74 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

stjobe, on 12 August 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

Perhaps in MWO, but it shouldn't be:


(Tech Manual, p. 233)

And for reference:


(Tech Manual, p. 218)

And to add to it:
"The tank's main weapon is the Parti-Kill PPC. Unlike other particle cannons, the Parti-Kill does not use an energy collection capacitor or similar chamber. Instead, it uses a series of magnetic collection bottles that gather their energy straight from the fusion reactor. These energies are then channeled through a larger magnetic bottle and released from the cannon. This fires an energy 'shell' that loses cohesion and disintegrates at 540 meters. The Parti-Kill's bolts are unstable at ranges under 90 meters."
- description of the Manticore Heavy Tank's Parti-kill Heavy Cannon PPC, from page 64 of TRO 3026

"The Yellow Jacket is built around the Poland Model C Gauss rifle. This massive weapon, which constitutes the bulk of the craft's weight, can hurl rounds at speeds up to Mach 2.2. The Yellow Jacket carries enough ammunition to remain on the field for extended sorties, wreaking havoc on enemy lines."
- Description of the Yellow Jacket Gunship's Poland Model C Gauss Rifle, from page 30 of TRO 3058
For the record, Mach 2.2 is equal to 748.638 m/s... perhaps that's what PGI should set the muzzle velocity of the MWO Gauss Rifle to?

That being said, a PPC is supposed to be a particle beam weapon characterized by firing a charged particle beam/pulse at relativistic velocities (e.g. velocities high enough to be practical to express in terms of significant fractions of c) along an ionized plasma channel (to prevent energy/cohesion losses to the atmosphere as a result of blooming & beam absorption), and a Gauss Rifle is supposed to be an anti-armor coilgun that fires large nickel-ferrous slugs at hypersonic velocities (e.g. Mach 5.0 < x < Mach 10.0).

[MischiefSC]

Strum Wealh, on 13 August 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

And to add to it:
"The tank's main weapon is the Parti-Kill PPC. Unlike other particle cannons, the Parti-Kill does not use an energy collection capacitor or similar chamber. Instead, it uses a series of magnetic collection bottles that gather their energy straight from the fusion reactor. These energies are then channeled through a larger magnetic bottle and released from the cannon. This fires an energy 'shell' that loses cohesion and disintegrates at 540 meters. The Parti-Kill's bolts are unstable at ranges under 90 meters."
- description of the Manticore Heavy Tank's Parti-kill Heavy Cannon PPC, from page 64 of TRO 3026

"The Yellow Jacket is built around the Poland Model C Gauss rifle. This massive weapon, which constitutes the bulk of the craft's weight, can hurl rounds at speeds up to Mach 2.2. The Yellow Jacket carries enough ammunition to remain on the field for extended sorties, wreaking havoc on enemy lines."
- Description of the Yellow Jacket Gunship's Poland Model C Gauss Rifle, from page 30 of TRO 3058
For the record, Mach 2.2 is equal to 748.638 m/s... perhaps that's what PGI should set the muzzle velocity of the MWO Gauss Rifle to?

That being said, a PPC is supposed to be a particle beam weapon characterized by firing a charged particle beam/pulse at relativistic velocities (e.g. velocities high enough to be practical to express in terms of significant fractions of c) along an ionized plasma channel (to prevent energy/cohesion losses to the atmosphere as a result of blooming & beam absorption), and a Gauss Rifle is supposed to be an anti-armor coilgun that fires large nickel-ferrous slugs at hypersonic velocities (e.g. Mach 5.0 < x < Mach 10.0).

If we do this can we have Gauss do realistic damage and one-shot kill everything, CT or otherwise?

Also would PPCs do what it says they do and have absolutely no damage/range beyond 540m, like SRMs and LRMs are held to TT range?

If PPCs are a beam weapon then why not make them DoT like lasers? I'd be good with that.

Not that I don't understand (and love) physics. Just that it has no real place in BT.

For mechanics, PPC is an energy AC10. You get into the physics of it and my AC10 should have a range of greater than 10 miles. Between 16,000 and 25,000 meters. Also your typical 203mm round (AC10 round) had a muzzle velocity of 760-780 m/s, that's meters per second. The current 950 kph of AC10 rounds is about 264.

