16 replies to this topic

[Etrigan]

What if we were to add some "real-world" physics characteristics to various weapons systems as a mechanism to balance things. Let me elaborate:

1. Engines should generate specific quantities of energy. This would limit overspec mounting of PPC's or Gauss by having to meet the energy generated. It could also limit numbers of lasers based on output as well as hardpoints.

2. A Gauss is essentially a rail gun. It would require huge amounts of energy limiting it to Assaults or specific Heavies able to mount very large engines and probably limit these to a single Gauss per chassis. A single Gauss discharge should consume most if not all of an engine's energy output for 1-3 seconds, halting the mech, shutting down it's sensors and maybe even a forced shutdown/restart after firing. The magnetic interference of the accelerator should also interfere with any missiles mounted and/or limit sensor efficiency. As a balance it should do HUGE damage on impact and be a virtually instantaneous impact and potential generate no heat.

3. A PPC is a focused stream of high energy ions, rather then coherent light as is a laser. This should give PPC platforms a couple of major disadvantages. They should light up like a Christmas tree with hard radiation when fired. They should require extra internals and/or armour to counter the hard radiation affecting the pilot. They should blind the firing platforms sensors and any other mech within 100 meters for 1-3 seconds upon firing due to the hard radiation expended. PPC's should only be torso mountable due to the particle acceleration rings required to get the ions up to near-light speed. The recycle time should be in the 10's of seconds attributeable to spinning up the ion's after discharge. As balance, a PPC hit should have a 2.5-10% chance of shutting down its target's electronic systems upon impact as well as the potential to fry the pilot 1% of the time. (mech shutdown in game perhaps?) Again, hits should be virtually instant due to the near-light speed of the ions discharged. Damage should be second only to the Gauss.

Just an idea, please comment

[KalebFenoir]

1) The idea of Engine power usage is a good one to me, perhaps for the tabletop, but unless they institute a Armoured Core or Chromehounds building style where you could see exactly how much power each piece needs and such, it's kind of unusable here. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it does require reworking. I'm pretty sure there's fluff out there on certain mechs that actually claim they had to use a bigger engine for Reason X of power usage...but that's like, post-build info added on rather than something they had to actually incorporate into mech designing.

2)A Gauss rifle is NOT a Railgun. They are very similar in structure (using electromagnets), but they operate differently. a Railgun. If you look up both on Wiki, you'll see the difference. Based on the weapon's description on http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Gauss_Rifle I had always mentally seen the design as a Coilgun ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun ) with the slug being a free-floating mass, rather than a Railgun which acts more like an aircraft carrier catapault with the little tram thing being shot forward at high speed. The Railgun reloads by pulling the tram-thing back to the launch point and putting a shell on it. The Coilgun alternates magnets around the slug, pulling/pushing it along at higher speeds with each step down the barrel.

In addition, Gauss Rifles don't drain the mech's energy in one shot because they constantly 'sip' at the power supply until the weapon's ready to fire. Firing just discharges the already accrued power, producing a negligable drain on the mech's actual engine power. That's what most of the 'load time' for the Gauss is. It's not loading the shell; that happens in a few seconds. It's pulling power to the magnets that takes the most time. In fact, when you destroy a Gauss Rifle, it detonates like a bomb because the electromagnets and such let loose with the energy they've got stored in them for the next shot. Takes a limb RIGHT off.

3 ) PPCs are supposed to be 'focused lightning'. There wouldn't be much back-blast 'hard radiation' from the weapon. After leaving the barrel, the particle stream is magnetically bottled for a certain distance, like a shaped charge. The actual beam is rather interesting; studies these days show that a particle beam will follow a clearer, straight line if a laser is fired just before the actual beam. The laser isn't high power, but it clears the path between projector and target. The shot itself is probably more akin to a full-on lightning strike. High electrical energy (possibly futzing out mechs with cheap surge protection gear), and an actual physical impact from the mass of particles fired in the beam.

In actual table-top rules, in the more advanced rules, weapons like AC10-20s, PPCs, and Gauss Rifles required that the mech sacrifice the hand and lower arm actuators to 'make room' for the device, since it was so bulky, as you say. I do enjoy the idea of temporarily 'snowing' my electronics as a result of a double-fire or even a single-fire, and of screwing up the enemy's electronics moreso, because that IS what is supposed to happen. It's why the Cataphract has one club arm, or why the 'Unseen' Marauder was missing both hands.

