171 replies to this topic

[Vermaxx]

They're bullets, as far as game mechanics go. They hit ONE DEFINED LOCATION for x damage. PGI needs to save itself the headache of splash damage and just make the missiles hit what they hit.

Of course, splash might have been an effort to keep missiles from hitting the head constantly. If they had a good reason for it in the first place, then splash damage simply needs to get modded so it cannot total up to MORE than the original max of the warhead.

[Shumabot]

Vermaxx, on 21 March 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

They're bullets, as far as game mechanics go. They hit ONE DEFINED LOCATION for x damage. PGI needs to save itself the headache of splash damage and just make the missiles hit what they hit.

Of course, splash might have been an effort to keep missiles from hitting the head constantly. If they had a good reason for it in the first place, then splash damage simply needs to get modded so it cannot total up to MORE than the original max of the warhead.

The system is nonsense in the first place, it's not an explosion it's a mechanical splash that just causes missiles to hit multiple sections of the hitbox. Why does the missle do more damage to my mech when it hits the line between my CT and RT? The missile isn't magically stronger, and I don't take more damage to a single component when it absorbs the entirety of the explosion. The missile just magically gets better. There's no small exhaust port or magic weakspot between the hitbox areas.

The system has been nonsense from its inception, it should never have been added to the game if they were only going to use it with tiny explosions that just break the system.

[TOGSolid]

Radko, on 21 March 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

This conversation is going in circles.

"Why is the game like X?" I ask.

"Because X is good gameplay," someone says.

"Why is X good gameplay?" I ask.

"Because it's realistic."

"Here is evidence why X is not realistic," I reply.

"Ah," comes the response. "But X is realistic in tabletop."

"But it is NOT like X in tabletop," I say "It is like Y instead."

"Yes well, because MWO gameplay..." and so the conversation repeats.


LRMs causing splash damage is NOT realistic. Small explosives do only cosmeic damage to armor in real life.

It is NOT backed by tabletop or lore, where fragmentation missiles do no damage to mechs.

And most importantly: It does NOT produce good gameplay. It produces buggy, broken, inconsistent, imbalanced gameplay, for no benefit.

Yup. At no point have the defenders of splash damage actually tried to justify why it's a good game mechanic. Arguing with them is like trying to hold a conversation with an inbred bible thumper.

[Onyx]

Livewyr, on 21 March 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

You are aware that the RPG is a Rocket-Propelled-Grenade correct? It's not that big.. (trust me.. I know)

I don't believe anyone addressed this. RPG only stands for "rocket propelled grenade" as a bastardized English translation, but it's very much an anti-tank-exclusive weapon.

RPG stands for Ruchnoy Protivotankovyy Granatomyot (RPG) or Ручной Противотанковый Гранатомёт in Cyrillic.

It roughly translates into "Hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher." For the purposes of dispelling your ignorance further, a grenade is simply a small explosive device. That is, literally, the only qualification needed to be a "Grenade". Well, it's more complicated than this, in that a standard grenade is intended to be hand-thrown, while an RPG has a rocket engine, and grenade launchers launch grenades with small explosive charges, but this is aside the point, since this basically means "a small explosive charge that is thrown or launched somehow" if you add the right qualifiers to it.

And, really, an RPG is only dangerous on indirect hits to soft targets. For instance, people. This is because, while the majority of the blast is going forward in a jet of molten copper, enough is getting cast perpendicular to the axis of travel from the shape charge itself, creating a fragmentation-like effect. Last I checked, however, when dealing with armor like a modern tank, the fragmentation literally was inconsequential to the operation of the tank and would bounce off every component of the tank that's likely to get hit by these splinters uselessly. Except the paint. It'd totally scratch the paint.

You're constantly comparing apples to oranges while maintaining a willful ignorance about how these weapons actually work in their intended military application.

[jakucha]

Onyx, on 21 March 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

I don't believe anyone addressed this. RPG only stands for "rocket propelled grenade" as a bastardized English translation, but it's very much an anti-tank-exclusive weapon.

RPG stands for Ruchnoy Protivotankovyy Granatomyot (RPG) or Ручной Противотанковый Гранатомёт in Cyrillic.

It roughly translates into "Hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher." For the purposes of dispelling your ignorance further, a grenade is simply a small explosive device. That is, literally, the only qualification needed to be a "Grenade". Well, it's more complicated than this, in that a standard grenade is intended to be hand-thrown, while an RPG has a rocket engine, and grenade launchers launch grenades with small explosive charges, but this is aside the point, since this basically means "a small explosive charge that is thrown or launched somehow" if you add the right qualifiers to it.