So a 3x increase in speed for my AC10 and a 20x increase in range? That's awesome!

Oh, wait. Maybe not, right?

So. Again, PPC is an energy AC10. They're kept pretty well in balance now. That's a good thing for game balance. Realism is cool too. It's just not going to work in MW:O.

[stjobe]

MischiefSC, on 13 August 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

Also your typical 203mm round (AC10 round) had a muzzle velocity of 760-780 m/s, that's meters per second. The current 950 kph of AC10 rounds is about 264.

Two things:

1. The AC/10 is not typically a 203mm round; that's the top range of autocannon calibres. 30-203 mm is the range of bore sizes mentioned in the Tech Manual for all types of autocannons. Individual AC/10s are generally fluffed as being between 50-150 mm.

2. The "950" in the speed listing of the AC/10 is actually metres per second, not kilometres per hour. Try it yourself; does it take about a second or about four seconds for the projectile to reach a target at max range?

[MischiefSC]

stjobe, on 13 August 2014 - 09:59 PM, said:

Two things:

1. The AC/10 is not typically a 203mm round; that's the top range of autocannon calibres. 30-203 mm is the range of bore sizes mentioned in the Tech Manual for all types of autocannons. Individual AC/10s are generally fluffed as being between 50-150 mm.

2. The "950" in the speed listing of the AC/10 is actually metres per second, not kilometres per hour. Try it yourself; does it take about a second or about four seconds for the projectile to reach a target at max range?

Just checked. It's around 2 seconds for my AC20 to reach max range - which doesn't match kph or m/s. Much like falling speed I'm suddenly unsure that the velocity/range measurements in MW:O are accurate.

That aside, so I'll take specs on a smoothbore 120 mm. Muzzle velocity between 1200 and 1800 m/s and an engagement range for direct fire (which is what MW:O would be) of 3,000m.

Is that better? Since the 203 was a howitzer round I'm fair with sticking to anti-tank specs.

So, again. Most the 120mm (within the range you specified) rounds are around 1600 m/s and consider 3,000 the same optimal range that the current AC10 views as 450m. So... almost double velocity and 8x range. I'll still take it.

Point still stands - real physics have nothing to do with game mechanics. In fact game mechanics may not in fact match the weapon stats. Instead it's balanced for actual performance.

Which brings us back to original point. PPC is an energy AC10. Unlimited ammo, less spaces, less weight, higher heat. It gives PPFLD to energy hardpoints and works like a ballistic weapon to do so - since hitscan PPFLD damage would be stupidly imbalanced.

Do you want to make PPCs hitscan DoT? I'm good with that. I'd even be good with 5 pts over 1 second with a single 5pt hit at the end as a laser ionizes the space between you and the target before discharging down the ionized path.

Otherwise though if PPCs are PPFLD they need to work like a ballistic. Gauss level projectile speeds with no charge-up mechanic, PPFLD and 7 tons + no ammo was broken and bad. It's been fixed. We should all rejoice - many of us are. You can bring something other than PPC in your energy hardpoints as a legit build choice and not just a boredom of playing with the obvious peak meta.

[stjobe]

MischiefSC, on 14 August 2014 - 12:05 AM, said:

Point still stands - real physics have nothing to do with game mechanics.

Agreed. Walking "tanks" are a silly idea in real life (but AWESOME in a game). Game mechanics should match lore, not real life physics.

(As a very parenthetical aside, that 120mm smoothbore would be somewhere between an AC/1.5 and AC/3 if it was a BT weapon, since AC classification is "kg of ammo thrown downrange per second"; AC/5 throws 5 kg/second downrange, AC/20 20 kg and so on).

MischiefSC, on 14 August 2014 - 12:05 AM, said:

Do you want to make PPCs hitscan DoT?

Yes, that would make more sense than the current "ballistic energy weapon" implementation from a lore perspective (although I can't deny that sometime in the last 30 years the word "beam" has changed to "bolt" in the description of the PPC). Perhaps make them very short duration beams, just enough to allow torso twisting to spread damage a bit.

