11 replies to this topic

[FactorlanP]

We all know, from lore, that the PPC is inhibited from firing at ranges closer than 90m due to the potential to damage the firing mech as well as the target.

Rather than the current system of 0 damage when fired at a target closer than 90m, I am proposing a sliding damage scale (like we had before), but the damage that is not applied to the target mech is applied to the firing mech.

Example (numbers are arbitrary):

- Target mech at 90m or greater range: 100% damage is applied to the target

- Target mech between 80m and 89m: 90% damage is applied to target, 10% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 70m and 79m: 80% damage is applied to target, 20% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 60m and 69m: 70% damage is applied to target, 30% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 50m and 59m: 60% damage is applied to target, 40% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 40m and 49m: 50% damage is applied to target, 50% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 30m and 39M: 40% damage is applied to target, 60% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 20m and 29m: 30% damage is applied to target, 70% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 10m and 19m: 20% damage is applied to target, 80% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 0m and 9m: 10% damage is applied to target, 90% damage is applied to firing mech.


Damage to the firing mech should be applied to the body location that houses the PPC that is being fired.

This would allow a PPC to still be useful at below minimum range, but at a price. The pilot must decide if the damage is going to be worth it.



EDIT: Apologies to the mods if this should have been in a different section, I wasn't completely certain. I won't be offended if you move it.

Edited by FactorlanP, 10 September 2013 - 09:33 AM.

[Relic1701]

FactorlanP, on 10 September 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

This would allow a PPC to still be useful at below minimum range

Or, you could take some backup weapons....

[CPT Orangetayo]

I definitely like the idea of the PPC doing some kind of damage with a penalty at ranges closer to 90m, but I don't see how the PPC could damage the firing mech. Just doesn't make sense to me, I don't think this is the way to go.

[General Taskeen]

FactorlanP, on 10 September 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

We all know, from lore, that the PPC is inhibited from firing at ranges closer than 90m due to the potential to damage the firing mech as well as the target.

Rather than the current system of 0 damage when fired at a target closer than 90m, I am proposing a sliding damage scale (like we had before), but the damage that is not applied to the target mech is applied to the firing mech.

Example (numbers are arbitrary):

- Target mech at 90m or greater range: 100% damage is applied to the target

- Target mech between 80m and 89m: 100% damage is applied to target, 10% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 70m and 79m: 100% damage is applied to target, 20% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 60m and 69m: 100% damage is applied to target, 30% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 50m and 59m: 100% damage is applied to target, 40% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 40m and 49m: 100% damage is applied to target, 50% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 30m and 39M: 100% damage is applied to target, 60% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 20m and 29m: 100% damage is applied to target, 70% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 10m and 19m: 100% damage is applied to target, 80% damage is applied to firing mech.

- Target mech between 0m and 9m: 100% damage is applied to target, 90% damage is applied to firing mech.


Damage to the firing mech should be applied to the body location that houses the PPC that is being fired.

This would allow a PPC to still be useful at below minimum range, but at a price. The pilot must decide if the damage is going to be worth it.

Modified your Idea to be real-time game appropriate.

IMO "min-range" ballistic-ish weapons that do less damage is not needed for real time Mech Warrior. PGI should have simply scrapped it or actually included an ON/OFF switch for the PPC Field Inhibitor. MW2, 3, 4, LL never had min-range PPC. It just did the damage it was supposed to do at close range and its max range. As a whole, the current "PPC" hurts Mechs that need to use it exclusively, such as all PPC on an Awesome. Disregarding crappy heatsinks, the Awesome gets the short end of the stick for its intended PPC role with PGI's constant nerf fluxes.

Edited by General Taskeen, 10 September 2013 - 10:33 AM.

[FactorlanP]

CPT Orangetayo, on 10 September 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

I definitely like the idea of the PPC doing some kind of damage with a penalty at ranges closer to 90m, but I don't see how the PPC could damage the firing mech. Just doesn't make sense to me, I don't think this is the way to go.

Actually, the idea that firing a PPC at below the minimum range is part of the BattleTech game.

Check out this description of the Field Inhibitor from Sarna.

http://www.sarna.net...Field_Inhibitor


Field Inhibitor


Particle Projector Cannons are equipped with a Field Inhibitor to prevent feedback which could damage the firing unit's electronic systems. This inhibitor degrades the performance of the weapon at close ranges of less than 90 meters. Particularly daring warriors have been known to disengage the inhibitor and risk damage to their own machine when a target is at close range.

Edited by FactorlanP, 10 September 2013 - 12:08 PM.

[Bendak]

Relic1701, on 10 September 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

Or, you could take some backup weapons....

That'll never work... it requires some skill to be able to use more than one weapon type.

[Strum Wealh]

FactorlanP, on 10 September 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

(snipped for brevity)

An interesting idea... albeit one that should only apply when the PPC Field Inhibitor is disengaged.

As an alternative...

Quote

The PPC minimum range can be attributed to a component called a Field Inhibitor, which is intended to "prevent feedback which could damage the firing unit's electronic systems".

