12 replies to this topic

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

There have been lots of discussions about minimum ranges over the life of MWO, but now seems like a good time to revisit a possible rework to minimum ranges that could apply across the board to all weapons that should have one but currently don't.

How does this proposed system work?

Set a minimum convergence distance for the weapon.

PPCs would converge on a point 90m away from your mech. Firing at a target right in your face will not cause them to do nothing, but rather will cause them to hit off to one side or another of your aim point.

This system can be added to AC2s and AC5s, as well as the Gauss, all of which have minimum ranges on TT but not in MWO.

LRMs are the odd weapon out, as they are very different mechanically from all the other weapon options. In the interests of maintaining balance between LRMs, cLRMs, and other weapon systems, the current minimum range system (LRMs don't arm, and cLRMs ramp up their damage toward full as they travel) could remain for those specific weapons. They don't really have a convergence stat to work with.

That said, if spread replaced convergence for missile systems, then LRMs could spread out very widely inside their minimum, and cLRMs could spread out maybe half as much (but still a lot). This would generally limit concentrated damage inside the minimum (representing reduced accuracy) without completely neutering the weapon system.

[General Taskeen]

I think I've seen this suggestion before, or maybe you mentioned it before.

Anyways, it would better if Min Range No Damage was removed in favor of game type mechanics such as that.

In TT a PPC wielding Mech can use a move turn and then shoot, in order to avoid the min range area. In MWO, this luxury is non-existent in real-time, as was the case in every Mech Warrior game since one can constantly be moving and shooting at the same time.

MWO is the first that introduced scaling min-range, and then no damage at all min range for the PPC, essentially neutering classic builds such as the 3 PPC, 1 SL Awesome, where as a 3 PPC Awesome in previous games was amazing and didn't have to worry about things getting up in their Mech faces since they could still do damage.

[Shrike ski]

well honestly convergence should have a minimum range anyway, but overall good idea.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Actually... LRMs in TT actually DO damage under minimum range. All weapons do, PPCs included (even with the inhibitor engaged). The minimum range is a point of "targeting difficulty" for the weapon systems, as in the chance to hit with the weapon is incredibly low, but if it does hit, it does damage.

I've killed mechs in TT before using LRMs at 5, 4, and even 3 hexes. As well as landing hits with the Gauss on a Hatchetman that using a hatchet on my Highlander.

[Nightmare1]

NO! Weapon accuracy is fine as-is if PGI will just leave it alone. I can't believe that there are seven people who actually think PGI could develop and implement this correctly. The more PGI tries to *fix* things, the more it messes them up!

Optimists shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[General Taskeen]

Lord Scarlett Johan of Yazoo, on 18 August 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

Actually... LRMs in TT actually DO damage under minimum range. All weapons do, PPCs included (even with the inhibitor engaged). The minimum range is a point of "targeting difficulty" for the weapon systems, as in the chance to hit with the weapon is incredibly low, but if it does hit, it does damage.

I've killed mechs in TT before using LRMs at 5, 4, and even 3 hexes. As well as landing hits with the Gauss on a Hatchetman that using a hatchet on my Highlander.

This is definitely known. Developers for previous games though (MW2/MW3/MW4/MW:LL) realized min-range doesn't make sense in real time, obviously, since there is no rolling of dice, hence why lrm's and ppc's did full damage if they hit close up in those games. Essentially simulating that 'chance' as 'always' rather adding other mechanics.

Edited by General Taskeen, 19 August 2014 - 09:21 AM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Lord Scarlett Johan of Yazoo, on 18 August 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

Actually... LRMs in TT actually DO damage under minimum range. All weapons do, PPCs included (even with the inhibitor engaged). The minimum range is a point of "targeting difficulty" for the weapon systems, as in the chance to hit with the weapon is incredibly low, but if it does hit, it does damage.

