833 replies to this topic

[Rhaythe]

Kraven Kor, on 05 September 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

"Canon" Solution: PPC's split damage between target and firing mech under 90m in the same scale that they used to reduce damage. At 45 meters, you would be doing 5 damage to yourself and 5 damage to the enemy mech. But then NOBODY would use them.

I really, REALLY like that idea. It makes close-range PPC usage a desperation maneuver.

[Masterzinja]

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 05 September 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

90 m min range on PPC is tabletop. Just confirming for you. Er ppc came later and didn't have min as it is newer tech. New heat levels are also TT.

Alright, that's confirmed. I think my point still stands on the execution of the minimum range and the reason it existed in the TT. It was a saftey mechanism that prevented electric feedback to the shooting mech by preventing the shot, in much the same was as overheating and automatic shut-down currently works in that pilots could over-ride the saftey. As it stands with the last patch you still fire the PPC blast under 90 meters, you still hit the target and you still build heat from the shot, but no damage appears. SO technically it is still a clunky, non-intuitive change that doesn't measure up to the TT; perhaps in spirit, but not in execution.

[Jakob Knight]

Kraven Kor, on 05 September 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

So I don't know what to suggest, but "PPC's do 0 damage under 90 meters then magically do full damage at 90 meters or beyond" is just pants-on-head silly to me. Your opinion may vary.

Well, it's completely consistent with the use of 'minimum range' elsewhere within MWO. LRMs have had this from Day One (though many people chose to turn a blind eye to it when complaining about their being OP), and in a much greater degree. If it seems silly to you for the same system to be used on PPCs, maybe it's just that you got too used to the PPC being a 'good at anything' design?

If it helps, the one logical means of explaining it is that the particle stream doesn't focus until some distance from the end of the firing port, being too diffuse to do damage. Granted, this isn't very logical, but neither is a supersonic, rocket-propelled object carrying high explosive doing no damage because it hits something before it arms properly. Both are simply the way the Devs have worked Minimum Range into their game, and at least it is consistent (though the Gauss Rifle needs the same treatment for it's 60m minimum).

Edited by Jakob Knight, 05 September 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[SIERRA 116]

I don't think LRMs are supersonic... fast yeah, but not that fast.

Also, what is ghost heat?

[Rhaythe]

SIERRA 116, on 05 September 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

I don't think LRMs are supersonic... fast yeah, but not that fast.

Also, what is ghost heat?

http://mwo-builds.ne...ons-table/1001/

[Jakob Knight]

SIERRA 116, on 05 September 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

I don't think LRMs are supersonic... fast yeah, but not that fast.

Also, what is ghost heat?

You need to look at a modern missile firing. When I was in the Navy, we fired large, long-range anti-air missiles from the launchers on our ships. By time the missile left the rail, it was supersonic. Smaller, battlefield missiles accelerate even faster. Granted, MWO isn't exactly ironclad realistic (PPC bolts travelling slower than a solid projectile, ect), but you don't have missile accelerate either...they are instantly at full travel speed from launch. And even if they are not supersonic, getting hit with 15-20 missiles 50-100 times the mass of an autocannon round is going do significant kinetic damage, so the same argument stands.

Remember, you don't get to be an effective weapon system on the modern battlefield by being slow.

[Kunae]

SIERRA 116, on 05 September 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

Also, what is ghost heat?

http://mwomercs.com/...general-update/
http://mwomercs.com/...cale-the-maths/

[SIERRA 116]

Right, I get it now.

So far? Patch doesn't affect me.

[Kraven Kor]

Jakob Knight, on 05 September 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

Well, it's completely consistent with the use of 'minimum range' elsewhere within MWO. LRMs have had this from Day One (though many people chose to turn a blind eye to it when complaining about their being OP), and in a much greater degree. If it seems silly to you for the same system to be used on PPCs, maybe it's just that you got too used to the PPC being a 'good at anything' design?

If it helps, the one logical means of explaining it is that the particle stream doesn't focus until some distance from the end of the firing port, being too diffuse to do damage. Granted, this isn't very logical, but neither is a supersonic, rocket-propelled object carrying high explosive doing no damage because it hits something before it arms properly. Both are simply the way the Devs have worked Minimum Range into their game, and at least it is consistent (though the Gauss Rifle needs the same treatment for it's 60m minimum).

Nope.

