31 replies to this topic

[Leopardao]

So as most who know about mechanics that MWO is based on the AC/2, AC/5, UAC/2, UAC/5 and Gauss Rifle all have minimum ranges.

Now for those who only know MWO's mechanic of no damage within minimum range, let's do some explaining, the minimum range for a weapon means it is harder to hit with that weapon within its minimum range.

Now for those who say that makes no sense, the flavor explanation for this is that these weapons don't point at the enemy, but at about a 45 degree angle like all good long range cannon. This means to actually aim these guns at a target within the minimum range of these weapons the mech had to effectively bow forward to hit with these weapons.

Now arcing ballistic fire on this scale is difficult to do, hard to play, and wouldn't be all that fun in this style of game. So to protect the sensitive sensibilities of the MWO game designers they refuse to use the minimum range instead of coming up with a different explanation. So here you go, Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (http://en.wikipedia....iscarding-sabot). Reason, because the short period before the discarding sabot comes off, the round is some what unstable. (distance traveled in a short period is arbitrary for the purposes of MWO)

What to do for minimum range
HARD; program a chance that the shot does no damage.
EASY; use the current clan LRM code to have scalar damage within the minimum range.

Reference
AC/2 http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC/2
AC/5 http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC/5
UAC/2 http://www.sarna.net/wiki/UAC-2
UAC/5 http://www.sarna.net/wiki/UAC-5
Gauss Rifle http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Gauss_Rifle


Idea Number 2 Sept 16, 2014

Simple idea that could respect both the sensibilities of the MWO community, PGI staff and recognize in some form the minimum range rule in a different format.

The idea is actually simple, subtract the minimum range from the weapons optimum range and add it to the weapons max range.

Example AC/2

• Current: Optimum Range 720 meters, Max Range 1440 meters
  
• (Subtract Min Range of 120 meters)
  
• Becomes: Optimum Range 600 meters, Max Range 1440 meters

As you can see all that happens is that range in which your weapon is most effective decreases to the same distance as would be found in the base rules and allows the weapon to still deal damage out to the same max range. In effect the minimum range was removed from the front of the range calculation to the back of the range calculation.

Edited by Leopardao, 16 September 2014 - 12:49 PM.

[Redshift2k5]

Any chance for a projectile to deal no damage despite a direct hit is against the designs ensiblities of MWO; it's easy to justify with a nonexistant sci-fi weapon such as the PPC but logically, actual bullets hitting the target at close range but dealing no damage just doesn't make sense. Realism is hadly perfect in MWO but RNGs and logic-defying maic bullets are not part of the game.

Scalar damage for a bullet similarly is logically unsound(although it soes not make any more sense for a missile and we do, in fact, have scalar damage missiles).

however, I do not believe they ever would have implemented scalar damage for missiles unless the game balance required CLRMs to have weaknesses (full damage at all range and less weight would be ridiculous).

---

So, my rebuttal: Do these ballistic weapons need to have a system in place to simulate min range for balance reasons, or do you just want it to be fluff accurate?

[Hoffenstein]

I think this is a good idea, Leopardo, specifically the easy-fix. The minimum range for these weapons isn't huge, and the reduced damage could be interpreted as the discarding sabot interfering with the armour piercing charge on the cannon shell. Thumbs Up!

[Draykin]

I'm sorry to say, but Battlemech armor isn't something you pierce. It's something that breaks over time. There's a name for the type of armor, but I can't quite remember it off the top of my head. The point is, autocannons fire HEAP shells. That's High Explosive Armor Piercing, for those who don't know. When you shoot one of these HEAP shells, it is going to be fired at a high velocity, and it is going to explode. This means that the shot will have significant kinetic force upon impact, and that it is then going to explode. You are not trying to pierce armor; you are trying to make your enemies SHED their armor.

I remember now that the term for this type of armor is that it is ablative armor. It gets removed in some way, but absorbs massive amounts of damage while doing so. As such, I don't see how firing an autocannon within some minimum range is going to make the shot not hit like a truck and not explode.

The same goes for the Gauss Rifle. It's a solid slug at 1500m/s (in MWO) that weights 1/8th of a metric ton. THAT is going to hurt at nearly any range.

Sources:
Battlemech Armor: http://www.sarna.net...hs_%26_Vehicles
Ablative Armor: http://en.wikipedia..../Ablative_armor

[WmLowFlyer]

For the record


TT Battletech =/= Mechwarrior

Mechwarrior HAS NEVER had a minimum range on PPC/Ballistics ever outside Mechwarrior online.

