40 replies to this topic

[Hans Von Lohman]

They do in the board game. AC-5's have a minimum range of only 3 hexes (that is to say 90 meters), but it has a minimum range.

AC-2 has a minimum range of 4 hexes (that is 120 meters).

Should the light Autocannons get that?

I think with the current meta of light autocannons and PPC's all having a minimum range it would change it. It wouldn't invalidate the build. You could still run that way, just never get close.

It would still be a great build for a long range player, but lacking anything to fight at close quarters may give those people some second thoughts and change it up.

Speaking of minimum ranges I also think it needs to be re-done as only doing 15% damage when fired at point blank ranges, instead of the scaled damage minimum it was before it was changed to just flat zero damage for the normal PPC. Paradoxically that actually might increase the number of PPC's.

Oh, and the game's "Bit^^%$-Betty" should tell you when you fire at somebody below minimum range and do no damage. I'm seeing a lot of players miss-use the LRM stalker. But that is a GUI issue, not a play balance one.

Edited by Hans Von Lohman, 10 March 2014 - 11:49 PM.

[Mr David]

It sounds like that would add a lot more strategy to weapons selection. I would be much less prone to load up my SDH-2H will only dakka and no back up weapons. It's like hitting the easy button.Fewer PPCs would be used since ACs are currently the short range backup for minimum range engagements in meta builds. I like the 0 dmg below range though. Keeps the Cicada PPC ECM humpers honest. Many would need to choose only part of their loadout to be long range pinpoint damage, while some tonnage would need to be devoted to shorter range weapons as well to avoid getting picked about by lights. This change would really buck the current meta and add more strategic elements to the game. It would also make roles more defined than they are now. Good call Hans!

[LoneMaverick]

I would totally be down for this, metaboats would have to split tonnage or be useless when a brawler closes in on them. IMO one of the main reason brawling weapons are so bad is because longer range options are just as good of a pick in short range anyway, so there is little reason to limit yourself.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

The only minimum range that would make any sense for the AC2, AC5, and Gauss would be for them to have a minimum convergence distance set at minimum range meters. That would make them still do damage inside their minimum, but would make them much harder to aim, especially when they're spread out across a mech.

[Carrioncrows]

sure i'm game.

[Blood Rose]

Im not in for 85mm and 120mm shells doing no damage at short ranges (it dosnt make sense) but if it breaks the damn meta then we're game.

[Blue Boutique]

Blood Rose, on 11 March 2014 - 01:50 AM, said:

Im not in for 85mm and 120mm shells doing no damage at short ranges (it dosnt make sense) but if it breaks the damn meta then we're game.

It would make sense if the AC/2 could be use as a flak weapon to shoot down aircraft. Missiles are armed at 180 meters for some reason or other so AC/2 arming at 120 meters would make sense.

Edited by Blue Boutique, 11 March 2014 - 02:05 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 March 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

The only minimum range that would make any sense for the AC2, AC5, and Gauss would be for them to have a minimum convergence distance set at minimum range meters. That would make them still do damage inside their minimum, but would make them much harder to aim, especially when they're spread out across a mech.

This.

P.S. Torso-mounted weapons shouldn't converge on varying distance at all.

[VXJaeger]

No. Where the **** you people get these ideas?

[MustrumRidcully]

No. It is a bad mechanic IMO. Long rang weapon balance should come from the lesser damage output for the same amount of weight investment (accounting weapon, heat sinks and ammo), not with arbitrary and non-believable minimum range rules.

[Karl Streiger]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 March 2014 - 02:48 AM, said:

No. It is a bad mechanic IMO. Long rang weapon balance should come from the lesser damage output for the same amount of weight investment (accounting weapon, heat sinks and ammo), not with arbitrary and non-believable minimum range rules.

This - if a Mech should have a minimum range it have to come from its mounting... because the gun is leveled for long range (you have to aim lower when you want to hit at shorter ranges)
The Gauss however could have a kind of minimum range - but only if its really sub caliber ammuniton with ferro magnetic discarding sabot

[kazlaton]

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but bullets coming out of your gun and magically doing no damage for the first 90 meters is one of the silliest ideas I've heard. If they had a solution that made weapons less accurate at certain ranges, that would be better. But from what I read about the arguments on pin point convergence, that doesn't seem doable for PGI.