Quote

In the Tactical Handbook, a PPC Field Inhibitor could be disabled by a player before firing. This allowed the unit to fire a PPC at units inside the minimum range. The normal minimum range modifiers were then ignored. The to hit rolls were resolved as normal, but the controlling player had to roll 2D6 to determine if the PPC exploded due to feedback. If the target was 1 hex away, the firing unit had to roll a 10 or more to avoid the explosion. A target at 2 hexes away required a roll of 6 or higher, and a target 3 hexes away needed a roll of 3 or more. A successful roll indicated no damage occurred to the unit firing the PPC.

If the firing player failed to get the roll needed, the PPC was immediately destroyed and critical slots for the PPC were crossed off the record sheet. The firing unit also took ten points of damage to the internal structure of the location housing the PPC.

(source is Tactical Handbook, pg. 47)


Based on the description from Tactical Handbook, disabling the Field Inhibitor could potentially(?) be programmed to have the following effects in MWO if the option is made available:

• Damage is no longer reduced for salvos fired within the normal minimum range (less than 90.00 meters) while the Field Inhibitor is disengaged.
  
• If the target is at a distance of 89.99 to 60.01 meters from the firing platform and the Field Inhibitor is disengaged, the PPC has a 2.77% chance of exploding.
  
• If the target is at a distance of 60.00 to 30.01 meters from the firing platform and the Field Inhibitor is disengaged, the PPC has a 27.82% chance of exploding.
  
• If the target is at a distance of 30.00 meters or less from the firing platform and the Field Inhibitor is disengaged, the PPC has an 83.35% chance of exploding.

If the PPC explodes, it does 10 units of damage the the BattleMech's internal structure, and behaves as if it were an ammo explosion.

Using the dataset [{90, 0}, {60, 2.77}, {30, 27.82}, {0, 83.35}] and the regression function of Wolfram Alpha, it seems that the likelihood of a PPC with a disabled Field Inhibitor exploding (represented as "y") as a function of distance between the barrel of the weapon and the target (represented as "x") for ranges below 90 meters can be approximated fairly accurately (R-squared = 1, according to Wolfram Alpha) by:

y = -0.0000506173*(x^3) + 0.0214889*(x^2) - 2.45011*x + 83.35, 0 ≤ x < 90

Though, it should be noted that the above approximation gives a negative likelihood for a PPC with a disabled Field Inhibitor exploding (that is, y < 0) between x = 90 meters and x = 68.87 meters (with the minimum being y = ~-1.05% at x = ~79 meters).
To resolve this, a more useful model would be:

y = -0.0000506173*((x-11)^3) + 0.0214889*((x-11)^2) - 2.45011*(x-11) + 84.41, 0 ≤ x < 90

This gives the likelihood for a PPC with a disabled Field Inhibitor exploding as 0.019% at x = 89 meters, with a ~50% likelihood of exploding when x = ~27 meters & a 100% likelihood of exploding when x < 5 meters.

On the other hand, I would be unsurprised (and slightly disappointed) if the effect of disengaging the Field Inhibitor was never implemented, or was implemented in a very "watered-down" state (such as removing the self-damage/explosion effect in favor of a UAC-like "shorts-out and is rendered unfirable for a few seconds, then self-resets and is perfectly fine").

Edited by Strum Wealh, 10 September 2013 - 04:33 PM.

[Iron War]

that is what a Field Inhibitor is for.

[Bishop Steiner]

I think the self damage is far too high in your models.

9 damage to my Mech for 1 to theirs? (at uber close)

Maybe if the self damage numbers were about HALF what you list I could get behind this.

[FactorlanP]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 September 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

I think the self damage is far too high in your models.

9 damage to my Mech for 1 to theirs? (at uber close)

Maybe if the self damage numbers were about HALF what you list I could get behind this.

Well I did say that the numbers were arbitrary. I think I would prefer a progression that would hit 50/50 damage at about 45m and stay there. You can keep firing your PPC at that range, but you take 50% damage whether you hit the target or not... They take 50% if you hit.

On another note, I'm all for an Inhibitor On/Off switch (similar to missile door open/closed). Inhibitor On, target less than 90m, you get full heat with 0 damage applied to target.

Inhibitor Off... Some variation of shared damage, as I have suggested.

[Bishop Steiner]

FactorlanP, on 10 September 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

Well I did say that the numbers were arbitrary. I think I would prefer a progression that would hit 50/50 damage at about 45m and stay there. You can keep firing your PPC at that range, but you take 50% damage whether you hit the target or not... They take 50% if you hit.

On another note, I'm all for an Inhibitor On/Off switch (similar to missile door open/closed). Inhibitor On, target less than 90m, you get full heat with 0 damage applied to target.

Inhibitor Off... Some variation of shared damage, as I have suggested.

I'd be ok with that,

or simply with the inhibitor off, use the same 15%mechanic on the UAC, but if you get it, the weapon explodes for 10 damage to that area.

[FactorlanP]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 September 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

I'd be ok with that,

or simply with the inhibitor off, use the same 15%mechanic on the UAC, but if you get it, the weapon explodes for 10 damage to that area.

Honestly, I don't much care for "random" explosion mechanics. I would rather that "below min range" shots apply specific damage to the weapon in question. When that weapon hits 0 health, boom.