13 replies to this topic

[Vermaxx]

Gauss - 60m
AC2 - 120m
AC5 - 90m
UAC5 - 60m


Zero damage for THESE weapons in minimum range. Since we're talking about how unbalanced the PPC was and all, and now it joins the LRM in that inflexible hard penalty minimum range zone.

[DYSEQTA]

problem for me is that I can see no logical reason (table top rules aside) for any of these weapons to have minimum range. Why would a solid chunk of metal at supersonic speeds hitting you inside 60m have no effect on you?

[GrandLocomon]

Yes, because autocannons are totally OP and need nerfing. Trololol.... um wait, no they don't.

[Jam the Bam]

Right the reasoning for PPC's minimum range is dodgy but ok (something about power fields), but how the hell do you explain a solid slug doing nothing below an arbitrary hard limit?

[RandomLurker]

It was supposed to be due to the limitations of the computers that control Battlemechs. I always thought it was dodgy too.

PPC's were caused by feedback, since basically you are creating an electric arc to the target. There was an optional rule for a pilot to disable the feedback protection, with a chance to critical the PPC instead of having a minimum range. There was a similar rule for hot-loading LRM's as well.

Really it was just attempted gameplay balance. (because AC/2 were soooo OP in teh tabletop /roll). Actually, the Clan LRMs having no minimum range was orginally a publication error and they (regretably) decided to run with it.

[Vermaxx]

There was no optional rule for firing a PPC in minimum range. The player simply DID IT and you had to roll over the increased to-hit penalty. Exactly the same as a 'long range' shot. Same thing for LRMs. There may have been optional rules for SUPER HAPPY FUN TIME, but the book simply made it harder to HIT, not harder to do DAMAGE.

It wasn't even a HARD to-hit penalty. INSIDE minimum range is +1 target number for every hex the target is inside your minimum. If you put a ppc up to another mech's face and pulled the trigger, it was +3. An LRM rack was +6 at minimum range. MWO ppc wouldn't do any damage at zero range, and only 2.5 at 30m. At 45m it did half it's full load, or 5 damage. Meaning as long as you could avoid someone HUGGING you (which you usually can), you could get at least a medium laser out of the thing. Now you cannot get anything out of it under 90m, meaning you HAVE to stick with support (losing your range benefits) or you need backup weapons which take away from heat mitigation.

As far as 'why would solid slugs not do damage' BECAUSE PGI SAID SO AND I'M REUSING THAT LOGIC. If ppc has shock protection, and LRM don't arm (this isn't submarine warfare, they aren't coming back), and we're going with fluff-as-balance, then any other weapon with a minimum range needs a similar ban hammer penalty inside minimums.

No, I don't think logically any slug-gun needs a range/damage nerf. The ppc didn't either. A ppc is just firing a burst of ELECTRICITY at someone. If the burst leaves the barrel, it hits something. The burst doesn't need distance to power up unless we're playing Dragonball Z here. An electrical discharge hurts someone whether it travels 45m or 450m. LRMs should cause damage at least down to 30-60m. We're already at a point in this game where every player is sitting on the tabletop equivalent of a master repair team, unlimited access to rare tech, and a dropship/factory level repair facility. It would be nothing to disable to governor on a ppc or make sure LRM warheads arm at a shorter range.

What really gets me is the reasoning behind this. The only reason they did it was to FORCE people to use the ERPPC at higher heat if they didn't want to get hugged to death. They raised the heat of the ppc marginally, back to book value, but they absolutely hardcapped its brawling potential (and SORT OF made the large pulse useful again). They also raised the ERPPC back to book value at 15, which is obscene. Both weapons now deal with the ghost heat system.

So there you go, the ppc was evil and horrible and boating was ruining the game. So now the ppc is easily marginalized and the ERPPC has high enough heat to stop you from even THINKING about boating it.

Edited by Vermaxx, 05 September 2013 - 11:03 AM.

[HATER 1]

The to-hit mod for minimum ranges was to reflect clumsiness of long range direct weaponry at short range, arming time of LRMs, and feedback for the PPC. This didn't mean they couldn't be used, just that they were harder TO use. What some of you guys don't get is the TT rules were an abstract of how things would unfold in a 10 second time frame. The reasoning for minimums and their penalties were a part of that abstract, and to remove any potential for damage below those ranges is pretty foolish.