[Marmon Rzohr]

I love a bit of hard science with any meal and MW:O is no exception. That's why i think threads like this are sweet

However in the interest of being user friendly and as simple as possible for the end user to enjoy I'd suggest a simplification of the above with a slight addition:

Mounting several energy hungry weapons at the same time puts additional strain on the engines power supply so the charge time is longer. Simple as that. It could replace ghost heat. Same weapon limits. Same exponential growth. Only it would allow for adjustments to heatless" weapons like the gauss and would be less frustrating for new players since it wouldn't result in frequent shutdowns or internal damage.

The mechlab could simply display the additional penalty if you put in 3 ppcs for example. (e.i. Warning: x PPCs will recharge 30% slower if fired in unison).

Chainfire would not cause this because it would stagger the energy demand a bit.


Also: since in BT lore the PPC's kinetic component is described as significant it could have some recoil. This would IMHO put it in a better place vs. other energy weapons since it is, as it is now, much more accurate at range (lasers require tracking the target, a comparative skill difficulty when sniping is needed to completely balance the PPC)

Otherwise if you nerf PPCs to the ground with heat etc, it will just mean that there is no viable energy sniping weapon. Lasers as they are just don't cut it at large ranges (500/600+ m).

It is questionable, for a physics point of view, how noticable this recoil would be compared to ACs and other "traditional" weapons.

Just some ideas
Cheers

[Narcissistic Martyr]

This sort of thing is exactly what I've been suggesting since closed beta. They aren't going to listen to you because physics in cryengine3 put load on the CPU and mwo is already ridiculously CPU bound for a modern game.

[Nauht]

Well you'd first have to explain how a bipedal 30 ton machine can run at 150 kph or 100 tons can run at over 60kph using a MW as an inner ear. Let alone climb a multi-degree hill. If this was feasible, imagine the distance required to fully stop, time needed to accelerate all that tonnage to any reason speed.

Then we canget started with weaponry.

Yeah, lets leave RL physics in school and the real world.

[Marmon Rzohr]

The idea wasn't so implement "realistic" physics completely, but rather in a selective way, as a balancing too. The idea is that balancing weapons beased on physical behavious is more intuitive for the player than arbitrary behind-the-scenes rules.

Of course this is just and idea. The implementation shouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the game's physics engine. Just an innovative way of explaining and implementing simple numerical mechanics (such as increased recharge time etc)

[Etrigan]

Thanks for having my back, Marmon

[Trauglodyte]

Etrigan, on 18 August 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

3. A PPC is a focused stream of high energy ions, rather then coherent light as is a laser.

This is wrong. A PPC uses a massive burst of ions to electrify and, thereby, superheat, the chemical carrier creating a plasma burst (ie, bolt of lightning). It isn't a beam, it isn't a focused stream, it is essentially a plasma ball. What PGI has gotten wrong is how a ball of material that is somewhere between a gas and a liquid reacts when it strikes an object.

[Tabrias07]

IRL mechs wouldn't be able to stand.

[Marmon Rzohr]

Tabrias07, on 21 August 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

IRL mechs wouldn't be able to stand.

Millions of years ago, there were living creatures that stood and walked just fine, and were just as big
It's really cool when you think about it xD

Trauglodyte, on 21 August 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

This is wrong. A PPC uses a massive burst of ions to electrify and, thereby, superheat, the chemical carrier creating a plasma burst (ie, bolt of lightning). It isn't a beam, it isn't a focused stream, it is essentially a plasma ball. What PGI has gotten wrong is how a ball of material that is somewhere between a gas and a liquid reacts when it strikes an object.

The Particle Projector Cannon (or PPC) is a unique energy weapon. PPCs fire a concentrated stream of protons or ions at a target, causing damage through both thermal and kinetic energy.^[3] As such, despite being an energy weapon, it produces recoil. - Quoted from Sarna.net.

The idea is that you use a device similar to a particle accelarator to direct a short stream (burst) of particles, not a ball of plasma, like a plasma cannon in WarHammer 40k does.

At least that's how i got it. And that's what they went for with the visual representation i think.

But then again MW2 made them look like bolts (or balls) of plasma just like you said.
(MW2 also made them absurdly OP xD )

BTW: what did you mean by "PGI had it wrong" you mean something along the lines of an impact reaction on the target mech, like the ones from Autocannon shots ?
That would be sweet IMO. The impact, as is, feel a bit meh compared to a Gauss impact for instance.

[Trauglodyte]

Marmon Rzohr, on 21 August 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

Millions of years ago, there were living creatures that stood and walked just fine, and were just as big
It's really cool when you think about it xD


The Particle Projector Cannon (or PPC) is a unique energy weapon. PPCs fire a concentrated stream of protons or ions at a target, causing damage through both thermal and kinetic energy.^[3] As such, despite being an energy weapon, it produces recoil. - Quoted from Sarna.net.

