Edited by SaltBeef, 04 October 2014 - 02:06 AM.
6
Why Not This To Resolve The Pinpoint Damage Problem?
Started by KuroNyra, Oct 03 2014 01:04 PM
348 replies to this topic
#101
-
-
- The Determined
- 2,081 posts
Member
- LocationOmni-mech cockpit.
Posted 04 October 2014 - 02:05 AM
There should be no recoil and M1 tank can fire while moving at full speed across bumpy terrain and hit a enemy target with the main gun every time. 3 to 5 story battlemechs would be a larger more stable platform for the gyroscopic mechanisms.
#102
-
-
- The Determined
- 2,081 posts
Member
- LocationOmni-mech cockpit.
Posted 04 October 2014 - 02:09 AM
I know ...... I know mythical universe............multiple centuries into the future and they cannot figure out gun stabilization. Make all Ballistics like the Clan ballistics and eliminate the ability to fire guass with the PPC and or multiple lasers to extremes groupings = problem solved.
The way the weapons fire is not too bad now....it is just weapon combos and types of PPFL damage is the issue.
Everyone is going to have to have the paintball auto-cannons.
The way the weapons fire is not too bad now....it is just weapon combos and types of PPFL damage is the issue.
Everyone is going to have to have the paintball auto-cannons.
Edited by SaltBeef, 04 October 2014 - 02:12 AM.
#103
-
-
- Giant Helper
- 2,162 posts
Member
Posted 04 October 2014 - 02:19 AM
KuroNyra, on 04 October 2014 - 01:24 AM, said:
Ho yes there is. A lot.
But you need to be blind yo not see it.
But you need to be blind yo not see it.
I suggest you reread carefully what Adiuvo posted.
#104
-
-
- The People's Hero
- 156 posts
Member
- LocationTexas
Posted 04 October 2014 - 02:53 AM
If you shoot an ak 47 from the hip, you can look down crosshairs mounted on your nose all you want but that ain't gonna help you aim the rifle you are shooting from the hip!
I think the OP's non-native English threw a lot of readers off what he was trying to say, myself included. Rereading his post I think I've been won over.
Solution:
(This may even be what the OP was trying to say, I couldn't really tell. I also maybe included other ideas from this thread as well.)
1. "Gimbal" for the weapon convergence:
Set a maximum angle off the mounted weapon's alignment that it can converge - arms and mounted weapons would have a high angle but weapons being fired internally might not have as much angle to work with.
2. There is a speed at which convergence happens and it may be fast for weapons on the arms but slow for big weapons in the torso.
3. Like the tag laser, you have to hold your crosshairs over the target for the convergence to happen.
This seems like a balanced solution:
1. Weapons on the arms are specialized to take out fast mechs, so they are designed to converge really fast. maybe keep arms close to the convergence they have now.
2. You could balance the range of the convergence with the gimbal.
3. Weapons on the torso don't need as much angle or speed because they are closer to the center of the mech and are already more in line with your crosshairs.
4. It makes sense that big and heavy weapons in a torso would be slower to converge.
5. This helps PGI balance the game. Jagerbombs, dual gauss, multiple PPC, etc boats can be given as much of a disadvantage as they need to balance the game since they could set the convergence speed per weapon.
6. This is a solution that adds skill without being daunting to newbies. Every new player has shot some rounds into that little hill in front of him because his arms are way below the cockpit (and crosshairs). This implementation would be intuitive to all players learning along that line.
7. BUT BEWARE! This isn't going to make pinpoint less OP, it is going to make it MORE skill based. I already blast mechs close up with my crosshairs off them but my barrels pointed at them- it is a fun thing to do! Adding this skill to the game would be amazing.
So it doesn't solve the problem of players not being able to do pinpoint damage and me being able to
But it WOULD add a way for PGI to balance pinpoint PPC / Gauss / whatever without messing with all weapons systems.
And there would be NO cones of randomness! This would all be predictable!
I think the OP's non-native English threw a lot of readers off what he was trying to say, myself included. Rereading his post I think I've been won over.
Solution:
(This may even be what the OP was trying to say, I couldn't really tell. I also maybe included other ideas from this thread as well.)
1. "Gimbal" for the weapon convergence:
Set a maximum angle off the mounted weapon's alignment that it can converge - arms and mounted weapons would have a high angle but weapons being fired internally might not have as much angle to work with.
