171 replies to this topic

[S3dition]

IrrelevantFish, on 23 March 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Nope. Check again. I got the right one.

However, though the armor described in the lore "ablates" in the Merriam-Webster sense of the word, it is not "ablative armor," which is effectively a militarized version of modern reentry vehicles' heat-shielding.


First, that is not how real-life reactive armor works. Second, reactive armor is not designed to defeat conventional explosives, and is probably less effective than the equivalent weight of solid plate (not that it matters, given how little solid plate is needed to defeat mundane explosives).

And finally, what's described in the lore is reactive armor without any core, something also known as "bad brigandine." The lamellar structure wouldn't increase stand-off distance between inner and outer layers and the detachment process would absorb very little additional energy while vastly increasing vulnerability to successive strikes in that area.

Your source (definition) of battletech's ablative armor: http://www.sarna.net.../Ablative_Armor

My source: http://www.sarna.net...hs_%26_Vehicles

Notice that you quoted, verbatim, the one about personal armor and not vehicle/mech armor? Give the mech armor a read through. It works EXACTLY as I just described. I can even quote you from the original Rules of Warfare or the newer core rules, as I have those books on my shelf. It's all the same.

Ignore the definition of ablative in real world terms. This is a game, made in the 80's, that involves bad metal bands in jock straps driving 100 ton war machines that overheat when firing a 120mm cannon.

Reactive armor: http://en.wikipedia....Reactive_armour

That is quite how reactive armor works. It's true that it's effectiveness is limited against modern munitions, but that doesn't change it's intended purpose or function. Why the Russians are in love with reactive armor, I'm not certain.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what would happen in reality. In battletech, anything with mild explosive power would break off panels of ablative armor. That's simply how the game mechanics work. You can argue real world physics and metallurgy until you're blue in the face, but the game says no. A hand grenade would actually remove armor from your mech.

MadSavage, on 23 March 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

OP is wrong. 2000 lbs for one ton of SRM ammo, 100 missiles, makes each missile weight~20 lbs. An FGM-148 javelin missile weighs ~26 lbs and take out modern tanks in one hit due to the fact that it has a fairly sizable warhead and attacks the tank's weakest armor, the top of its turret. The javelin missile also has extensive guidance systems, SRMs have none at all. The claim that an SRM only has "a hand grenade's" explosive is ridiculous.

However, SRMs do not need splash damage in this game. Splash damage for missiles was implemented in MWLL because there were battle armor and smaller armored vehicles, necessitating more realistic missile effects. In MWO, there are no combat units less than the size of a light mech. Therefore, splash damage is unnecessary. There is no way spalsh damage from a near miss of a mech's legs should do damage to the enemy mech. Point damage is sufficient to simulate the effects of missiles.

See above reference. The fact that a SMAW weighs less, has greater range, and better penetration than an SRM should tell you that your logic does not apply here . Also, see above for why it will damage the armor, as armor in battletech IS NOT THE SAME AS MODERN ARMOR. It's not a solid piece of metal or composite material.

Oh, and javelins don't necessarily go through the top armor. They have 2 firing modes to make them multi-purpose.

[BigJim]

StandingCow, on 23 March 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

As for realism... it shouldn't do splash.

But to be different from the other weapons I don't mind splash damage.

I understand your wish for Missiles to behave differently to other weapons, but what is splash supposed to achieve?
To be honest, I'm not just replying to you, but to everyone who is in favour of this mechanism.

Seriously, what do you expect it to do, in game-terms?

The only answer can be; To spread the damage done by the missile barrage over different locations of the mech, so that unlike every other weapon (that does pinpoint damage) missiles spread thier damage according to how the missile-grouping was aimed, the direction of the barrage, or how tight the group was.

Now, why can that not be achieved way easier just by having each individual missile do pinpoint damage, and then to rely on the rain of missiles each hitting different locations on the target to perform your spread-damage? Without recourse to a further splash-damage mechanic?

In short, the Devs are using two different mechanisms to achieve the same end, and each one is cocking the other up.
It's like trying to skateboard *and* unicycle at the same time and wondering why you're falling on your arse..

Splash damage works for games where each player-pawn is a single floating point in space, like nearly every FPS since Doom, but Mechwarrior is sophisticated enough such that a clumsy unsophisticated mechanism just causes more issues than it solves.

This is such basic, basic stuff, like Click 'N Play basic I can't believe a serious dev house is having trouble with it..

Edited by BigJim, 23 March 2013 - 02:06 PM.

[Nightfangs]

Radko, on 21 March 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Anti-tank warheads work by using a shaped charge to direct an explosive lance directly into the target, punching a hole through armor.

I agree! The standard warheads shouldn't do relevant splash damage.
That doesn't mean that there couldn't be special ammo for that.... or that an arrow couldn't splash.