The idea is that you use a device similar to a particle accelarator to direct a short stream (burst) of particles, not a ball of plasma, like a plasma cannon in WarHammer 40k does.

At least that's how i got it. And that's what they went for with the visual representation i think.

But then again MW2 made them look like bolts (or balls) of plasma just like you said.
(MW2 also made them absurdly OP xD )

BTW: what did you mean by "PGI had it wrong" you mean something along the lines of an impact reaction on the target mech, like the ones from Autocannon shots ?
That would be sweet IMO. The impact, as is, feel a bit meh compared to a Gauss impact for instance.

I get what you're saying and Sarna's write up is all manners of nice. But, it doesn't do a good job of actually indicating what is going on with the weapon. Lightning, of which the PPC sort of mimics (disregard the Mechwarrior products and their visual effects) use that stream of ions to charge the surrounding atmosphere. This interaction causes the gases between the accelerator and the target to superheat creating a plasma effect or, as we see in the game, "man made lightning".

Plasma (from Greek πλάσμα, "anything formed"^[1]) is one of the four fundamental states of matter (the others being solid, liquid, and gas). Heating a gas may ionize its molecules or atoms (reducing or increasing the number of electrons in them), thus turning it into a plasma, which contains charged particles: positive ions and negative electrons or ions.^[2] Ionization can be induced by other means, such as strong electromagnetic field applied with a laser or microwave generator, and is accompanied by the dissociation of molecular bonds, if present.^[3] Plasma can also be created by the application of an electric field on a gas. Both lightning and electric sparks are everyday examples of phenomena made from plasma.

So, as you can see, the writing from Sarna and other Battletech sources is correct. It is a particle accelerator but not in line with the CERN or Large Hadron Collider. Though, both of those accelerators could create the PPC effect if they weren't done in a vacuum and the track was filled with whatever gas medium is needed for the reaction.

[MrPils]

I like where you're going with this...much more than I like where PGI are going anyway! I do feel I have to point out though that nothing heavier than around 10 tons has ever walked on two legs, millions of years go or not . Quadripedal only over 10 tons as 3 feet always have to remain in contact with the floor due to impact with the floor shattering bones during locomotion. Bipedal when you want to move quickly or efficiently. Its my home field so to speak .

Edited by MrPils, 22 August 2013 - 11:45 AM.

[Nauht]

Even dinosaurs had a brain and balance system... and I'm willing to bet didn't accelerate to 60kph in 3 secs or brake to full stop in the same without tipping over due to inertia.

Anyway the point us you can't have RL physics and principles for one aspect and simply ignore everything else.

[LauLiao]

So all the fast mechs will have lots of firepower and the slower versions will have fewer weapons. Great. Why would anyone bother to put in anything other than the maximum allowable engine then?

Edited by LauLiao, 22 August 2013 - 03:47 PM.

[Marmon Rzohr]

Nauht, on 22 August 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

Even dinosaurs had a brain and balance system... and I'm willing to bet didn't accelerate to 60kph in 3 secs or brake to full stop in the same without tipping over due to inertia.

Anyway the point us you can't have RL physics and principles for one aspect and simply ignore everything else.

Yeah you can. That's the whole point of science fiction !

Make fantastic imaginings with a relationship with science which is as close as convenient


The idea wasn't to do very hard science but rather to see how intuitive physica principles could be translated into simple game mechanics and rules which could be used to balance the game.

Some current rules such as Ghost Heat are unintuitive to a new (and even veteran) player because they are just that... arbitrary rules.

The idea is that a well designed game requires no manual or rulebook, it can be figured out intuitively.
- Let me give an example (purely hypothetical): if you want to nerf Autocannons and add additional heat based on the number being fired, there is on way someone can figure this out or assume it beforehand. On the other hand if you nerfed boating of Autocannons by adding cummulative recoil, that's different. A player can feel the effect of recoil, and can notice how firing multiple guns makes it worse and the deduction is very natural.

See what I mean ?
Every FPS player assumes a very loud, high caliber gun will have a lot of recoil even if they understand nothing about how guns work, or the rules of the game work.

It's always best to use natural human reasoning as a guideline.

LauLiao, on 22 August 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

So all the fast mechs will have lots of firepower and the slower versions will have fewer weapons. Great. Why would anyone bother to put in anything other than the maximum allowable engine then?

No, because light mechs are restricted by tonnage, and large engines are heavy, so you need to find a balance between a big engine and enough tonnage for the weapons/armor/ammo you want.