2. There is a speed at which convergence happens and it may be fast for weapons on the arms but slow for big weapons in the torso.
3. Like the tag laser, you have to hold your crosshairs over the target for the convergence to happen.
This seems like a balanced solution:
1. Weapons on the arms are specialized to take out fast mechs, so they are designed to converge really fast. maybe keep arms close to the convergence they have now.
2. You could balance the range of the convergence with the gimbal.
3. Weapons on the torso don't need as much angle or speed because they are closer to the center of the mech and are already more in line with your crosshairs.
4. It makes sense that big and heavy weapons in a torso would be slower to converge.
5. This helps PGI balance the game. Jagerbombs, dual gauss, multiple PPC, etc boats can be given as much of a disadvantage as they need to balance the game since they could set the convergence speed per weapon.
6. This is a solution that adds skill without being daunting to newbies. Every new player has shot some rounds into that little hill in front of him because his arms are way below the cockpit (and crosshairs). This implementation would be intuitive to all players learning along that line.
7. BUT BEWARE! This isn't going to make pinpoint less OP, it is going to make it MORE skill based. I already blast mechs close up with my crosshairs off them but my barrels pointed at them- it is a fun thing to do! Adding this skill to the game would be amazing.
So it doesn't solve the problem of players not being able to do pinpoint damage and me being able to
But it WOULD add a way for PGI to balance pinpoint PPC / Gauss / whatever without messing with all weapons systems.
And there would be NO cones of randomness! This would all be predictable!
Edited by Theodore42, 04 October 2014 - 03:05 AM.
#105
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 2,990 posts
Member
- LocationIdiot's Crater.
Posted 04 October 2014 - 03:02 AM
IraqiWalker, on 04 October 2014 - 01:58 AM, said:
Most people are against it for the simple reason that it adds an unnecessary inexplicable hurdle to aiming. Suddenly, my shot, magically decided to not hit where the barrel is pointing.
The barrel would hit where he is technicly pointing. But if you want the complete aim with all the weapon on the precise pixel of your dot. You must leave them calibrate for a few micro-second. Heavy shoot fired on you, LRM can also shift the precision, creating a "suppression fire".
Most people are against it for the simple reason they just want to stay with a system who created too much problem but fail to see it.
SaltBeef, on 04 October 2014 - 02:09 AM, said:
I know ...... I know mythical universe............multiple centuries into the future and they cannot figure out gun stabilization. Make all Ballistics like the Clan ballistics and eliminate the ability to fire guass with the PPC and or multiple lasers to extremes groupings = problem solved.
The way the weapons fire is not too bad now....it is just weapon combos and types of PPFL damage is the issue.
Everyone is going to have to have the paintball auto-cannons.
The way the weapons fire is not too bad now....it is just weapon combos and types of PPFL damage is the issue.
Everyone is going to have to have the paintball auto-cannons.
Technicly, they didn't since they don't have in the Books that precise aim, it is clearly write sometime that they need to wait for there dot to go "golden" in order to have there precise hit.
#106
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 9,498 posts
Member
- LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 04 October 2014 - 03:10 AM
IraqiWalker, on 04 October 2014 - 01:58 AM, said:
Suddenly, my shot, magically decided to not hit where the barrel is pointing.
Not magically, that's the strawman WM Quicksilver talked about. The hyperbole. CoF does not mean "aiming means nothing", nor does it mean "roll dice", nor does it mean any of the other exaggerations that keep being bandied about.
It simply means this: Try hitting the bullseye with a rifle while prone. Easy, right? Now do it from the hip, while running. That's a bit harder, isn't it? Now try doing it with six sniper rifles; two on each arm and one on each shoulder.
The point is that the MechWarrior (i.e. you) is not the one doing the whole pointing of the barrel thing. That's done by the 'mech. Your skills as a handgun marksman has zero effect on your skills as a MechWarrior, since you're basically just a glorified target designator.
However, that wouldn't be as much fun, so we want aiming to be a part of the game. But to completely step away from being in a 'mech that actually does all the hard work of aligning all those barrels is equally un-fun, because then it ceases to be BattleTech.
There needs to be a happy medium, and a Cone of Fire could very well be that happy medium, depending on how it was implemented. Movement- and heat-based, applied to firing 2+ weapons only, it would be constant, predictable, and fully in the control of the player - which means it takes more skill, not less, to put all your damage on target.
