 MP (can move 6 hexes per turn)

To get to AC20 range, the Hunchback would have to move 12 hexes or an expectant value of 2 turns (or 20 seconds) because of its 6 MP or 6 hexes per turn.

Now we put metric numbers where one hex represents 30 m and 1 turn is 10 secs
LRM is thus 630 m, AC20 is 270 m and 6 MP represents 180 m / 10 s or 18 m/s

If you change the LRM Range to 840 m (33% increase) and thus having each hex represent 40 m, then AC20 should also be adjusted to 360 m.

If you don't adjust the speed of the Hunchback, it will take 27 seconds instead of the original 20 seconds (2 turns) to reach AC20 range.

Adjusting the speed to from 18m/s to 24 m/s (33% more) retains the 20 seconds that it would take the Hunchback to get into AC20 range.

This is precious balance I want to keep; less we get back to MW4 which provided a boon to long-range weapons (Gauss Rifle) and less for brawlers to get in range with AC20s.

18m/s = 65kph
24m/s = 86kph

[warner2]

Vollstrecker, on 09 May 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

To put that in perspective, switch that Jenner with a Hunchback. Hunchback will only be gaining roughly 6m a second on you. Closing the range from LRM range (640m again) to AC20 range (270m) will take a staggering 61.67 seconds. That's just for him to even be able to strike back. Even if you were standing still, you again would have 20.56 seconds to blast away with LRMs.

Yes, so, the speed of the mechs is just as important as ranges in balancing it, is what you're saying. I see that, and it's clearly possibly that the speed/range balance is going to be fine. Possibly, objections to a 640m range for LRMs are based on MW4 speeds.

[warner2]

Yeach, on 09 May 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

It does because weapon range and mech speed have a relationship

Range of LRMs is 21 hexes
Range of AC20 is 9 hexes
A Hunchback moves at max speed of 6 MP (can move 6 hexes per turn)

To get to AC20 range, the Hunchback would have to move 12 hexes or an expectant value of 2 turns (or 20 seconds) because of its 6 MP or 6 hexes per turn.

Now we put metric numbers where one hex represents 30 m and 1 turn is 10 secs
LRM is thus 630 m, AC20 is 270 m and 6 MP represents 180 m / 10 s or 18 m/s

If you change the LRM Range to 840 m (33% increase) and thus having each hex represent 40 m, then AC20 should also be adjusted to 360 m.

If you don't adjust the speed of the Hunchback, it will take 27 seconds instead of the original 20 seconds (2 turns) to reach AC20 range.

Adjusting the speed to from 18m/s to 24 m/s (33% more) retains the 20 seconds that it would take the Hunchback to get into AC20 range.

This is precious balance I want to keep; less we get back to MW4 which provided a boon to long-range weapons (Gauss Rifle) and less for brawlers to get in range with AC20s.

18m/s = 65kph
24m/s = 86kph

I see the conversion you've gone through, but, as someone who knows TT rules, can you explain to someone who doesn't (me) what it is about the speed/range balance that is good in TT? Do I need to play some TT/MegaMek to get it?

[Iron Harlequin]

So....does this mean SRMs will have a range of like 100m? lol

[Siilk]

Kudzu, on 09 May 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

Actually, 1 MP = 10.8 KPH, so yes, the TT range/speed applies.

That's a bit off, 1 mile = 1.6 km, not 10.

As for topic, I'm all for having weapon ranges increased so that LRM range would be closer to 1000m. ERPPC and Gauss would be 900m, med laser -- 500. Now it could seem a bit long but in reality most mechs would be closing from that range really fast so even with that distance, it's only a couple of salvos till the brawling weapons are in range. MWLL proved such range translation to be very good for gameplay, fights neither tend to be too close nor extremely long ranged.

[Jayboltz]

Kay Wolf, on 08 May 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

Wow. In the real-world, most gun fights take place in ranges of less than 60 feet; anything beyond that and you're ineffective. Soldiers in the U.S. Army are taught to shoot well up to ranges of 300 feet, because that's their best EFFECTIVE range, for both power and accuracy, even though they can shoot well over 1500 feet before hitting the dirt.

The tabletop ranges were originally set to keep the tabletop battlefield small, but there is real-world precedent to keep ranges short. Wow.

Wow.