On a related note, due to the current game mechanics I'd argue (and have done so, ad nauseam for some I imagine) that ALL weapons need to spread damage in some fashion, whether it be through beam duration, missile spread, or burst fire. The armour system simply isn't designed to handle pin-point accurate, instant convergence, front-loaded damage.

So yeah. Burst-fire ACs and beam-duration (or splash-damage) PPCs would be fine with me.

[Ultimax]

stjobe, on 14 August 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

On a related note, due to the current game mechanics I'd argue (and have done so, ad nauseam for some I imagine) that ALL weapons need to spread damage in some fashion, whether it be through beam duration, missile spread, or burst fire. The armour system simply isn't designed to handle pin-point accurate, instant convergence, front-loaded damage.

So yeah. Burst-fire ACs and beam-duration (or splash-damage) PPCs would be fine with me.

They would be fine with you, but are you actually concerned if they are good or not or if people actually use them?

Clan burst ACs are clearly not as good of an option as Clan lasers due to overall tonnage investment.

They are heavy, their single shot alpha potential for their weight is anemic. As bad as the clan LPL is, it's a massively better option than the Clan UAC 2 for roughly similar weight.

So if your goal is to make all ACs bad, and push everyone to lasers - then yes I can see why they would be fine with you.


Everything I stated I felt would happen, has happened with burst ACs.

Clan mechs moved towards lighter energy weapons, if you're going to have face time and spread - you're better off using the options that are lighter and not ammo dependent (which lets you boat more, and have a higher alpha and higher overall damage in a single volley for less time on target).

The only mech that gets away with it, is the DW due to available pod space and hard point options.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 14 August 2014 - 08:36 AM.

[JohnnyWayne]

Brenden, on 11 August 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

I've been told that the PPC is instant, like a flash of light and then bang you're mech rocks from the impact.

I've been told that it's not like that, not even fast. It's has Missile speed.
So what do you think. Should they increase the velocity of the PPC?

They never should have lowered in the first place. Synergy is the problem not a single weapon. But what could we expect they have proven yet again that they don't understand their own game and rather listen to the casual crowd.

[Strum Wealh]

MischiefSC, on 13 August 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

If we do this can we have Gauss do realistic damage and one-shot kill everything, CT or otherwise?

Also would PPCs do what it says they do and have absolutely no damage/range beyond 540m, like SRMs and LRMs are held to TT range?

If PPCs are a beam weapon then why not make them DoT like lasers? I'd be good with that.

Not that I don't understand (and love) physics. Just that it has no real place in BT.

For mechanics, PPC is an energy AC10. You get into the physics of it and my AC10 should have a range of greater than 10 miles. Between 16,000 and 25,000 meters. Also your typical 203mm round (AC10 round) had a muzzle velocity of 760-780 m/s, that's meters per second. The current 950 kph of AC10 rounds is about 264.

So a 3x increase in speed for my AC10 and a 20x increase in range? That's awesome!

Oh, wait. Maybe not, right?

So. Again, PPC is an energy AC10. They're kept pretty well in balance now. That's a good thing for game balance. Realism is cool too. It's just not going to work in MW:O.

When, and only when, we get all of...

• all maps being at least (that is, at minimum) 8 km (8000 meters) in all radii (with oblong & non-regularly-shaped maps having some radii being longer - perhaps even significantly so - than 8 km)
  
• a low-cap heat system with scaling heat penalties
  
• non-instantaneous weapon convergence
  
• all EW/IW equipment receiving their full sets of abilities under BattleTech's advanced rules
  
• Solaris/MDR-based recycle times
  
• BattleForce-based weapon ranges (which are close to "realistic" weapon ranges) & "realistic" weapon velocities
  
• a low & uniform Engine rating modification range for all BattleMechs (e.g. all 'Mech variants are limited to ±1.2x the original Engine rating, regardless of weight class)

... then we should talk about drop structure & armor points back to canonical levels.



----------

stjobe, on 14 August 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

(As a very parenthetical aside, that 120mm smoothbore would be somewhere between an AC/1.5 and AC/3 if it was a BT weapon, since AC classification is "kg of ammo thrown downrange per second"; AC/5 throws 5 kg/second downrange, AC/20 20 kg and so on).