IraqiWalker, on 04 October 2014 - 01:58 AM, said:
You see the problem with that? Regardless of the size of the cone, unless it's very tiny (which changes literally nothing), it will be opposed simply because it turns skill-based gameplay into a random crapshoot.
It absolutely does not when you cut out the anti-CoF brigade's hyperbole. It could very well increase the skill needed to put your damage on target as opposed to lowering it. It's all in the implementation details.
#107
-
-
- CS 2023 Top 12 Qualifier
- 2,184 posts
Member
Posted 04 October 2014 - 03:21 AM
Can't read them all... a quick summary on my thoughts on convergence etc.
1. One mechanism won't solve it all. Not delayed convergence, not ghost heat, not recoil, not random cone of fire.
2. But, together, uniform heat stacking penalty + recoil + arm/torso convergence (i.e. forces unlocked arms) would do it.
I have summarized more here: http://mwomercs.com/...pinpoint-alpha/
1. One mechanism won't solve it all. Not delayed convergence, not ghost heat, not recoil, not random cone of fire.
2. But, together, uniform heat stacking penalty + recoil + arm/torso convergence (i.e. forces unlocked arms) would do it.
I have summarized more here: http://mwomercs.com/...pinpoint-alpha/
#108
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 2,990 posts
Member
- LocationIdiot's Crater.
Posted 04 October 2014 - 03:22 AM
stjobe, on 04 October 2014 - 03:10 AM, said:
Not magically, that's the strawman WM Quicksilver talked about. The hyperbole. CoF does not mean "aiming means nothing", nor does it mean "roll dice", nor does it mean any of the other exaggerations that keep being bandied about.
It simply means this: Try hitting the bullseye with a rifle while prone. Easy, right? Now do it from the hip, while running. That's a bit harder, isn't it? Now try doing it with six sniper rifles; two on each arm and one on each shoulder.
The point is that the MechWarrior (i.e. you) is not the one doing the whole pointing of the barrel thing. That's done by the 'mech. Your skills as a handgun marksman has zero effect on your skills as a MechWarrior, since you're basically just a glorified target designator.
However, that wouldn't be as much fun, so we want aiming to be a part of the game. But to completely step away from being in a 'mech that actually does all the hard work of aligning all those barrels is equally un-fun, because then it ceases to be BattleTech.
There needs to be a happy medium, and a Cone of Fire could very well be that happy medium, depending on how it was implemented. Movement- and heat-based, applied to firing 2+ weapons only, it would be constant, predictable, and fully in the control of the player - which means it takes more skill, not less, to put all your damage on target.
It absolutely does not when you cut out the anti-CoF brigade's hyperbole. It could very well increase the skill needed to put your damage on target as opposed to lowering it. It's all in the implementation details.
It simply means this: Try hitting the bullseye with a rifle while prone. Easy, right? Now do it from the hip, while running. That's a bit harder, isn't it? Now try doing it with six sniper rifles; two on each arm and one on each shoulder.
The point is that the MechWarrior (i.e. you) is not the one doing the whole pointing of the barrel thing. That's done by the 'mech. Your skills as a handgun marksman has zero effect on your skills as a MechWarrior, since you're basically just a glorified target designator.
However, that wouldn't be as much fun, so we want aiming to be a part of the game. But to completely step away from being in a 'mech that actually does all the hard work of aligning all those barrels is equally un-fun, because then it ceases to be BattleTech.
There needs to be a happy medium, and a Cone of Fire could very well be that happy medium, depending on how it was implemented. Movement- and heat-based, applied to firing 2+ weapons only, it would be constant, predictable, and fully in the control of the player - which means it takes more skill, not less, to put all your damage on target.
It absolutely does not when you cut out the anti-CoF brigade's hyperbole. It could very well increase the skill needed to put your damage on target as opposed to lowering it. It's all in the implementation details.
This!
Thank you, thank you for explaining what I wanted to say!
Damn why I'm not born in the US!
#109
-
-
- The People's Hero
- 156 posts
Member
- LocationTexas
Posted 04 October 2014 - 03:33 AM
Yellow Kat, on 03 October 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:
Recoil would do wonders for pinpoint damage negation. For anyone that would say that a Mech would have no recoil. I suggest you play some of the older Mechwarrior games. The mech would be forced to "swivel" slightly when large weapons were fired, or a large amount of weapons on one side were fired.