I've killed mechs in TT before using LRMs at 5, 4, and even 3 hexes. As well as landing hits with the Gauss on a Hatchetman that using a hatchet on my Highlander.

You'll note that I discuss LRM solutions in the OP.

Nightmare1, on 18 August 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

NO! Weapon accuracy is fine as-is if PGI will just leave it alone. I can't believe that there are seven people who actually think PGI could develop and implement this correctly. The more PGI tries to *fix* things, the more it messes them up!

Optimists shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I'm assuming that minimum convergence values would be simple and straightforward enough for PGI to implement them without too much difficulty. I think the end effect would be very close to the TT accuracy penalty for close-range shots, and would be an effective way to implement some kind of minimum range even for weapons like the Gauss and light AC classes (which the current minimum range system cannot handle reasonably).

[Nightmare1]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 19 August 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

I'm assuming that minimum convergence values would be simple and straightforward enough for PGI to implement them without too much difficulty. I think the end effect would be very close to the TT accuracy penalty for close-range shots, and would be an effective way to implement some kind of minimum range even for weapons like the Gauss and light AC classes (which the current minimum range system cannot handle reasonably).

Have you ever shot a real gun? Bullets don't have a minimum range.

Regarding whether or not PGI can implement it, I'm still waiting on them to implement CW, fix clipping issues on several maps, fix the IFF bug, fix the rubberbanding/collision bug, fix the server lag/desync issues, fix the LRM lock bug (where lock is confirmed but LRMs short-fire into the ground), etc. Last thing we need, is a new system for PGI to get all buggy.

Like I said, current systems work fine and are reflective of some of the previous MW games. There's no reason to go messing with something that doesn't need tweaking. That's a classic example of looking for problems, or creating them, where there are none.

Finally, while I understand the excitement caused by TT, I don't think this is a good conversion to implement. TT is designed as a strategy board game with a chance element (dice rolls). This is an actionable online game where events happen instantaneously. Accuracy is not based on dice rolls here, but real accuracy by real players. Trying to bring this more into line with TT, by adding convergence and min ranges for weapons that don't have min ranges, is rather dumb to put it mildly. I also don't recall reading in the canon anything stating that ACs, Gauss, and energy weapons needed a min range to be accurate.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Nightmare1, on 20 August 2014 - 05:09 AM, said:

Have you ever shot a real gun? Bullets don't have a minimum range.

Regarding whether or not PGI can implement it, I'm still waiting on them to implement CW, fix clipping issues on several maps, fix the IFF bug, fix the rubberbanding/collision bug, fix the server lag/desync issues, fix the LRM lock bug (where lock is confirmed but LRMs short-fire into the ground), etc. Last thing we need, is a new system for PGI to get all buggy.

Like I said, current systems work fine and are reflective of some of the previous MW games. There's no reason to go messing with something that doesn't need tweaking. That's a classic example of looking for problems, or creating them, where there are none.

Finally, while I understand the excitement caused by TT, I don't think this is a good conversion to implement. TT is designed as a strategy board game with a chance element (dice rolls). This is an actionable online game where events happen instantaneously. Accuracy is not based on dice rolls here, but real accuracy by real players. Trying to bring this more into line with TT, by adding convergence and min ranges for weapons that don't have min ranges, is rather dumb to put it mildly. I also don't recall reading in the canon anything stating that ACs, Gauss, and energy weapons needed a min range to be accurate.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon/2

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC/5

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/PPC

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Gauss_rifle

You'll note that each of those weapon systems lists a minimum range.

In both TT and the fiction, the minimum range for those weapons (excepting to an extent the PPC, which had some lore regarding the risk of damage to the firer when discharged too close to the target) relates to targeting. Whether using 1980s logic about 31st Century computer technology, or allowing for the idea that the seemingly primitive performance of BattleTech weapons is due to the interaction of highly advanced targeting and tracking software with equally advanced integrated countermeasures (which Guardian, Angel, etc., ECM would be even more potent) that results in the absurdly short range bands for most weapons, and the presence of minimum ranges on most long-range-specialise weapon systems.