Even the heat system is abstract, which is why it is so hard to get it right across the board....

Edited by HATER 1, 05 September 2013 - 01:28 PM.

[Telrax]

Well if they added core breaches you would understand far better why staying back from any mech is a good idea.

Shells also had minumums for a few reasons. AC shells need time to arm (most explode on impact), and Guass while propelled does still need some distance to effectively work (it was odd trajectory/gravity thing).

PPCs had the back fire rule. If you fire one to close the bolt can EMP both your target and your mech. Also there was a odd rule about firing to fast with a PPC. The PPC needs time to "degauss", or it build up a megnetic charge that could fry the gun (and Mech). ERPPC if I recall was designed to negate this, but I can not recall.

Weapons all have limits. It is part of the tactical side of BattleTech/MechWarrior.

[Victor Morson]

Vermaxx, on 05 September 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

Gauss - 60m
AC2 - 120m
AC5 - 90m
UAC5 - 60m


Zero damage for THESE weapons in minimum range. Since we're talking about how unbalanced the PPC was and all, and now it joins the LRM in that inflexible hard penalty minimum range zone.

You do realize that "Minimum distance penalties" in the board game was not "No damage at all."

You seriously want to give AC/2s a nerf? What is your malfunction??

EDIT: Oh, I see. You hate the fact PPCs finally stopped being horrendously OP. Nothing to see here folks, carry on.

Edited by Victor Morson, 05 September 2013 - 08:35 PM.

[Marvyn Dodgers]

Telrax, on 05 September 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

Well if they added core breaches you would understand far better why staying back from any mech is a good idea.

Not to sound like a broken record, but just say no to Stackpoling

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 09 September 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[Malleus011]

The No Damage minimum range penalties are silly. Make it harder to hit, or reduced damage (exactly like shooting beyond effective range), but no damage is a poor solution.

And I'd be happy to see all the canon minimum ranges implemented.

[Bront]

Malleus011, on 10 September 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

The No Damage minimum range penalties are silly. Make it harder to hit, or reduced damage (exactly like shooting beyond effective range), but no damage is a poor solution.

Agreed. I had no real problem with the PPC one, and the LRM one makes some kind of sense from a balance perspective (otherwise SRMs are pretty useless and LRMs rule the world if you could face hug them), as well as preventing friendly fire issues.

Gauss, AC5, and AC2? Don't need it.

[Vermaxx]

Victor Morson, on 05 September 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

You do realize that "Minimum distance penalties" in the board game was not "No damage at all."

You seriously want to give AC/2s a nerf? What is your malfunction??

EDIT: Oh, I see. You hate the fact PPCs finally stopped being horrendously OP. Nothing to see here folks, carry on.

Yep. That's exactly what I was doing, hating on my loss of an op cheese effect.

Wait, no, that isn't what I did. What I was complaining about is the loss of a feature that made the ppc still relevant at close range with a little piloting. If you'd bothered to read the few posts before yours, or detect the sarcasm of the original yu would have noticed that.

The ppc and LRM are the only two guns that actually have their range penalties expressed in MWO as zero damage. And until now the ppc wasn't even in that group. Since PGI clearly feels this is balance for heat and boating and the terrible alpha problem, then why not suitably ban hammer all weapons with a minimum range?

I guess what we had here is another snap response by someone who didn't inform themselves on the topic. "Nothing to see here folks."

[Xandre Blackheart]

I'm all for core breaches.

As long as they are done in a manner that makes up for the loss of so many other close combat mechanics, like punches, kicking, death from above etc...

Really you shouldn't see all this leg humping going on. Knockdown will hopefully mitigate some of this, but it's not enough.

If a mech's engine is destroyed then there should be a % chance for each point of heat that the reactor vents.

For the pissy people, a reactor venting is not the same as a thermonuclear explosion.

the old optional rules were something like:

90m range: 10 points of additional heat
60m Range: 20 points of additional heat
30m range: 30 points of additional heat + one random hit location takes d6 damage from shrapnel.

Not really thermonuclear, but it's enough to make you think twice about closely humping a damaged mech.