173 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

wintersborn, on 19 February 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:

I can hit a 18" steel gong at 1k with my .338 Lapua standing with a sling, my partner can do it with his .300 RUM as well : ) ( I get your point though).

2 out of 100 then??

PS, aren't both those sniper rifles? extended barrel etc? Lapau is I'm sure?

Edited by Craig Steele, 19 February 2014 - 07:39 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Strum Wealh, on 19 February 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

Astronomical, yes... but still possible in BattleTech.

For example, imagine if the arm of a Black Hawk Prime (4 actuators + 1 Heat Sink + 6 CERMLs = 11 possible items to crit) was stripped of its armor, and then a LB 10-X cluster shell hit it from close range, and all of the submunitions hit, and each submunition hit a different item...

With the way item health & LB-X submunition damage vs internals are set up, this would not be possible in MWO, even under the same (ideal) circumstances.

Remind me to check your dice if we ever play one day

[Lucky Clove]

Craig Steele, on 19 February 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

See the modern rifle example.

You take an automatic rifle and fire off one shot at a target 1,000 meters away from a standing position. I'm gunna bet 99 people out of 100 wouldn't hit the target unless it was a house.

Now take your automatic rifle and add a scope, a tripod, you can lie down now too and your chance of hitting the target goes throught the roof.

Same weapon, same ammo, same shooter, better targetting assistance.

'Effective' fire, not fire

Well, I hit a mech at over 1000 kilometers with a LB 10-X AC without a computer doing it for/telling me how to... soooooo...

Plus, this is a bit of a pointless argument don't you think?
It's just somebody won't give it up...

[Osric Lancaster]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 08:00 PM, said:

Well, I hit a mech at over 1000 kilometers with a LB 10-X AC without a computer doing it for/telling me how to... soooooo...

Really? You own a real live LBX and not one on a computer that you use a computer to aim?

Can you use your Star League magician powers to get the Urbanmech, Ymir or Flashman into the game?

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 19 February 2014 - 08:14 PM.

[Lucky Clove]

And one more thing. Ever notice how rude people are to other when it's fairly obvious that being a little more polite would work a lot better for everybody?

Osric Lancaster, on 19 February 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

Really? You own a real live LBX and not one on a computer that you use a computer to aim?

Can you use your Star League magician powers to get the Ymir or Flashman into the game?

Well... What's making my mech's arms move to aim the weapons?

Also, I'm reserving those powers for getting quad mechs into the game! Specifically, the fire scorpion!

Edited by Hickory, 19 February 2014 - 08:16 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

And one more thing. Ever notice how rude people are to other when it's fairly obvious that being a little more polite would work a lot better for everybody?


Well... What's making my mech's arms move to aim the weapons?

Also, I'm reserving those powers for getting quad mechs into the game! Specifically, the fire scorpion!

I didn't think I was rude, not sure how that came across but apologies anyway, it wasn't my intent.

1,000 kilometers and 1,000 meters are two very different things btw.

Fi you don't agree there is a difference between fire and effective fire, OK. I don;t know how else to explain it.

But broadly just because a shell can reach a distance physically, if it doesn't hit the intended target its not effective fire, its just firing. The targetting assistance turns a weapon that can hit a range to an effective weapon at the that range.

Use BT example in the inverse. Do you really think that a laser only reaches 450m, or is it that it's destructive potential deteriorates at 450m. Cause light energy has theoritcally no maximum range right? Cause well, you know how the sun provides light to earth and beyond.

Rather in a BT world the laser emitter harnesses light energy into a destructive beam that has a certain effective range, and then dissapates.

Same theory, effective range vs actual range.

[Osric Lancaster]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

Well... What's making my mech's arms move to aim the weapons?

Your user input, but you have user input on a handheld weapon or on any weapon in real life as well. If you were actually piloting a 'Mech you would have a fire control system. In MWO your weapons have falloff but otherwise go where you're aiming. What would happen if MWO introduced some limitations on the accuracy of a weapon? Wind, weather, the rotation of the planet, grit in your barrel, the motion of your 'Mech. Say the rifled barrel of an AC/10 gives you 5 meters of randomized drift at maximum range where as an LB 10-X smooth bore gives you 10 or 15 meters. Say a targeting computer helped reduce that random drift on each weapon by 3 meters. You see what he's saying now?

Craig Steele, on 19 February 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

Use BT example in the inverse. Do you really think that a laser only reaches 450m, or is it that it's destructive potential deteriorates at 450m. Cause light energy has theoritcaly no maximum range right?

Well, light can be dispersed or reflected by particles in the air (see: LI smoke.), but I always thought of this as a limitation of the laser's focusing mechanics. Something like it can only focus the laser to a useful intensity within a certain range. That might explain the difference between lasers and pulse lasers? I suppose there should be some source material on the matter.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 19 February 2014 - 08:36 PM.