And yes, I have fired numerous weapons. What I haven't done, though, is tried to use a vehicle-mounted large-bore cannon to shoot at something much closer than it is intended to engage. After all, if you want to try to bring real-world performance into the equation, then check if a battleship's main guns (assuming any still use guns instead of missiles or whatever) can achieve optimal accuracy at ranges below, say, 90m. That's a much closer comparison than personal small arms, and even there it isn't really a true analog.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Our M109s still have perfect direct fire accuracy and in urban ops can be FAR more dangerous than a tank. Hell, I've even done a dirext fire with an M109 at drill.

The kicker is having that artillery piece track a moving target. That machine gun next on the second story of that building 100m away? Yeah, I'm about to put a delay fuse through that window and take it out. That truck at 200m and closing? I can't hit that reliably. Hell, I can barely track it.

[Koniving]

Nightmare1, on 20 August 2014 - 05:09 AM, said:

Have you ever shot a real gun? Bullets don't have a minimum range.

Actually they do.
If the target is closer to you than the length of the barrel of your gun, you cannot hit the target because it is in your minimum range.


This would be such an example. Your barrel cannot bend the 97 degrees necessary to make this shot physically possible, it's within your minimum range.

(To note: Only ACs mounted on torsos had minimum range EXCEPT on a mech-mounted turret (such as the Marauder). Though all Gauss Rifles had a minimum range. For ACs it was because the ACs could not 'pivot').

This shot...

Should require the mech's arms to pinch together in a /\ shape to aim at the mech rather than having lasers come out of the SIDE OF THE GODDAMN EMITTERS WHERE THE BEAMS COME FROM THE METAL ARMOR INSTEAD OF THE LENS! O_O!

>.<

So much fail in PGI here.

Also, for the following weapons there actually is an explanation as to the minimum range.

1) Gauss Rifle.
In addition to being a charged weapon (in the past reflected by a long delay in firing rates, here with a charge up), the Gauss Rifle also has a very long barrel. The 35 ton Hollander, whose barrel of the Gauss Rifle is half the length of its entire size, had extending legs that when fully extended put its height to rival that of an Atlas.... and that barrel was still huge. There is no other Gauss Rifle totting light mech in actual canon. The sheer size of the Hollander eventually got its internal structure upgraded to hold more tonnage, and it evolved into a medium class battlemech.

Barrel length + charge up.

2) PPCs. A field inhibitor exists on Particle Projection Canons to degrade the energy output of this overpowered weapon as otherwise it would become volatile and destroy itself. Very noteworthy is the fact that this field inhibitor forces the weapon to build its energy slowly to full power rather than have it occur right away. This also made the weapon bareable with standard heatsinks, as otherwise simply going full throttle in the same 10 seconds as firing a single PPC and 12 heatsinks was a risk melting heatsinks and causing some nasty failures (had this problem occur on an Archer 2R; just firing an LRM-20 + 2 ML at full throttle melted a heatsink then soon after some more as the mech had catastrophic failures that occurred one after another after another after another until the engine finally stackpoled, killing the pilot and two enemy mechs).

The slow charge up is reflected in the 90 meter minimum range, which significantly increases the difficulty of hitting something at close range [in fact it's more difficult than doing it with a Gauss Rifle, so it'd technically be a longer charge up or a click and forget charge-and-fire-delay]. Something about PPC energy starting slow and then accelerating is also occasionally mentioned.

Switching off the field inhibitor allows a PPC to fire "almost immediately," which in turn could cause the weapon to explode. That, and 10 out of 30 threshold is 33.33% of your heat in a single shot, and since ammo explosions and shutdown risks begin around 50% heat... not the brightest thing in the world to do.