Ok, I've noticed a lot of people (myself included) misunderstanding the recoil suggestion:
Firstly, a cone of randomness where your shots go is, as I said, right out. Not geometrically feasible.
HOWEVER!
There is an FPS called Insurgency. Every shot lands where the crosshair is pointing but the recoil is simulated with mouse input. You have to control your recoil with your mouse. If you're good enough (or try hard enough), you can put a solid stream of bullets on a target.
I would be all for MWO having this kind of recoil. You can simulate the shuttering of the mech as you fire each round, adding to the player / mech immersion. And each round still goes where the crosshair is pointing. This would decrease pinpoint accuracy without giving a hit to skill. (or having to do some kind of armor buff on all mechs)
The downside is that it would affect dps on recoil weapons and might be a game balance issue. But this is the only method of recoil that I would be down for. Not sure of any other way to simulate it without randomness, which is unacceptable in a FPS. Spray patterns would maybe be ok, but that isn't going to help the people with the problem in the first place. Which is that some people's aim is too good.
#110
-
-
- Storm
- 1,493 posts
Member
- Facebook: Link
- LocationCanyon Lake, TX.
Posted 04 October 2014 - 03:46 AM
Yellow Kat, on 03 October 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:
Recoil would do wonders for pinpoint damage negation. For anyone that would say that a Mech would have no recoil. I suggest you play some of the older Mechwarrior games. The mech would be forced to "swivel" slightly when large weapons were fired, or a large amount of weapons on one side were fired.
Recoil is good for scattering chain fired shots. However, it has no effect on scattering Alpha Strikes. Because, Recoil happens after a shot is fired. Chain fire has to be promoted first. People need a reason to use it over chain fire. Otherwise, you just encourage Alpha Strikes even more.
#111
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 2,990 posts
Member
- LocationIdiot's Crater.
Posted 04 October 2014 - 03:56 AM
Eddrick, on 04 October 2014 - 03:46 AM, said:
Recoil is good for scattering chain fired shots. However, it has no effect on scattering Alpha Strikes. Because, Recoil happens after a shot is fired. Chain fire has to be promoted first. People need a reason to use it over chain fire. Otherwise, you just encourage Alpha Strikes even more.
The more you alpha, the more imprecise your shoot can get, it wouldn't make the Alpha impossible to use, that's not the goal.
But it would make them much more harder to correctly place if you are abusing them.
Especially when you are doing Alpha while moving and being under-fire.
Currently, you can place your alpha at a pinpoint location while underfire and moving. And that's a problem that solution could help to solve.
#112
-
-
- Storm
- 1,493 posts
Member
- Facebook: Link
- LocationCanyon Lake, TX.
Posted 04 October 2014 - 04:01 AM
KuroNyra, on 04 October 2014 - 03:56 AM, said:
The more you alpha, the more imprecise your shoot can get, it wouldn't make the Alpha impossible to use, that's not the goal.
But it would make them much more harder to correctly place if you are abusing them.
Especially when you are doing Alpha while moving and being under-fire.
Currently, you can place your alpha at a pinpoint location while underfire and moving. And that's a problem that solution could help to solve.
What if being hit would throw off you aim like recoil does, too? I'm not sure if it would be a good or bad thing. The idea hit me just a I was reading this.
#113
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 2,990 posts
Member
- LocationIdiot's Crater.
Posted 04 October 2014 - 04:04 AM
Eddrick, on 04 October 2014 - 04:01 AM, said:
What if being hit would throw off you aim like recoil does, too? I'm not sure if it would be a good or bad thing. The idea hit me just a I was reading this.
Actually, I was also coming to that. Heavy fire like taking an AC/20 currently move a bit your torso. But it doesn't really change the aim since you will still hit the location your aiming, even if you are moved by a shoot. It's only a camera shake.
Even if let's say you fire a 10 second long beam on a wall. Then a mech shoot at you with a AC/20, logicly, your torso twist a bit and replace himselft alone.
But during that little torso, currently the laser don't move from where he was previously hitting.
It should shift a bit, but isn't at the moment.
#114
-
-
- Storm
- 1,493 posts
Member
- Facebook: Link
- LocationCanyon Lake, TX.
Posted 04 October 2014 - 04:17 AM
KuroNyra, on 04 October 2014 - 04:04 AM, said:
Actually, I was also coming to that. Heavy fire like taking an AC/20 currently move a bit your torso. But it doesn't really change the aim since you will still hit the location your aiming, even if you are moved by a shoot. It's only a camera shake.