[General Taskeen]

Please no, you'll give the Devs ideas like when they made the PPC useless in min range for the Awesome Mech (or any Mech for that matter). Min range (the no damage type from TT) needs to stay out of this game, frankly the no arming within min range on the current IS LRM in-game should be removed as well.

I would be all for weapons having no convergence in minimum range, but still have their full damage. In other words, as soon as you fire, it goes straight out of the weapon barrel, rather than angling inwards to the crosshair. I mean min range is pretty negligible like 90-120m, so the weapon is still definitely going to hit a target at that range, just not likely directly where your crosshair is. There are simply better ways to do "min range" in real time than the "no damage" kind PGI decided to throw into the game.

As is, the brand of min range we have has already ruined stock builds like 3 PPC's awesomes. A limited or no damage min range for AC's would also effectively neuter stock Autocannon Mechs. Stock LRM Mechs are also heavily neutered (think Catapult-A1, which can't fire at an ECM Mech in line of sight, and the missiles only arm at a certain range).

I mean we aren't taking turns to move across grids or roll some dice. If a Mech wants to stay in another Mech's weapon min range in real-time, it can effectively do so indefinitely.

Edited by General Taskeen, 11 March 2014 - 06:13 AM.

[Malleus011]

Minimum range in TT was NOT no damage. That's lazy crap PGI came up with. Minimum range in TT was a slight accuracy penalty (which got more severe as you got closer) and that's it.

I'd be all for the light AC's (and the gauss rifle) getting their proper minimum ranges (and the gauss losing the terrible charge mechanic). It would be better if minimum ranges worked more like TT, with only a mechanism to reduce accuracy, instead of making the weapon utterly useless.

They'd be having less problems with Clan LRMs too, for that matter.

[theta123]

Blue Boutique, on 11 March 2014 - 01:57 AM, said:

so AC/2 arming at 120 meters would make sense.

But for a cannon shell to ..."ARM" itself?? seriously? No such thing exists in any cannon related items.

[Truesight]

Why dont we just add vibrations to the mech firing those ACs? The more ACs you fire, the more you will spray things around (plus your cant sync that up with your PPCs anymore since they will go awol).

[Charons Little Helper]

General Taskeen, on 11 March 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

frankly the no arming within min range on the current IS LRM in-game should be removed as well.

That would make LRMs NUTS in a brawl.

[DONTOR]

NO, they are already bad enough against lights, handicapping them even further would be ridiculous and completly un-called for.

[DONTOR]

theta123, on 11 March 2014 - 07:00 AM, said:

But for a cannon shell to ..."ARM" itself?? seriously? No such thing exists in any cannon related items.

And yes it does... infact most artillery rounds have a minmum amount of rotations before it is armed and will explode, its part of the fuse itself. This would transfer into minimum distance before damage could register. This is utilized with HE (high explosive rounds) and Im not entirely sure how it would effect an AP round. Same can be said for all NATO 40mm grenade rounds.

[MeiSooHaityu]

My concerns with this idea are many...

1. It is counter intuitive. Ballistics of any type do not have minimum range effectiveness. It may seem initially an idea for balancing, but it makes no sense and will confuse new players and even some veterans adding to a WTF factor when they fire a weapon and it doesn't register damage. No one can relate to a bullet that doesn't do damage under a certain range.

C. This would hurt Medium mechs even more than the Heavy mechs. It might curb meta on the Heavies, but Mediums often rely on speed and in many cases up close combat. Mediums also have limited tonnage and because of that, A/C5s (and even A/C2s to some extent) are often the ballistic of choice. Now the Mediums (a mech class often considered to be at the most disadvantage) lose effectivness at close range dramatically.

%: Lastly, we would buff Light mechs something crazy with a nerf like this as well. Light mechs can already be dangerous in the right hands and in packs, but lets make them even more dangerous by reducing the weapons we can use against them when they are circling around a mech under 90m away.


Sorry, this idea is not a really good idea. It is driven by desperation over powering logic.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 11 March 2014 - 07:59 AM.