Edited by WmLowFlyer, 20 August 2014 - 05:43 PM.

[Loganauer]

Draykin, on 20 August 2014 - 05:37 PM, said:

I'm sorry to say, but Battlemech armor isn't something you pierce. It's something that breaks over time. There's a name for the type of armor, but I can't quite remember it off the top of my head. The point is, autocannons fire HEAP shells. That's High Explosive Armor Piercing, for those who don't know. When you shoot one of these HEAP shells, it is going to be fired at a high velocity, and it is going to explode. This means that the shot will have significant kinetic force upon impact, and that it is then going to explode. You are not trying to pierce armor; you are trying to make your enemies SHED their armor.

http://www.sarna.net.../Armor-Piercing
http://www.sarna.net.../Reactive_Armor

WmLowFlyer, on 20 August 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

For the record


TT Battletech =/= Mechwarrior

Mechwarrior HAS NEVER had a minimum range on PPC/Ballistics ever outside Mechwarrior online.

Actually yes, BattleTech = Mechwarrior. Values for weapons derive specifically from Battletech.

[Draykin]

Loganauer, on 20 August 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net.../Armor-Piercing
http://www.sarna.net.../Reactive_Armor

Neither of which are used in MWO, and if we are to stick to the idea of a timeline, neither have yet been developed/rediscovered. Therefore, irrelevant.

[Loganauer]

The point was that your opening statement was wrong. The justification for minimum range is largely that an autocannon is a -cannon- and operates similarly to a tank. It arcs. Which makes it unusable in close ranges. There was a logical reason why these weapons had a minimum range in the tabletop, and we use almost identical stats to the tabletop for every weapon system in the game, and the tabletop balanced those weapons with minimum ranges which MWO doesn't have at the moment.

[Draykin]

Loganauer, on 20 August 2014 - 06:53 PM, said:

The point was that your opening statement was wrong. The justification for minimum range is largely that an autocannon is a -cannon- and operates similarly to a tank. It arcs. Which makes it unusable in close ranges. There was a logical reason why these weapons had a minimum range in the tabletop, and we use almost identical stats to the tabletop for every weapon system in the game, and the tabletop balanced those weapons with minimum ranges which MWO doesn't have at the moment.

Nor, shall I say, should it have, as the autocannons of MWO do not arc. As long as those guns shoot in a straight line, having a minimum range does not make logical sense. The act of making them arc would be a very radical change to the game, and I have a feeling it might upset quite some number of people. I would much rather that if weapons must be added in that arc, that we instead see mech mortars.

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

Ah, this actually makes perfect sense to me.

Something always felt, odd to me, about the size scale of things.

The only thing that ever felt somewhat proportional to size/distance traveled were the missiles. I'ts not that they are slow, they are traveling over huge distances.

The machines feel small, maybe due to the pin point targeting, and no "shaking" in the cockpit.

I understand the gyro and the mylomers and what not are supposed to absorb some of the bouncing and shock, but i fail to believe the barrels would not bounce even at least a little bit as the multi-ton machine moved and shot as it moved.

A 60 ton m1 Abrams recoils while shooting a 105mm cannon, and it's on treads, can you honestly tell me a 75+ton 'mech(and lower) would feel no recoil at all shooting an AC/20 that ranges between 185mm and 203mm while having to balance on two legs AND moving? (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon)

Maybe its due to engine limitations, but the physics in game make the size and feel of the battle mech's feel out of proportion, in which i mean they feel SMALL, small enough to where there is no recoil, and be able to fire everything at pin point.

[WmLowFlyer]

Loganauer, on 20 August 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

Actually yes, BattleTech = Mechwarrior. Values for weapons derive specifically from Battletech.

I think you are grossly confused.

Mechwarrior takes place in the Battletech universe, yes.

But Mechwarrior is a "Action Sim" or "Light Sim". Not a pen and paper table top game. Things will differ.


SO please, enlighten me on how AC's should have a minimum range in a real time action sim where that only hinders gameplay, a feature never seen before in any previous MechWarrior game.... because TT?

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

WmLowFlyer, on 20 August 2014 - 07:01 PM, said:

I think you are grossly confused.

Mechwarrior takes place in the Battletech universe, yes.