And, really, an RPG is only dangerous on indirect hits to soft targets. For instance, people. This is because, while the majority of the blast is going forward in a jet of molten copper, enough is getting cast perpendicular to the axis of travel from the shape charge itself, creating a fragmentation-like effect. Last I checked, however, when dealing with armor like a modern tank, the fragmentation literally was inconsequential to the operation of the tank and would bounce off every component of the tank that's likely to get hit by these splinters uselessly. Except the paint. It'd totally scratch the paint.

You're constantly comparing apples to oranges while maintaining a willful ignorance about how these weapons actually work in their intended military application.

Depends on the type of RPG, like RPG-32 is dangerous even to US's Abrams tanks.

But yeah, I really doubt mechwarrior missiles are the same size or smaller than an RPG-7, more like the missile is the size of a person.

Edited by jakucha, 21 March 2013 - 05:59 PM.

[Nightcrept]

RiotGearEpsilon, on 21 March 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

Tice Daurus, kindly review the previously posted picture and movie of the effects of a shaped charge explosive.

Ridiculous.

I have real world combat experience. And I woke up in a hospital a week after being ten feet away from a shaped charge that hit a tank I was standing on.

Most rpg rounds used by our enemies are shapped anti-tank rounds and they can still do large ammounts of blast damage.

[Nightcrept]

My biggest problem with mechwarrior is the lack of different types of explosives and ammunition in general.

Missiles in this game are around 1950's tech.

Edited by Nightcrept, 21 March 2013 - 05:58 PM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Tice Daurus, on 21 March 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

Fine. Now say you are in a tank or a mech and standing next to that tank being hit by a Javelin Missile. Now can you tell me your mech or tank won't suffer damage? I don't think so.

Here you go.

'The Abrams is protected by armor based on the British-designed Chobham armor, a further development of the British 'Burlington' armor. Chobham is a composite armor formed by spacing multiple layers of various alloys of steel, ceramics, plastic composites, and kevlar, giving an estimated maximum (frontal turret) 1,320–1,620 millimetres (52–64 in) of RHAe versus HEAT (and other chemical energy rounds) and 940–960 mm (37–38 in) versus kinetic energy penetrators.^[43] It may also be fitted with reactive armor over the track skirts if needed (as in the Urban Survival Kit) and slat armor over the rear of the tank and rear fuel cells to protect against ATGMs. Protection against spalling is provided by a Kevlar liner. Beginning in 1987, M1A1 tanks received improved armor packages that incorporated depleted uranium (DU) mesh^{[citation needed]} in their armor at the front of the turret and the front of the hull. Armor reinforced in this manner offers significantly increased resistance towards all types of anti-tank weaponry, but at the expense of adding considerable weight to the tank, as depleted uranium is 1.7 times more dense than lead.^[44]
The first M1A1 tanks to receive this upgrade were tanks stationed in Germany, since they were the first line of defense against the Soviet Union. US-based tank battalions participating in Operation Desert Storm received an emergency program to upgrade their tanks with depleted uranium armor immediately before the onset of the campaign. M1A2 tanks uniformly incorporate depleted uranium armor, and all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to this standard as well. The added protection from the depleted uranium armor is believed to be equivalent to 24 inches (610 mm) of RHA. In the Gulf War, Abrams tanks survived multiple hits at relatively close ranges from Iraqi Lion of Babylon tanks and ATGMs. M829A1 "Silver Bullet" APFSDS rounds from other M1A1 Abrams were unable to penetrate the front and side armor (even at close ranges) in friendly fire incidents as well as an incident in which an Abrams tried to destroy an abandoned Abrams stuck in the mud.'

So yep, wouldn't have a problem being next to a tank taking that hit if I'm in another tank. Pay particular attention to the part at the end were it says that M1's survived even close range hits from tank cannons, including DU sabots, and ATGMs. Thats the tank being hit surviving. So yah, don't have a problem being next to a tank being hit if I'm in one. Oh and the Javelin is so effective against modern armor because, like in the video, it goes way up and attacks from above, the spot on armor vehicles that has always been the weakest. Its not killing that tank with splash damage.

As far as gameplay, if a missile hits and does its supposed damage to the spot it hits, what need is their for splash damage. If some mechs are so fast that LRM's are somehow less effective, adjust the missiles speed (and maybe reduce reload times to compensate). AC's and gauss don't do splash, and while lasers are DOT they only damage other sections if you can't keep them on target. Are they suffering for the lack of splash damage. I love how its murder to LRM's if they don't one shot kill mechs when BT and MW has always been an attrition game.