LRM's in TT did 0 damage under minimum range. The "fluff" was that the LRM's wouldn't arm until X distance out of the tubes.

Ballistics and PPC's with a minimum range did full damage under minimum range, but suffered the +2 to hit modifier, which is not easy to implement.

But don't mind me, I'm just here yelling at clouds.

[Jakob Knight]

Kraven Kor, on 05 September 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

Nope.

LRM's in TT did 0 damage under minimum range. The "fluff" was that the LRM's wouldn't arm until X distance out of the tubes.

Ballistics and PPC's with a minimum range did full damage under minimum range, but suffered the +2 to hit modifier, which is not easy to implement.

But don't mind me, I'm just here yelling at clouds.

Not to be insulting here, but you need to go back and read the TT rules, before you start telling people what they are.

In the TT rules, 'Minimum Range' was a rule universal across all weapons, and had the effect of a +1 to hit per 30-meter hex within that range a weapon was fired at. A weapon with a Minimum Range of 3 would thus take a +1 to hit penalty at 90 meters, +2 at 60 meters, and +3 at 30 meters. That was all it did...reduce the chances to hit. A weapon could be fired within the minimum range, and if it hit, it had full effect. This applied to all weapons in the game, universally, including LRMs (there were many times when an Archer pilot fired their LRMs at targets under minimum range due to circumstances or skill).

The 'Hotload' rule came out as an optional rule that allowed players to fire LRMs without any minimum range penalty in exchange for the chance for the launcher to explode if it was hit before the last hotfired salvo had been reset (if the launcher was hit on the next turn following a hotload firing). While the explaination for all of this was the fusing of the warhead, the actual explaination is that LRMs were designed to lock onto targets far downrange and their speed combined with guidance systems set up for arcing flight meant they couldn't turn fast enough to accurately be used on closer-in targets.

Regardless, the minimum range rule used in MWO is entirely a MWO fabrication, and not what Minimum Range was supposed to be. This is a tradeoff for allowing you (the player) to be able to control the aiming of your weapons instead of the combat systems (necessary in a video game where players would cry if they had to rely on automated systems for hit or miss), so there is no way to implement the graduated accuracy falloff seen in the actual game.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 05 September 2013 - 08:32 AM.

[DirePhoenix]

Jakob Knight, on 05 September 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

Regardless, the minimum range rule used in MWO is entirely a MWO fabrication, and not what Minimum Range was supposed to be. This is a tradeoff for allowing you (the player) to be able to control the aiming of your weapons instead of the combat systems (necessary in a video game where players would cry if they had to rely on automated systems for hit or miss), so there is no way to implement the graduated accuracy falloff seen in the actual game.

*cough*CONVERGENCE*cough*

[Jakob Knight]

DirePhoenix, on 05 September 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

*cough*CONVERGENCE*cough*

Convergence affects how multiple weapons strike a target, not a single weapon firing under minimum range. You can grant a complete convergence disassociation between a group of five weapons, and it will have zero impact on firing a single PPC at 30 meters. So, convergence isn't the same at all.

The only way you could have the kind of accuracy dropoff seen in the TT is if all hits were determined seperate from the pilot's (you) aim. You could also have increasing crosshair shake based on whatever weapons you had mounted and their minimum range rating, but we've already seen that doesn't work out well with the jump jet shake issue (it would also induce a minimum range for all weapons, not just the penalized ones).

I'll live with the minimum range system in MWO because it's the best option. If another comes around and can be proven to work better, I'll be all for it. However, complaining that it should apply one way to one weapon, and then that it's unfair it affect another in the identical situation an identical way is kind of non-sensical.

[Wolfways]

Kraven Kor, on 05 September 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

Nope.

LRM's in TT did 0 damage under minimum range. The "fluff" was that the LRM's wouldn't arm until X distance out of the tubes.

Ballistics and PPC's with a minimum range did full damage under minimum range, but suffered the +2 to hit modifier, which is not easy to implement.

But don't mind me, I'm just here yelling at clouds.