Dude, you are totally wrong. First off its 300 meters (not 300 feet) for the army, the marines shoot a little farther but they don't have timed targets. And the max effective range of the M4 is 600 meters, not 300 feet.. And the only reason most firefights are close range are because of the environments they're fighting in. In Iraq it was mostly cities and towns so it made sense that firefights were close range. However in Afghanistan that wasn't the case because often the fire came from high in the mountains and most of those fights took place using .50 cals and M240Bs that could fire farther away.

Besides, why are you comparing infantry to mechs? The more likely comparison is modern tanks to mechs. And modern tank-on-tank fights happen at ranges of kilometers to miles..

[Win44]

Have any of the math wizards stopped to consider how powerful the new targeting system seems to be? That Cat could lock on to any enemy mech within sighting distance of the light scout. AND THE SCOUT DIDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING! No more hoping your teammates will NARC/TAG, it didn't even seem like there were special modules involved (though that's uknown at this point). Ultimately that is a huge bonus to LRM viability in a support role.

That being the case, LRM's were never supposed to the viable primary frontline weapon that they were in MWs past. Well past time for that to change.

[Kay Wolf]

Jayboltz, on 10 May 2012 - 02:25 AM, said:

Dude, you are totally wrong. First off its 300 meters (not 300 feet) for the army, the marines shoot a little farther but they don't have timed targets. And the max effective range of the M4 is 600 meters, not 300 feet.. And the only reason most firefights are close range are because of the environments they're fighting in. In Iraq it was mostly cities and towns so it made sense that firefights were close range. However in Afghanistan that wasn't the case because often the fire came from high in the mountains and most of those fights took place using .50 cals and M240Bs that could fire farther away.

Besides, why are you comparing infantry to mechs? The more likely comparison is modern tanks to mechs. And modern tank-on-tank fights happen at ranges of kilometers to miles..

Is this what it took to bring you out of the wood work?

Thanks for the correction; you are correct that it's 300m, not 300', and that was my faux pas, as I was busy answering a lot of posts as quickly as possible. As for the M4 having a max eff range of 600m, you're full of crap, unless you just don't understand the definition of max EFFECTIVE range. That is the maximum range to which you are most effective at hitting AND damaging a target.

You're also absolutely right about the range being short as a result of intervening terrain; however, if you're in a gun fight, and you expose yourself long enough, unless you're some sort of prodigy, to actually sight to the maximum effective range of your weapon, you're most likely dead. You're not the only one that's been in a combat zone, Jayboltz, and you're not the only one with military training, so relax. I made one faux pas, and you're treating it like I assaulted you. Chill out.

[MaddMaxx]

If I were that Catapult Pilot and saw an enemy charging at me with speed and maneuverability, you know what I would do? JumpJet to an elevated position said enemy could not reach and carry on the task at hand.

You 2D (and no the variant) Pilots really need to get with the times... LOL

Edited by MaddMaxx, 10 May 2012 - 06:39 AM.

[Kudzu]

warner__, on 10 May 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

I see the conversion you've gone through, but, as someone who knows TT rules, can you explain to someone who doesn't (me) what it is about the speed/range balance that is good in TT? Do I need to play some TT/MegaMek to get it?

Play a few dozen games on one of the MegaMek campaign servers and you'll get a pretty good idea about the balance.

Iron Harlequin, on 10 May 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

So....does this mean SRMs will have a range of like 100m? lol

270m, 360m for Streak.

Siilk, on 10 May 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

That's a bit off, 1 mile = 1.6 km, not 10.

MP is short for Movement Point.

[Jayboltz]

Kay Wolf, on 10 May 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

Is this what it took to bring you out of the wood work?

Thanks for the correction; you are correct that it's 300m, not 300', and that was my faux pas, as I was busy answering a lot of posts as quickly as possible. As for the M4 having a max eff range of 600m, you're full of crap, unless you just don't understand the definition of max EFFECTIVE range. That is the maximum range to which you are most effective at hitting AND damaging a target.

You're also absolutely right about the range being short as a result of intervening terrain; however, if you're in a gun fight, and you expose yourself long enough, unless you're some sort of prodigy, to actually sight to the maximum effective range of your weapon, you're most likely dead. You're not the only one that's been in a combat zone, Jayboltz, and you're not the only one with military training, so relax. I made one faux pas, and you're treating it like I assaulted you. Chill out.

Uh, yeah the m4 has a maximum effective range for area targets of 600 meters. So clearly you're the one who doesn't understand maximum effective range.. The only reason I even commented to begin with was because you stated your false information like everyone is retarded for not knowing that...even though its false...

Anyway if you want to argue with me do it via PMs, I don't want to derail the thread.