Nightcrept, on 21 March 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

Ridiculous.

I have real world combat experience. And I woke up in a hospital a week after being ten feet away from a shaped charge that hit a tank I was standing on.

Most rpg rounds used by our enemies are shapped anti-tank rounds and they can still do large ammounts of blast damage.

And if you had been inside the tank?

[M4NTiC0R3X]

If you vote no you instantly fail:

[Merky Merc]

STOP. USING. REALISM. AS. AN. ARGUMENT.

If they rework everything to something that resembles actual weapons and ranges, then yay me I want to play that. But that is not BT, BT is magic.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

You need to split your poll. LRMs are HE warheads, and SRMs have AP warheads. Those two things behave very differently.

LRMs I'd like to see having splash damage, while SRMs should not. A high explosive warhead is designed to explode in an area-affect manner, doing moderate damage to everything inside its blast radius. Thus, LRMs should have lower damage and should splash. A shaped-charge armor-piercing warhead is designed to do extra damage to a single point by funneling its explosive power into a shaped blast that can carve through armor far more effectively than a simple explosive while losing the aoe potential of an HE round. This should be reflected by having SRMs do higher damage with no splash.

The current hot-fix stats seems like a step in the right direction, with LRMs having a larger radius for splash damage than SRMs. Numbers still should be tweaked a bit, which I'm sure that PGI is tracking everything very carefully while they work on a permanent fix for the missile problem.

[Riptor]

I love how people keep saying "well stand next to a tank when it gets hit"

YOU ARE NOT MADE OUT OF ARMOR

Armor does not get damaged by the force of an explosion caused by a missle the size of an LRM, a human body made out of flesh does because it will squish your inner organs to mush.

A tank.. or heck even a battlemech wich has armor that is made out of sci-fianium (and thus hundret times better then what we "currently" have) can completly ignore the shockwave.

The properties of mech armor are so out there that the first mech that got tested (the mackie) could completly ignore the gun fire from the main cannon of an abrahams tank without a scratch.

A little shockwave from an LRM or SRM round wond do jack **** to it.

THAT is the reality of the battletech universe.

LRMs cause damage only to the component they hit because of the armor, splash damage caused by a shockwave does not affect battletech armor, only the point of contact takes damage.

While explosions look impressive their actuall effect on modern armor and battletech fantasy armor alike is neglectible at worst and non existant at best.

[danust]

Tend to doubt any damage not due to aiming or target lock. Splash seems a freebie but I think it is good if working.

Fast lights @ 90deg to flight path avoid a % of direct hits but you can see the impacts close and low.

Target gets covered by ECM after launch. they should still have to move enough to get totally clear.

Standing next to a target should be dangerous too. Leakers close should be a concern.

Direct nonlock fire at ECM covered mechs. Tight group as it is but no lock is more spread out it looks like.

A few times splash is apropos. Working as intended splash. No pers interest as am not a boater.

[Livewyr]

All I'm going to say to the previous morons who say I have no clue how explosives work.
I'm an exmortarman that drove a light armored vehicle (stryker) in a combat zone where RPGs were prevalent.

RPG-7s are shaped charges, but those are designed to penetrate armor, we're not discussing penetrating armor, we're discussing damaging it. My stryker had what we called Slat Armor (a bunch of flat bars making a 360 degree cage. This was to prevent RPG-7s from penetrating the Stryker's armor by causing it to explode on the cage.

The armor worked beautifully, but it was damaged, even mangled by the hit, because of the rest of the explosion.

Explosions damage armor, even if it isn't readily apparent. We're not discussing penetrating armor, we're discussing damaging it, which I'm perfectly fine with.
------------------------

Now, for game-play.
Right now we have directfire precision weapons.. like lasers and ballistics.. I see no problem with having missiles cause splash damage.. not extra damage, but their actual damage splashed over 2-3 components. This softens up the armor to make it easier for direct-fire projectiles to get through the armor. That makes it a support weapon..

It also allows for some crit-hunting over multiple components on exposed structure.

[Radko]

Michael Costanza, on 21 March 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Without splash, LRMs and SRMs become as useless as the LB10X.

Why? They still generally hit the target, don't they?

Also, it's funny because the LBX is useless /because/ the damage spreads out. I bet you wouldn't like splash if it actually spread out damage, rather than doing blast damage on top of its regular damage.