[IrrelevantFish]

S3dition, on 23 March 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

Your source (definition) of battletech's ablative armor: http://www.sarna.net.../Ablative_Armor

My source: http://www.sarna.net...hs_%26_Vehicles

We appear to be suffering from some kind of miscommunication, and even if we weren't, we're getting off-topic. We've both spoken so eloquently about how realism is irrelevant to MWO game mechanics, yet we're continuing to argue with each other about what is realistic.

Thus, I think it would be most efficient and appropriate for us to finish our debate the next time we meet on Teamspeak. Maybe we can even get a few games in while we argue.

[S3dition]

BigJim, on 23 March 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

I understand your wish for Missiles to behave differently to other weapons, but what is splash supposed to achieve?
To be honest, I'm not just replying to you, but to everyone who is in favour of this mechanism.

Seriously, what do you expect it to do, in game-terms?

The only answer can be; To spread the damage done by the missile barrage over different locations of the mech, so that unlike every other weapon (that does pinpoint damage) missiles spread thier damage according to how the missile-grouping was aimed, the direction of the barrage, or how tight the group was.

Now, why can that not be achieved way easier just by having each individual missile do pinpoint damage, and then to rely on the rain of missiles each hitting different locations on the target to perform your spread-damage? Without recourse to a further splash-damage mechanic?

In short, the Devs are using two different mechanisms to achieve the same end, and each one is cocking the other up.
It's like trying to skateboard *and* unicycle at the same time and wondering why you're falling on your arse..

Splash damage works for games where each player-pawn is a single floating point in space, like nearly every FPS since Doom, but Mechwarrior is sophisticated enough such that a clumsy unsophisticated mechanism just causes more issues than it solves.

This is such basic, basic stuff, like Click 'N Play basic I can't believe a serious dev house is having trouble with it..

So, it would be much easier to independently track and resolve damage for hundreds of physical objects and calculate their flight paths and particle systems? That's a good way to give everyone 5 FPS any time an LRM boat fires. It's way more efficient to use splash damage and calculate the number of missiles that hit and radiate out. This way, you can act like each grouping or "wad" of missiles is a single object until it hits the target.

[Deathlike]

I do not remember a MW game that didn't have splash damage for missiles. So, I hate to disagree with any assessment regarding missiles and splash. I ALWAYS expect splash damage with missiles. These things EXPLODE.

[Surmuri]

http://youtu.be/onr3iH7vNco

http://youtu.be/q6j9wEF1sf8

[BigJim]

S3dition, on 23 March 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

So, it would be much easier to independently track and resolve damage for hundreds of physical objects and calculate their flight paths and particle systems?

From personal experience coding weapons for FPS' - Often yes, it is. Certainly from a programming/logic PoV.
Even if not, that's what already happens anyway in MWO

The way the Devs describe it, each missile is an independent projectile.

You also can tell this is the truth without being told so, because we can see that individual missiles act independently from each other (for example back when the odd streak missile would decide to "miss".

A barrage of missiles is not one single projectile with a mesh or particle effect that looks like a swarm, it is actually a swarm of independent actors.

If the reverse were true, you'd never see one missile hit and one miss, since a single projectile can only ever hit or miss, it's a binary choice.



When each missile hits a location, damage is taken by the location it hits.
In addition, a radius is drawn from where it hit the target mech, and every secondary location within that radius also takes damage.

All I'm suggesting, is removing the radius portion of that equation, which you will notice, reduces processing load, along with the benefit of simplicity.

Since all the missiles hit different locations anyway, *that* is your damage-spread mechanism right there, without having to resort to a further mechanism to achieve the same end.

Edited by BigJim, 24 March 2013 - 07:05 AM.

[Wolf Ender]

I agree with everything BigJim said. I would also like to add that BigJim is a handsome man.

[Quxudica]

Livewyr, on 21 March 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

I dare you to stand next to the watermelon I'm shooting with an RPG-7 (tis a shaped charge)

If you mean in a suit of tank armor, that won't be an issue. If you mean with no armor, that line of argument is ********.

[Livewyr]

Quxudica, on 24 March 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

If you mean in a suit of tank armor, that won't be an issue. If you mean with no armor, that line of argument is ********.

The point is () You're over here --- <>

(His point was that Shaped charges mean only directional blast..my point is there is SPLASH damage..now if we were arguing penetrating armor, RPG-7 would be relevant to the discussion as a whole, but we're not.. we're discussing DAMAGING armor.. so while the RPG comment was to throw a wrench into the "no splash damage" argument.. it was not meant for the "missiles versus armor" argument.. that is a fallacy.)

We're discussing damaging armor, not penetrating it. (Would be really funny to see Artemis missiles penetrating armor and damaging internal structure beneath it.)