But Mechwarrior is a "Action Sim" or "Light Sim". Not a pen and paper table top game. Things will differ.


SO please, enlighten me on how AC's should have a minimum range in a real time action sim where that only hinders gameplay, a feature never seen before in any previous MechWarrior game.... because TT?

This is something I've always agreed on. TT rules will not transfer well into a 3d Real time environment.

That said however, it's not that they have a "MINIMUM" like LRM/PPC have in MWO, But a "Lower Accuracy Range" where it's more difficult to hit due to the having to angle the arms up, because from what i understand the targeting system in the TT available for pilots was nowhere near accurate as the pinpoint accuracy we have.

For one, they are aiming with a "Stick" and I've tried MW games with one even MWO, and i can tell you, it's a vastly different experience. So while i don't think they should make a Minimum to where they do no damage, i would like for PGI to stray from the pin point accuracy we have now.

P.s. Plus it would reeeeealy help if the mech's where to their proper size/proportions. The redesigns were nice and all, but the incredibly small height difference among the classes makes simple changes difficult to put into effect.

p.s.s. Also the cockpit should not make things look smaller, but BIGGER. you are a tiny human looking at multi ton war machines, from an ittsy litle cockpit window.

Edited by CN9 ACE PILOT, 20 August 2014 - 07:49 PM.

[Loganauer]

Draykin, on 20 August 2014 - 06:58 PM, said:

Nor, shall I say, should it have, as the autocannons of MWO do not arc. As long as those guns shoot in a straight line, having a minimum range does not make logical sense. The act of making them arc would be a very radical change to the game, and I have a feeling it might upset quite some number of people. I would much rather that if weapons must be added in that arc, that we instead see mech mortars.

I might add that rifle rounds arc. They don't shoot in a straight line. Tank cannons don't shoot in straight lines. It's perfectly logical for it to arc. It's a balancing mechanism, so people have to deal but I think a fair number of people will appreciate the realism and return of TT values.

WmLowFlyer, on 20 August 2014 - 07:01 PM, said:

I think you are grossly confused.

Mechwarrior takes place in the Battletech universe, yes.

But Mechwarrior is a "Action Sim" or "Light Sim". Not a pen and paper table top game. Things will differ.


SO please, enlighten me on how AC's should have a minimum range in a real time action sim where that only hinders gameplay, a feature never seen before in any previous MechWarrior game.... because TT?

There's no reason for much to be different. It can be mimicked identically from board to first person simulator. I don't really see gameplay with PPC or LRMs being "hindered" by minimum ranges. This actually encourages people to play with flamers, machine guns, and small lasers that are optimized for close ranges. It adds a new dynamic to gameplay for lights and mediums. Those are weapons designed for medium-long ranges so limiting their close range capabilities is a good balancing tool.

[Strum Wealh]

Loganauer, on 20 August 2014 - 06:53 PM, said:

The point was that your opening statement was wrong. The justification for minimum range is largely that an autocannon is a -cannon- and operates similarly to a tank. It arcs. Which makes it unusable in close ranges. There was a logical reason why these weapons had a minimum range in the tabletop, and we use almost identical stats to the tabletop for every weapon system in the game, and the tabletop balanced those weapons with minimum ranges which MWO doesn't have at the moment.

Actually, it is your assumptions that are wrong - BattleTech autocannons (and Gauss Rifles) have never been described in any canonical source as having the significant "arcing" behavior that you're attributing to them as the explanation for their minimum range.

Standard ACs have always canonically been cassette-fed, burst-fire, direct-fire weapons that essentially serve as the BattleMech equivalent of burst-mode assault rifles.
Moreover, the standard AC shells for BattleMechs are usually described canonically as HEAP/APHE shells - which can also be saboted, as with the M830A1 HEAT (high-explosive anti-tank) round fired by the Abrams MBT's M256 Gun.


APFSDS rounds - with the recognizable arrow-like kinetic energy penetrator - did exist in BattleTech prior to the FedSuns' invention of Armor-Piercing special munitions, and were mentioned in TRO 3026 as being the type of round fired (in four-round bursts) by the MechBuster Aerospace Fighter's "Zeus 75" AC/20.
In terms of BT gameplay, however, the MechBuster's APFSDS rounds had no significantly different effect from the HEAP rounds fired by other ACs.