Even if let's say you fire a 10 second long beam on a wall. Then a mech shoot at you with a AC/20, logicly, your torso twist a bit and replace himselft alone.
But during that little torso, currently the laser don't move from where he was previously hitting.
It should shift a bit, but isn't at the moment.
Yah. Currently, all being hit does is just bob the recital. If being hit hard could throw off you aim like recoil does. It could potentially, be abuse able. Making Ballistics over popular. Ballistics would need at least one of the tradeoffs they are suppose to the to keep it in check. Much higher chance of Ammo explosion may do the trick.
Edited by Eddrick, 04 October 2014 - 04:17 AM.
#115
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 2,990 posts
Member
- LocationIdiot's Crater.
Posted 04 October 2014 - 04:33 AM
Eddrick, on 04 October 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:
Yah. Currently, all being hit does is just bob the recital. If being hit hard could throw off you aim like recoil does. It could potentially, be abuse able. Making Ballistics over popular. Ballistics would need at least one of the tradeoffs they are suppose to the to keep it in check. Much higher chance of Ammo explosion may do the trick.
There also could be some counter with some module. A shift reducor? A module allowing to reduce the shaking and the recoil?
#116
-
-
- Storm
- 1,493 posts
Member
- Facebook: Link
- LocationCanyon Lake, TX.
Posted 04 October 2014 - 04:36 AM
KuroNyra, on 04 October 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:
There also could be some counter with some module. A shift reducor? A module allowing to reduce the shaking and the recoil?
Could just let the Advance Gyro Module do that.
#117
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 2,990 posts
Member
- LocationIdiot's Crater.
Posted 04 October 2014 - 06:22 AM
Eddrick, on 04 October 2014 - 04:36 AM, said:
Could just let the Advance Gyro Module do that.
yup. Could work.
#118
Posted 04 October 2014 - 06:29 AM
Belorion, on 03 October 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:
NO... Never
just say no to cone of fire.
just say no to cone of fire.
You don't fire weapons for real do you? CoF exists with ballistic weapons. If it did't targets would only need to be a inch or two in diameter.
#119
-
-
- The Death Wish
- 61 posts
Member
Posted 04 October 2014 - 06:30 AM
Hey all. At the risk of getting overly technical and too realistic, here's some food for thought: The GAU-8 Avenger 30mm cannon (which is considered a rotary cannon, rather than an auto-cannon) on the A10 is considered an extremely accurate weapon. To clearly delineate what this means (taken from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....i/GAU-8_Avenger):
"The GAU-8/A accuracy when installed in the A-10 is rated at "5 mil, 80 percent", meaning that 80 percent of rounds fired will hit within a cone with an angle of five-milliradians. This equates to a 40 feet (12 m) diameter circle at the weapon's design range of 4,000 feet (1,200 m). By comparison, the M61 has an 8-milliradian dispersion."
To qualitatively observe what this means, you should check out some videos of them being fired: pay attention to the radius of the impacts. I would also recommend video of similar cannon systems such as the 30mm on an Apache helicopter engaging ground targets, because that stuff is cool to watch. (Spoiler: they don't all hit the exact same point of impact, they land in a radius of probability.)
How's that for real life convergence? Deviations affecting rounds fired from the same individual weapon system, let alone paired or grouped systems with individually different operating characteristics.
Some further things to chew on:
I think it could add some variety to the game if they could make the LBX-x/AC ammo switchable. The LBX could be made to fire more like a modern shotgun: shot or slug, with a shorter range profile and lower velocity than rifles (AC's). If this were done, the AC's could then be tweaked to fire a burst (auto rifle) in order to differentiate the weapon system characteristics. This would put LBX into the shotgun/smoothbore gun category, and AC into the rifle category, using modern hand-held guns for comparison. (Anyone else think it's unintuitive that the LBX-10 "shotgun" has a longer range than the AC10 "rifle", and that the cLBX matches the cAC/UAC ranges?)