The Abrams MBT's M256 120mm Gun is, IMO, arguably closest to the Marauder's 120mm GM Whirlwind AC/5 (BF range, at 180 meters per hex, converts the AC/5's 18-hex "Long" range to an effective range of 3240 meters, versus the M256's 3000 meters)... except that the Whirlwind fires a three-shell burst & needs all three shells to hit the same location to apply five units of damage to 'Mech-grade armor.

Assuming the M256 has the same per-individual-shell damage as the Whirlwind (which may not necessarily be the case, given the centuries of ballistics & munitions advancement between them), the M-256 would/should essentially be an AC/1.667 (so, "almost an AC/2")... or essentially a Light Rifle (same weapon weight, and likely the same level of effectiveness against 'Mech-grade armor).

Edited by Strum Wealh, 14 August 2014 - 09:52 AM.

[Fuligin]

Why couldn't they just make the ppc deliver its payload as a burst over a short period of time without lowering the speed? PPC at a high speed frankly just felt right. If the problem is delivering pinpoint damage all at once, then simply spread the damage over a very small amount of time. Fast moving targets would take damage to multiple sections of armor and slow ones would get hit all in one spot. It would be like a giant blob of superheated plasma that extends in space rather than a single slug. That is how I always thought of ppc anyways.

[Jman5]

I don't get how people are having trouble with the new speed. Anyone who has used an AC/20 or AC/10 should be able to handle leading a little bit. Hell it doesn't even have drop so it's even easier.

[stjobe]

Strum Wealh, on 14 August 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

The Abrams MBT's M256 120mm Gun is, IMO, arguably closest to the Marauder's 120mm GM Whirlwind AC/5 (BF range, at 180 meters per hex, converts the AC/5's 18-hex "Long" range to an effective range of 3240 meters, versus the M256's 3000 meters)... except that the Whirlwind fires a three-shell burst & needs all three shells to hit the same location to apply five units of damage to 'Mech-grade armor.

Assuming the M256 has the same per-individual-shell damage as the Whirlwind (which may not necessarily be the case, given the centuries of ballistics & munitions advancement between them), the M-256 would/should essentially be an AC/1.667 (so, "almost an AC/2")... or essentially a Light Rifle (same weapon weight, and likely the same level of effectiveness against 'Mech-grade armor).

Well, yeah. I got the AC classification from the M829 APFSDS round that weighs about 18 kg (with a roughly 8 kg penetrator); the M256 gun fires about five or six such rounds per minute, which gives 1.5 - 1.8 kg per second.

The fastest-firing main battle tank gun in the world, the GIAT CN120-26 gun on the French Leclerc tank can fire at a rate of 12 rounds per minute by virtue of its autoloader (the M256 gun on the M1A2 is manually loaded), which makes for an AC rating of 3.6.

Then again, as you observe, these guns are NOT autocannons; according to lore guns like those evolved into the Rifle family of weapons, which then in turn evolved into the autocannons we put on our 'mechs. Therefore they aren't AC/1.5 - AC/3.5 guns; they are ineffective relics of a bygone era on the battlefield of 3050.

[AztecD]

Lexx, on 12 August 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

These are the type of PPCs MWO is working their way up to,...




Does anyone else remember how slow the ER PPC from Mechwarrior 2 was?

I wish MWO mechs disipated heat like that

[MischiefSC]

I am all for dot. I think burst fire acs need a speed boost, thats all. They are harder to use but very effective. Lasers run hot - when it comes to brutal facetime acs rock.

IS acs should have fewer shells but no ultra. Much like with lasers clans have more burn time but more potential damage per shot.


IMO IS weapons need a shorter cooldown.

[cranect]

I personally think that the PPC should have a faster speed than the gauss. Just it seems odd to me that the lightning is slower than the ballistics. I would have preferred the PPC at 2000 and the gauss at 1500 just because there doesnt seem to be any drawbacks to the gauss except that it might explode. No heat 2nd highest ppd and the longest range with the highest speed. Whereas the PPC has a high heat and doesnt do as much damage. Anyway that is my personal opinion.