Also, you have your minimum range considerations backwards relative to saboted projectiles.
Specifically, two of the primary aspects of APFSDS rounds are:

• "Use kinetic energy to penetrate the target, no explosives are needed."
  
• "Do not need to arm and, therefore, can be fired at almost any range. The discarding portions of tank rounds can be lethal to exposed infantry forward and to the side of the tank."

By contrast, the HEAT rounds used by the Abrams MBT do actually have a minimum range - though, it is a function of the shell's warhead and has absolutely nothing to do with the sabot.

• "Depend on chemical energy and not striking velocity."
  
• "Rounds arm approximately 60-100 feet from the muzzle of the gun. Because of the shape and metal components of the projectiles, however, this ammunition remains effective at ranges of less than 100 feet."

Even if we go with the explosive warheads in typical AC shells needing an arming range (like their real-world counterparts... or like LRMs), which would actually make sense in the context of how the weapons are described to operate, it still doesn't make sense for the AC/2s (which usually fire 20mm-30mm shells) & the AC/5s (which usually fire 50mm-80mm shells, with the Marauder's 120mm "GM Whirlwind" AC/5 (which fires in three-round bursts) being very much an outlier) to have significant arming ranges, while the AC/10s (which usually fire 90mm-120mm shells) & AC/20s (which usually fire 150mm-203mm shells) - with their far-larger and consequently far-more-dangerous warheads - do not.
And it makes even less sense for the Gauss Rifles, which fire inert metal slugs with no explosive warheads to arm!

So, ultimately, it comes back to the answer given by David Bradley regarding the subject in Community Q&A 05:
"With minimum ranges, it depends on how justified we can be in putting them into the game without them being silly. For PPCs, there’s mentions in the lore about they don’t reach a full charge at close ranges so as not to damage the attacker’s own electronic systems. LRMs, being meant for long range, do not necessarily arm before they clear a certain distance. But it’s harder to justify why you can’t accurately fire an Autocannon/2 or Autocannon/5 up close, other than it was a balance to their long range in the tabletop game, so they won’t be affected by any sort of minimum range. The tabletop long ranges, on the other hand, we’re interpreting as the maximum effective range. Lasers, AC slugs, and whatnot will travel past this range, but will begin to do less and less damage, and the effects of gravity on any sort of physical projectile will make it harder to hit your target. Missiles reaching the limits of their range will automatically detonate."

[Loganauer]

^^ fair enough.

[General Taskeen]

EASIEST: Remove all min range from all weapons. (I.E. make it full damage in "min range")

Source: All other MW games in existence (since MW games don't take turns to move out of min range)

Edited by General Taskeen, 21 August 2014 - 05:56 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Convergence is a far superior way to implement minimum ranges for cannon-type weapons. It is far closer to canon performance of cannons, right down to the actual canon reason for cannons having minimum ranges in the first place.

Set a minimum convergence distance for each weapon based on its listed minimum range. Too close? You have to adjust your aim to hit the right spot on your target, and while group firing your weapons will naturally spread. It should rather nicely simulate the canon explanation for cannon minimum ranges, without introducing any wonky or unnatural mechanics.

[Kalimaster]

The cannons we have now have already been "nerfed". They used to be a lot better with 3x range instead of the 2x. I object to having these weapons nerfed any further.

[Ryvucz]

Because no one ever dies from point-blank ballistics.

[Nightmare1]

I don't recall reading about weapons being at angles or having min-ranges in the books. In fact, quite to the contrary, there are many cases where these weapons were fired point-blank. Books such as D.R.T. record the effect of point-blank, sustained, accurate fire from autocannons while the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy shows what happens when Gauss Rifles are fired point-blank. There are other examples in other books as well. The point is, if you take a direct hit from a ballistic weapon, it should deal full damage. It doesn't matter what the imagined angle should be or how close (far is another issue) the enemy is. These are ballistics. For the ACs, a charge is ignited in the bullet-like casing, firing the shell down the length of the bore. Upon exiting, no matter what it strikes, it should deal full damage until it travels past its effective range. At that point, the projectile begins to slow down and lose energy, thus dealing less damage upon striking an object. For Gauss it is the same, although those slugs are fired using magnetic coils and capacitors. Still, upon exiting the barrel, the projectile should also deal full damage until it passes beyond its effective range. Proposing minimum ranges and scalar damage for these weapons is preposterous and about as dumb as snake mittens.