[Daekar]

Craig Steele, on 19 February 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

2 out of 100 then??

PS, aren't both those sniper rifles? extended barrel etc? Lapau is I'm sure?

Most modern full-power bolt action rifles have barrels no longer than 24 inches, and the majority are a good deal less than that. Modern powders tend to make longer barrels unnecessary, and many hunting rifles push incredible power out of 18" barrels. The only way to make use of an unusually long barrel is to specifically load cartridges to take advantage of the additional barrel real estate, and it is unusual for anyone except military snipers to handload for their rifles. In the case of the snipers I've seen training, they used 300 WinMags, and modified Remington 700 rifles that did not have long barrels.

The semiautomatic 7.62x51 rifle made by Kel-tec is supposedly offered with a long barrel which can boost velocity of heavy bullets to increase energy retained at impact, but this is only deemed practical because the rifle is a bullpup configuration.

The days of 30 inch barrels are largely over, because we no longer use black powder whose low pressure curve requires the dwell time to impart energy to the projectile.

EDIT: I said it was unusual for people to handload, but that's not quite accurate. The majority of the shooting public just buys ammo and shoots it, but there is a thriving market of reloading equipment available and anyone serious about accuracy reloads as a matter of course.

Edited by Daekar, 19 February 2014 - 08:37 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Daekar, on 19 February 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

Most modern full-power bolt action rifles have barrels no longer than 24 inches, and the majority are a good deal less than that. Modern powders tend to make longer barrels unnecessary, and many hunting rifles push incredible power out of 18" barrels. The only way to make use of an unusually long barrel is to specifically load cartridges to take advantage of the additional barrel real estate, and it is unusual for anyone except military snipers to handload for their rifles. In the case of the snipers I've seen training, they used 300 WinMags, and modified Remington 700 rifles that did not have long barrels.

The semiautomatic 7.62x51 rifle made by Kel-tec is supposedly offered with a long barrel which can boost velocity of heavy bullets to increase energy retained at impact, but this is only deemed practical because the rifle is a bullpup configuration.

The days of 30 inch barrels are largely over, because we no longer use black powder whose low pressure curve requires the dwell time to impart energy to the projectile.

EDIT: I said it was unusual for people to handload, but that's not quite accurate. The majority of the shooting public just buys ammo and shoots it, but there is a thriving market of reloading equipment available and anyone serious about accuracy reloads as a matter of course.

LOL, ok. in my mind there's a difference between an automatic rifle (the one I used in my example, I'm thinking like standard issue to infantry man type thing) and a sniper rifle, but I am far from an expert so my terminology might not be great.

Osric Lancaster, on 19 February 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

Your user input, but you have user input on a handheld weapon or on any weapon in real life as well. If you were actually piloting a 'Mech you would have a fire control system. In MWO your weapons have falloff but otherwise go where you're aiming. What would happen if MWO introduced some limitations on the accuracy of a weapon? Wind, weather, the rotation of the planet, grit in your barrel, the motion of your 'Mech. Say the rifled barrel of an AC/10 gives you 5 meters of randomized drift at maximum range where as an LB 10-X smooth bore gives you 10 or 15 meters. Say a targeting computer helped reduce that random drift on each weapon by 3 meters. You see what he's saying now?




Well, light can be dispersed or reflected by particles in the air (see: LI smoke.), but I always thought of this as a limitation of the laser's focusing mechanics. Something like it can only focus the laser to a useful intensity within a certain range. That might explain the difference between lasers and pulse lasers? I suppose there should be some source material on the matter.

Maybe? I was more focussed on the effective range part of the equation. Regardless of how / why it works, light energy travels much further than 450m, but in BT canon, thats where its destructive potential ends. Someone will have some better mechanics I am sure.

[Roland]

All the nonsense about weaponry aside, if they increased the per-pellet damage of the LBX 10 to 1.4, then it'd match damage levels seen in Mechwarrior 4, and as a result, would actually be a functional weapon.

And by restoring one of the primary weapons to first class status, you'd enable a ton of new builds, which would in turn dramatically increase the effectiveness of infighting, and would provide more varied gameplay.

This change is so obvious, and has been suggested for literally YEARS at this point. The fact that it hasn't even been TRIED, given that it ammounts to literally 5 minutes of work changing a single parameter in a configuration file, is absolutely mind blowing... At this point, I think the primary reason that we don't see this change is because then Paul would have to admit the players who have been suggesting this change for ages were right, and Paul doesn't admit error, ever.

Prove me wrong Paul, prove me wrong.

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 19 February 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

All the nonsense about weaponry aside,

One mans trash............

[FupDup]

Craig Steele, on 19 February 2014 - 09:19 PM, said:

One mans trash............

...Is everyone else's trash. The current LB 10-X is horribly outclassed by pinpoint weapons within its class and spread-damage weapons of other classes (even SRMs!).