Now, sure, some of you are thinking: AC's firing a burst will expose my ‘mech to more damage than the present mechanic. Consider how long energy users other than PPC’s have to expose themselves to produce damage, and consider how long direct fire LRMs have to sit out as a target to be shot (I know, people have more of a problem with indirect LRM than direct, I won’t tangent further on that matter here). I say, not really, if you have the burst take a short enough amount of time, say 0.1 seconds (you do realize how quickly multiple rounds can be fired from modern auto-cannon systems, right?). Let's see, using the GAU-8 for a reference again (I know, I know. It's just that it's one of my favorite weapon systems, ever...): the rate of fire is 3900 rounds per minute, and that comes out to 65 rounds per second, or 6.5 rounds per 0.1 seconds. Let us establish 6.5 rounds in 0.1 second, being based on a real life rotary cannon, as a rough baseline firing rate of BT rotary auto-cannons rather than Ultra or standard auto-cannons, and examine the firing duration and shots per trigger pull.
According to various rotary-, ultra- and standard auto-cannon pages on sarna.net, the rotary cannon fires 6 times as many shells (6 times the damage) of a standard AC, and 3 times the shells (3 times the damage) of an ultra AC. So, for every 6 shells a rotary fires, an AC fires 1, and a UAC fires 2. Well, our real life example of a rotary cannon fires at a rate of 6.5 shells in 0.1 secs, so in 0.1 second an AC could fire at a rate of 1.08 shells and an UAC would fire at a rate of 2.16 shells. Let’s truncate these to whole integers for simplicity: rotary = 6 shells, AC = 1 shell, UAC = 2 shells, all in 0.1 second span.
You still don't think all AC's could be changed to burst and fire off enough individual rounds in 0.1 second to still put out viable, on-target damage/DPS? A sample breakdown of how this could work: AC20 firing one five round burst, one round every 0.02 seconds, each round doing 4 damage, or one 4 round burst, one round per 0.025 seconds, 5 points damage per round. This reduces the instant front-loading and increases the chance for the target to spread the damage. Of course, the target also wants the longest possible firing duration so they can spread damage, so 0.1 second may not be enough to get your potential targets to agree to this system.
The current, shortest burn time (firing duration before recycle begins) for any laser system is 0.5 seconds for a small pulse laser. Any auto-cannon firing duration of less than 0.5 seconds seems to me to be balanced against the laser burn times, but we could start at 0.25 secs, get some valid test metrics, and tweak from there. If you think firing off a ballistic AC burst in less than 0.25 secs is too much exposure, then use a Gauss, for which this burst mechanic would not apply, or instead of using an AC, use the above mentioned changes to LBX with slugs for single shot non-burst firing.
You could go another step further as well and standardize AC and UAC ammos, each round does 1 point of damage, and the AC fires as many rounds as the damage rating, with each round taking, say, 0.01(for UAC)-0.02(for AC) seconds to leave the gun (these numbers may or may not work well if rotary cannons were to be introduced in the future, but let's not worry about that for now). AC2 gets a 0.02-0.04 firing duration, AC20 gets a 0.2-0.4 firing duration. This however loses some of the flavor of ammo load-out constraints, as well as may make each shot feel less effective to the aggressor (regardless of the actual effect of 20 rounds impacting the target for 20 damage), not to mention the ridiculous impulse cockpit shaking that could result from an increased volume of shots impacting over an increased duration instead of instant, like how people on the target end of Clan ballistics feel right now (impulse could be tweaked if this were implemented). Different ammo types do help to differentiate the AC weapon systems, the same way it is different to fire a 9mm handgun vs a 5.56 rifle, though it works well for missiles to be standard instead of having SRM2 ammo, SRM4 ammo, SRM6 ammo, etc.
In this system, instant, front-loaded, pin point damage capability is relegated to Gauss and LBX slug-shots, with all other AC/UAC's turned into short duration bursts allowing a target at least a chance, however small perceived, to spread damage.
Of course, the balance would have to be adjusted between LBX and AC, which could primarily be baselined as stated above via heat, range and projectile velocity, and then tweaked from there. Since IS has only one LBX, you effectively immediately reduce the IS front-loaded pin-point damage capability. To prevent an outright buff to Clans, the cLBX could be re-balanced (nerfed) by increasing heat generated as well as decreasing the range and projectile velocity to below comparable damage rated cAC/UAC (which could have heat efficieny decreased as well). Then, people could still have pinpoint options, but burst could give a range advantage. Pinpoint damage capability, at range, with no precision penalty is not balanced. The balance could be minimal exposure pinpoint capability at close range vs. longer (but still minimal compared to lasers) burst exposure at longer range. This could give ballistics three sub-classes: pinpoint (gauss and LBX-slug) and burst (AC/UAC) and crits (LBX-shot and MG's), similar to how energy have pinpoint w/splash (PPC) and burn duration (lasers and pulse lasers).