According to Sarna:
"First introduced in 2400 by the Terran Hegemony, Long Range Missiles are designed to engage the enemy at great distances at the expense of damage dealt. Adapted towards the profusion of electronic jamming on the battlefield and the effectiveness of current armor designs, these missiles are capable of indirect fire and disperse over a smaller area than Short Range Missiles. Inner Sphere LRM launchers achieve this range by firing at a ballistic launch angle, making them less accurate at close range. Clan LRM launchers do not suffer from this effect, in addition to being smaller and more compact, thanks to their technological advantage. LRMs are highly upgradable, able to fire a variety of warheads and benefit from devices such as Artemis IV FCS."
To me that sounds like the only reason IS missiles have a minimum range is not because they didn't arm as they left the launcher, but because they were fired at an upward angle. Also, it says "less accurate at close range", not "no damage at close range".

[Dan Nashe]

Die Primate Die, on 04 September 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

Russ says they're "looking at UAC/5's." They start butchering the remaining ballistic options, I'm pulling the plug I fear.

Disagree with you vehemently.
Everytime I try to make a build wit an ac 2, 5, 10, or 10x I end up with a uac5 because they are just plain superior.
Half my ac 20 builds have replaced the ac20 with double uac5s.

Don't get me wrong, I think the lower jam chance was a good change, because the weapon should be balanced around less luck. But it needs a nerf (or all other acs need a buff). I would start with a recycle time of 1.5 seconds. (And nothing else! Gradual changes! Not massive pendulum changes!) And see how it plays out.

[Deathsiege]

Wow this patch has killed my erppc cat. 2 or 3 shots and I overheat.

[Bors Mistral]

DanNashe, on 05 September 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

Half my ac 20 builds have replaced the ac20 with double uac5s.

How the hell do you manage to squeeze 2UAC5s and equivalent ammo where an AC20 would otherwise be?

[Hatachi]

Kunae, on 05 September 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

Um... 90m minimum range on standard PPC's is TT canon.

Investigate things before making ignorant statements about them, please.

I just wanted to point out the reasoning in Tabletop for why PPCs had a minimum range. It wasn't due to them not being able to do damage. It was due to them having a safety system built in that would stop the weapon from firing if the shot would rebound back through the charge and hit the gun. In the extended rules they even have options for turning off the safety measures and on a hit you take a chance of slagging your gun from the rebound.

Personally, I think it would be a fun mechanic to have it where you can fire PPCs close, but decent chance of the gun becoming non functional and doing internal damage. The closer you are, the higher the chance of the rebound effect happening.

[DirePhoenix]

Jakob Knight, on 05 September 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

Convergence affects how multiple weapons strike a target, not a single weapon firing under minimum range. You can grant a complete convergence disassociation between a group of five weapons, and it will have zero impact on firing a single PPC at 30 meters. So, convergence isn't the same at all.

Wrong.

Convergence is based on the location of the weapon in relation to where the crosshair is drawn. In MWO (currently) the crosshair is drawn from the pilot's perspective. The farther out the weapon is mounted away from the pilot's eyes, the more divergent the weapon will be from the crosshairs as the target moves farther within the minimum convergence range. Take for example setting a minimum convergence range of 90m for PPCs, meaning the closest the weapons can converge on the crosshairs is 90m. From the image below you can see how as the target closes within the minimum range, the weapon line of fire for the PPCs start getting farther away from the crosshair line.


So as the target gets closer, if you're trying to place your crosshairs on the target to hit, the PPCs start landing farther away from the crosshair because they're not focused on the object that's in front of them, they're focused on a point 90m out in front of them along the crosshair line.

Hence... an "accuracy modifier" that makes it more difficult to hit the spot you're aiming for within the minimum range, while not making it just plain impossible to hit at all. Experienced or 'skilled' players that have a more intimate knowledge of their 'mech and where their hardpoints are located will be able to adjust for this by aiming off to the side by a certain degree depending on how close their target is within the minimum range.

[Kattspya]

Mycrus, on 04 September 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

I'm amazed at how many purported l33t pl4yurz (aka noobs) are crying over changes to weapons.

If you are truly elite then you will - LEARN. ADAPT. OVERCOME.

It just appears that many noobs got stripped off their favorite toy and is throwing a girlie hissy fit..

Stop that playground language and rise above, son.

In all seriousness though, can you name names? Or even better quote posts?

[Kraven Kor]

Kattspya, on 05 September 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

Stop that playground language and rise above, son.

In all seriousness though, can you name names? Or even better quote posts?

Lots of people make lots of assumptions about why others post whatever they do. Not all of those assumptions are *wrong* but they are all assumptions and thus many of them are, likely, wrong.