[Craig Steele]

FupDup, on 19 February 2014 - 09:20 PM, said:

...Is everyone else's trash. The current LB 10-X is horribly outclassed by pinpoint weapons within its class and spread-damage weapons of other classes (even SRMs!).

OK, but the saying is "one mans trash is another mans treasure".

Basically just because some are already well informed on the subject that doesn't mean no one else is getting any benefit from it.

[Roland]

Craig is talking about the discussion that has nothing to do with battltech, about various weapons in the real world. He's not talking about the LBX itself.. He's not saying it's anyone's treasure.

FupDup thought you were referring to the LBX when you made that statement.

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 19 February 2014 - 09:34 PM, said:

Craig is talking about the discussion that has nothing to do with battltech, about various weapons in the real world. He's not talking about the LBX itself.. He's not saying it's anyone's treasure.

FupDup thought you were referring to the LBX when you made that statement.

Well that and what effective range is, but yes.

Thanks

[Osric Lancaster]

Roland, on 19 February 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

All the nonsense about weaponry aside, if they increased the per-pellet damage of the LBX 10 to 1.4, then it'd match damage levels seen in Mechwarrior 4, and as a result, would actually be a functional weapon.

Would be interesting to see 1.4 per pellet damage exclusively to internal structure, with a fraction of a % chance to do through-armor critical damage with an LB-10X hitting armor.

[Roland]

Osric Lancaster, on 19 February 2014 - 09:39 PM, said:

Would be interesting to see 1.4 per pellet damage exclusively to internal structure, with a fraction of a % chance to do through-armor critical damage with an LB-10X hitting armor.

No dude, you are overthinking it, which is exactly the problem with almost all of the ridiculous ideas surrounding this weapon.

Remove the silly "critical damage" nonsense.

Up the pellet damage to 1.4.

DONE.

Just do that, and see what happens.

[Lucky Clove]

Craig Steele, on 19 February 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

I didn't think I was rude, not sure how that came across but apologies anyway, it wasn't my intent.

1,000 kilometers and 1,000 meters are two very different things btw.

Fi you don't agree there is a difference between fire and effective fire, OK. I don;t know how else to explain it.

But broadly just because a shell can reach a distance physically, if it doesn't hit the intended target its not effective fire, its just firing. The targetting assistance turns a weapon that can hit a range to an effective weapon at the that range.

Use BT example in the inverse. Do you really think that a laser only reaches 450m, or is it that it's destructive potential deteriorates at 450m. Cause light energy has theoritcally no maximum range right? Cause well, you know how the sun provides light to earth and beyond.

Rather in a BT world the laser emitter harnesses light energy into a destructive beam that has a certain effective range, and then dissapates.

Same theory, effective range vs actual range.

No, my apologies Craig. I was a bit too hasty when I said that. Though You can't deny the existence of rather rude people out there on these forums...

I'm seeing where you're coming from on the whole guidance system. I was simply saying that it's not just the guidance system that makes it fire further(effectively) than the AC 10 as a way to back up the theory of the naming of the LB 10-X AC.
(Hopefully that sentence made sense...)

And about that Kilometers thing... Would you believe it was auto correct?

Edited by Hickory, 19 February 2014 - 10:21 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

No, my apologies Craig. I was a bit too hasty when I said that. Though You can't deny the existence of rather rude people out there on these forums...

I'm seeing where you're coming from on the whole guidance system. I was simply saying that it's not just the guidance system that makes it fire further(effectively) than the AC 10 as a way to back up the theory of the naming of the LB 10-X AC.
(Hopefully that sentence made sense...)

And about that Kilometers thing... Would you believe it was auto correct?

OK so if you want to use the comparison to an AC to try and get it set in your mind how about this.

At the moment, an AC10 has a (TT) range of 450m right, 15 hexes.

But the theory might be that the shell / propellent allows it go beyond that range. I mean it doesn't just hit a wall and drop to the ground right. But even though the shell has that physical property, its extremely unlikely that it can be effective at greater ranges (can't compute for ballistic variables over greater distances, whatever handwavium you like here)

So what the Mercury is doing for the LB is granting a more effective way of targetting, increasing its range (putting a scope on) and allowing the weapon to be effective at a longer range.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

Well, that's a bit unfair to PGI don't you think? I mean after all! This is a "free-to-play" game. They don't exactly have a ten foot tall wallet of cash at their disposal. Not to mention a lack of funds means a lack of staff.

So have faith in them! This game has lots of potential! And I'm sure beating them over the head with a stick isn't going to help them... Anywho! PGI! If you can hear me! I'll do researching weapons and such for you guys! Just give me a call!

Also, by the way, very intelligent contribution to this post TB! They could use more guys like you!

"It's PGI, they don't have a ten foot tall wall of cash."

Forgets the millions raised by Founders, Phoenix, and Clan packs.

Laughingrobot.jpg