A single AC20 kill shot is fine and well for dramatic effect in a gladiatorial arena, but is it better in combat to have the opportunity for one in 5 shots to land and cause some amount of harm, or you only get one shot to hit or miss? It's like trying to use a grenade launcher or .50 cal sniper weapon at 100 meters, as if it were an assault rifle. Auto-cannons are not and should not be effective sniper weapons, they are analogous to handguns, carbines, assault rifles and automatic rifles at the personal level, or on the vehicle scale: 20mm, 30mm, 40mm, and larger real life cannons, and these weapons are not explicit sniper systems. Gauss and PPC should be your sniper weapons of choice.
But wait, you say, this is what they did for Clan ballistics! Of course, and in my humble opinion, Clan ballistics are ballistics done right. The only thing that needs tweaking is the rates of fire (slightly) and the balance between the cAC and cUAC (which probably needs to be looked at anyway). A slight tweak could be given to cAC’s and cUAC’s firing rates to ensure they “feel” different from IS counterparts, but for the most part the range, crit, and weight advantages coupled with the heat disadvantages should provide that distinction.
"The GAU-8/A accuracy when installed in the A-10 is rated at "5 mil, 80 percent", meaning that 80 percent of rounds fired will hit within a cone with an angle of five-milliradians. This equates to a 40 feet (12 m) diameter circle at the weapon's design range of 4,000 feet (1,200 m). By comparison, the M61 has an 8-milliradian dispersion."
To qualitatively observe what this means, you should check out some videos of them being fired: pay attention to the radius of the impacts. I would also recommend video of similar cannon systems such as the 30mm on an Apache helicopter engaging ground targets, because that stuff is cool to watch. (Spoiler: they don't all hit the exact same point of impact, they land in a radius of probability.)
How's that for real life convergence? Deviations affecting rounds fired from the same individual weapon system, let alone paired or grouped systems with individually different operating characteristics.
Some further things to chew on:
I think it could add some variety to the game if they could make the LBX-x/AC ammo switchable. The LBX could be made to fire more like a modern shotgun: shot or slug, with a shorter range profile and lower velocity than rifles (AC's). If this were done, the AC's could then be tweaked to fire a burst (auto rifle) in order to differentiate the weapon system characteristics. This would put LBX into the shotgun/smoothbore gun category, and AC into the rifle category, using modern hand-held guns for comparison. (Anyone else think it's unintuitive that the LBX-10 "shotgun" has a longer range than the AC10 "rifle", and that the cLBX matches the cAC/UAC ranges?)
Now, sure, some of you are thinking: AC's firing a burst will expose my ‘mech to more damage than the present mechanic. Consider how long energy users other than PPC’s have to expose themselves to produce damage, and consider how long direct fire LRMs have to sit out as a target to be shot (I know, people have more of a problem with indirect LRM than direct, I won’t tangent further on that matter here). I say, not really, if you have the burst take a short enough amount of time, say 0.1 seconds (you do realize how quickly multiple rounds can be fired from modern auto-cannon systems, right?). Let's see, using the GAU-8 for a reference again (I know, I know. It's just that it's one of my favorite weapon systems, ever...): the rate of fire is 3900 rounds per minute, and that comes out to 65 rounds per second, or 6.5 rounds per 0.1 seconds. Let us establish 6.5 rounds in 0.1 second, being based on a real life rotary cannon, as a rough baseline firing rate of BT rotary auto-cannons rather than Ultra or standard auto-cannons, and examine the firing duration and shots per trigger pull.
According to various rotary-, ultra- and standard auto-cannon pages on sarna.net, the rotary cannon fires 6 times as many shells (6 times the damage) of a standard AC, and 3 times the shells (3 times the damage) of an ultra AC. So, for every 6 shells a rotary fires, an AC fires 1, and a UAC fires 2. Well, our real life example of a rotary cannon fires at a rate of 6.5 shells in 0.1 secs, so in 0.1 second an AC could fire at a rate of 1.08 shells and an UAC would fire at a rate of 2.16 shells. Let’s truncate these to whole integers for simplicity: rotary = 6 shells, AC = 1 shell, UAC = 2 shells, all in 0.1 second span.