Also keep in mind that traditional ballistic weapons like the ACs do not drain engine power, so a heavy ballistic build (4xAC2 jager for instance) wouldn't have to choose a big engine for the sake of weapons.

As far as lasers and energy stuff is concerned, there's a limit before this starts to take effect. (1 Gauss rifle and 5 MLas can be fed with power without penalties by any reasonable engine size).

Also, very important:
- Engine size doesn't have to matter. It could be a penalty regardless of engine size. After all if you split power down a lot of channels, increasing overall power is a very inefficent way to combat the reduced output per channel.
(IMHO this should be the way to go, bringing in engine size to the equation, might be fun, but is probably complicating the matter too much - the idea is to keep it simple and intuitive)

[Nauht]

Marmon Rzohr, on 22 August 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

Yeah you can. That's the whole point of science fiction !

Make fantastic imaginings with a relationship with science which is as close as convenient


The idea wasn't to do very hard science but rather to see how intuitive physica principles could be translated into simple game mechanics and rules which could be used to balance the game.

Some current rules such as Ghost Heat are unintuitive to a new (and even veteran) player because they are just that... arbitrary rules.

The idea is that a well designed game requires no manual or rulebook, it can be figured out intuitively.
- Let me give an example (purely hypothetical): if you want to nerf Autocannons and add additional heat based on the number being fired, there is on way someone can figure this out or assume it beforehand. On the other hand if you nerfed boating of Autocannons by adding cummulative recoil, that's different. A player can feel the effect of recoil, and can notice how firing multiple guns makes it worse and the deduction is very natural.

See what I mean ?
Every FPS player assumes a very loud, high caliber gun will have a lot of recoil even if they understand nothing about how guns work, or the rules of the game work.

It's always best to use natural human reasoning as a guideline.


No, because light mechs are restricted by tonnage, and large engines are heavy, so you need to find a balance between a big engine and enough tonnage for the weapons/armor/ammo you want.

Also keep in mind that traditional ballistic weapons like the ACs do not drain engine power, so a heavy ballistic build (4xAC2 jager for instance) wouldn't have to choose a big engine for the sake of weapons.

As far as lasers and energy stuff is concerned, there's a limit before this starts to take effect. (1 Gauss rifle and 5 MLas can be fed with power without penalties by any reasonable engine size).

Also, very important:
- Engine size doesn't have to matter. It could be a penalty regardless of engine size. After all if you split power down a lot of channels, increasing overall power is a very inefficent way to combat the reduced output per channel.
(IMHO this should be the way to go, bringing in engine size to the equation, might be fun, but is probably complicating the matter too much - the idea is to keep it simple and intuitive)

True, I get what you're saying but my position still stands - even if you can't apply hardcore physics to SF and just have a relationship to help us bridge the gap better, then why shouldn't it apply to one of the most basic of physics principles - movement, first.

To me that's much for fantastical than any explanable theorycrafting of weapons, cos weapons in SF can be anything anyone can think of, prime example the lightsaber.

So you can have that quasi-realistic relationship to help us understand it better but it needs to cover all aspects of the game, not just one area.

[Marmon Rzohr]

Well the idea is that since we want to combine "game" with "intuitive physics", it needs to have the best of each world. Implementing skidding and diving due to inertia in mech movement is someting, while VERY cool , would make the game far too complicated and very difficult to play.

However, reduced speed over inclines is very intuitive and make high ground more valuable (you could win in Alpine easily by going with a pack of fast brawlers and climbing the sheer cliff on right side with little risk of counterfire or discovery and tear the enemy rear apart up close).

That's the idea. You take only what you can use to make the game better and feel better.

Imagine this:
- You fire a PPC. Ok. Everything's fine. it makes a little hum while charging. You fire two. Same thing, but a bit louder hum (there are two of them). You fire 3. The hum is significantly louder, the weapon display is blinking red, and has a small message in red "High Power Drain", the weapons charge slower and some of the screens in the cockpit, flicker for a bit.

Now you have a mechanic which every player will understand right of the bat. Especially if you put an additional thing in the mechlab, like a pop up dialogue, that says: Engineer's warning: "If you fire all 4 Large Lasers at the same time, the engine won't be able to supply enough power, and they will recharge slower".

A bit more immersion. No additional complication. Nobody has to look up a guide or the forums to see what's going on.

Where as, you can have even a MW veteran come into the game right now, say well imma build me an improvised Nova Cat/Awesome, crams it with DHS, 3LL or 3PPCs and it shuts down on the first shot.. all he can do is say "WTF" and look it up on the forums.

Edited by Marmon Rzohr, 23 August 2013 - 01:56 AM.