[FunkyFritter]

Splash damage is a big part of what makes missiles different from ballistics. I've always seen them as more of an area denial weapon, dealing lots of damage to things slow enough to get caught but not having any capacity to focus fire. If missiles don't splash it means their homing capacity needs to be ramped up for them to hit anything, that sounds a lot less interesting from a strategic perspective.

[Radko]

FunkyFritter, on 22 March 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

Splash damage is a big part of what makes missiles different from ballistics. I've always seen them as more of an area denial weapon, dealing lots of damage to things slow enough to get caught but not having any capacity to focus fire. If missiles don't splash it means their homing capacity needs to be ramped up for them to hit anything, that sounds a lot less interesting from a strategic perspective.

But they're already hitting mechs right on the nose, and have done so in basically every patch.

You seem to be implying that missiles will strike all around the target, when in fact they tend to smash right into them. Splash only matters in that regard if the enemy successfully dodged or you just missed. But splash also causes a bunch of other problems, headshotting mechs by hitting their backs, causing weird errors, doing shitloads more or less damage than intended, etc.

How do you feel about yesterday's hotfix reducing splash damage? (But not removing it for some reason)

[FunkyFritter]

Radko, on 22 March 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

But they're already hitting mechs right on the nose, and have done so in basically every patch.

You seem to be implying that missiles will strike all around the target, when in fact they tend to smash right into them. Splash only matters in that regard if the enemy successfully dodged or you just missed. But splash also causes a bunch of other problems, headshotting mechs by hitting their backs, causing weird errors, doing shitloads more or less damage than intended, etc.

How do you feel about yesterday's hotfix reducing splash damage? (But not removing it for some reason)

I was mostly talking about how I would like to see missiles work, not how they currently work. They home far too well for my tastes, getting a lock should be what allows for firing over cover, not something that makes the shot a complete waste or a devastating hit. Splash damage has been broken from the start so there's not much to say there. We'll see how well it works after they fix it, hopefully it ends up in a state where missiles deal damage in a wide enough area to hit things without pull off crazy turns.

The hotfix was certainly not a long term solution. We'll just have to wait and see what splash looks like once they tinker with it a while.

[IrrelevantFish]

Thus far, I've only seen splash damage's proponents argue that it's more realistic or more faithful to TT, but I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. Even if you assume those arguments were correct (inadvisable, given the complete absence of splash damage from TT rules and the overwhelming evidence that conventional explosives are ineffective against heavy armor), neither argument directly address the real question at hand:

How does splash damage make MWO more fun?

The answer? It doesn't. Aside from being computationally expensive and hard to balance, it's effectively redundant. The "missile cloud" mechanic already makes missile launchers area-of-effect weapons, and adjusting spread, per-missile-damage, and other stats can produce essentially the same effects with far fewer headaches.

So far as I can tell, the only thing splash damage provides that impact damage couldn't is back-splash onto missile users who fire point-blank. This is a neat idea, but it's an infrequent and insignificant contributor to the outcome of an engagement and nowhere near worth the effort required to fix splash.

[Dan Nashe]

IrrelevantFish, on 22 March 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

, neither argument directly address the real question at hand:

[b]How does splash damage make MWO more fun?

The answer? It doesn't. Aside from being computationally expensive and hard to balance, it's effectively redundant. The "missile cloud" mechanic already makes missile launchers area-of-effect weapons, and adjusting spread, per-missile-damage, and other stats can produce essentially the same effects with far fewer .

Basically, you're grossly underestimating the programming difficulty of producing diffuse damage in this engine.

Actually see the hotfix post. The problem is that the cloud has to home in on a point (programming limitation) and due to vagaries of shape and mech movement, splash damge best Mimics the effect of a cloud of shape charged missiles that would hit multiple locations. Even though realistically, splash damage makes no sense. They have spent a lot of time plYing with missle patterns and they just can't produce a cloud that doesn't end up focusinf missiles on small parts of the mech. Paricularly streaks.

Splash damage makes lrms a weapon that spreads its damage out. And other missiles. When its working as intended, this makes the game more interesting because streaks, srms and lrms will produce a different damage pattern than other weapons. So yes, in a percect world splash damage wouldn't be necessary, but its a decent coding patch. Also, it makes dumb firing a little more possible, which adds to what a skilled pilot can do. I.e. depth to the game.

The amount of damage done, of course, may need to be tweaked. It is beta. I expect more balancing passes.

Edited by DanNashe, 22 March 2013 - 10:27 AM.