You still don't think all AC's could be changed to burst and fire off enough individual rounds in 0.1 second to still put out viable, on-target damage/DPS? A sample breakdown of how this could work: AC20 firing one five round burst, one round every 0.02 seconds, each round doing 4 damage, or one 4 round burst, one round per 0.025 seconds, 5 points damage per round. This reduces the instant front-loading and increases the chance for the target to spread the damage. Of course, the target also wants the longest possible firing duration so they can spread damage, so 0.1 second may not be enough to get your potential targets to agree to this system.
The current, shortest burn time (firing duration before recycle begins) for any laser system is 0.5 seconds for a small pulse laser. Any auto-cannon firing duration of less than 0.5 seconds seems to me to be balanced against the laser burn times, but we could start at 0.25 secs, get some valid test metrics, and tweak from there. If you think firing off a ballistic AC burst in less than 0.25 secs is too much exposure, then use a Gauss, for which this burst mechanic would not apply, or instead of using an AC, use the above mentioned changes to LBX with slugs for single shot non-burst firing.
You could go another step further as well and standardize AC and UAC ammos, each round does 1 point of damage, and the AC fires as many rounds as the damage rating, with each round taking, say, 0.01(for UAC)-0.02(for AC) seconds to leave the gun (these numbers may or may not work well if rotary cannons were to be introduced in the future, but let's not worry about that for now). AC2 gets a 0.02-0.04 firing duration, AC20 gets a 0.2-0.4 firing duration. This however loses some of the flavor of ammo load-out constraints, as well as may make each shot feel less effective to the aggressor (regardless of the actual effect of 20 rounds impacting the target for 20 damage), not to mention the ridiculous impulse cockpit shaking that could result from an increased volume of shots impacting over an increased duration instead of instant, like how people on the target end of Clan ballistics feel right now (impulse could be tweaked if this were implemented). Different ammo types do help to differentiate the AC weapon systems, the same way it is different to fire a 9mm handgun vs a 5.56 rifle, though it works well for missiles to be standard instead of having SRM2 ammo, SRM4 ammo, SRM6 ammo, etc.
In this system, instant, front-loaded, pin point damage capability is relegated to Gauss and LBX slug-shots, with all other AC/UAC's turned into short duration bursts allowing a target at least a chance, however small perceived, to spread damage.
Of course, the balance would have to be adjusted between LBX and AC, which could primarily be baselined as stated above via heat, range and projectile velocity, and then tweaked from there. Since IS has only one LBX, you effectively immediately reduce the IS front-loaded pin-point damage capability. To prevent an outright buff to Clans, the cLBX could be re-balanced (nerfed) by increasing heat generated as well as decreasing the range and projectile velocity to below comparable damage rated cAC/UAC (which could have heat efficieny decreased as well). Then, people could still have pinpoint options, but burst could give a range advantage. Pinpoint damage capability, at range, with no precision penalty is not balanced. The balance could be minimal exposure pinpoint capability at close range vs. longer (but still minimal compared to lasers) burst exposure at longer range. This could give ballistics three sub-classes: pinpoint (gauss and LBX-slug) and burst (AC/UAC) and crits (LBX-shot and MG's), similar to how energy have pinpoint w/splash (PPC) and burn duration (lasers and pulse lasers).
A single AC20 kill shot is fine and well for dramatic effect in a gladiatorial arena, but is it better in combat to have the opportunity for one in 5 shots to land and cause some amount of harm, or you only get one shot to hit or miss? It's like trying to use a grenade launcher or .50 cal sniper weapon at 100 meters, as if it were an assault rifle. Auto-cannons are not and should not be effective sniper weapons, they are analogous to handguns, carbines, assault rifles and automatic rifles at the personal level, or on the vehicle scale: 20mm, 30mm, 40mm, and larger real life cannons, and these weapons are not explicit sniper systems. Gauss and PPC should be your sniper weapons of choice.
But wait, you say, this is what they did for Clan ballistics! Of course, and in my humble opinion, Clan ballistics are ballistics done right. The only thing that needs tweaking is the rates of fire (slightly) and the balance between the cAC and cUAC (which probably needs to be looked at anyway). A slight tweak could be given to cAC’s and cUAC’s firing rates to ensure they “feel” different from IS counterparts, but for the most part the range, crit, and weight advantages coupled with the heat disadvantages should provide that distinction.
Edited by jarien13, 04 October 2014 - 06:38 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