3) ER PPC. I'm aware this doesn't have a minimum range (except when torso mounted; there's a reason Clans preferred them on the arms despite losing the ability to aim left and right). It has a minimum range for the same reason ACs do when torso-mounted, it's due to barrels on the torso being unable to converge or pivot.

It's worth noting that ER PPCs are also described and depicted as building energy before firing. However, the time to charge and fire is significantly less than that of a PPC, as such it is not enough to accrue its own minimum range.

-------

A fun note:
If a PPC took 1 second to charge before firing and generated 2 heat during the charge, it would work like this.

PPC activated/fired/etc. Lets assume the mech has 15 SHS.
0 seconds. PPC begins charge.
0.5 seconds. PPC generates 1 heat. 0.75 heat sunk. (0.25 heat).
1 seconds. PPC generates 1 heat. 0.75 heat sunk. (0.5 heat). Charge complete. PPC fires. + 8 heat (8.5 heat). (28.33% heat if 30 threshold)
2 seconds. 1.5 heat cooled. 7 heat left.
3 seconds. 1.5 heat cooled. 5.5 heat left.

Etc.
As it is currently..
0 seconds: PPC fires. + 10 heat. (33.33% heat if 30 threshold).
1 second. 1.5 heat sunk. 8.5 heat.
2 seconds. 1.5 heat sunk. 7 heat.
3 seconds. 1.5 heat sunk. 5.5 heat.

Notice it's the same (tabletop summarizes and it always works out), but that spike is less on the second per second basis. There were many variants, over 22 regular PPC variants listed that I know of. Some had charge times as long as 3 seconds, some had charge times of less than 1 second.

The longer the charge time the better it was, as you could manage other weapons fire while waiting for the charge up and better handle multiple PPCs at once.

2 PPCs at 0.75 second charge up time would spike you (with 10 DHS) at 18.5 heat (61.67% threshold when they fire off, ammo explosion risk, a shutdown override needs to be given before even attempting this in an actual Battletech scenario).

2 PPCs at 3 second charge up however with the same 10 DHS.. 14 heat or 46.67% threshold when they fire, exactly on the safe line mark so as long as you're not moving when you fire this you will have no possible risk of penalties.

It's an entirely different game here. But convergence and charge ups are the reasons why we have minimum ranges at all, and why they were selective in some situations.

Edited by Koniving, 20 August 2014 - 03:51 PM.

[Loganauer]

Nightmare1, on 20 August 2014 - 05:09 AM, said:

Have you ever shot a real gun? Bullets don't have a minimum range.

Apparently you don't realize that these aren't guns. These are cannons. Autocannons. You're not firing bullets, you're firing shells. That explode. They arc. A tank has a minimum range. The gauss rifle is magnetic and nothing resembling a classic rifle, so it operates on different rules and laws of physics than a classic rifle.

Edited by Loganauer, 20 August 2014 - 04:01 PM.

[Nightmare1]

Koniving, on 20 August 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

Actually they do.
If the target is closer to you than the length of the barrel of your gun, you cannot hit the target because it is in your minimum range.

You're warping the meaning of min range. Min range is when a projectile requires a certain distance to arm itself such as missiles, torpedoes, etc. What you allude to is absurd. We're talking about targets at which you can fire; not targets that are behind the weapon itself. That is not the definition of min range so much as the definition of piloting and whether or not you can keep your enemy in front of you guns.

As such, bullets have no min range. They are capable of dealing damage as soon as they exit the gun barrel. There is no need for them to travel any distance to "arm" themselves. Thus, no min range.

As far as these being shells versus bullets, fine, whatever. My point, is that PGI has actually implemented a fine firing system in the game. Your shots, with some slight variations such as the arc for ACs, will basically go where you point them. There is no need to start tinkering with this when there are already real, technical issues that need to be resolved. Besides, I do not have confidence that PGI could implement such a system as that proposed correctly. If anything, it will simply become another point of irritation for casual gamers.