239 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

WM Quicksilver, on 10 August 2015 - 09:36 PM, said:

It proves that alphas are too high, not that alphas are necessarily the problem. Sorry but convergence is an ok thing to have, provided you can suitably limit how powerful an alpha is as well as incentivize more burst-damage focused builds as well.

Which is why I edited my last post. The alphas are too damn high with perfect convergence.

Edited by El Bandito, 10 August 2015 - 09:38 PM.

[FalconerGray]

I Zeratul I, on 10 August 2015 - 06:02 AM, said:

lol... What about this.

2 missed alpha strikes at point blank range!

Against an immobile target!

That was fantastic and is definitely in the same direction as I dearly wish MWO would be.

I don't think increased TTK through higher armour values is a good idea at all, I actually hate it. I've taken dual Guass to the CT while poking in an ACH only to run off like nothing ever happened...that isn't good.

Return the armour to it's original values so that pilots will have to think about their moves and be proactive rather than reactive.

Tie weapon accuracy and targeting in with movement, with big penalties for trying to fire while moving at speed. What if the difference between cruising and running speed actually meant something? What if we had a very low heat cap, but with a fast cooldown?

It's also worth noting that I'm not a TT player. I've never even figured out how to work Megamek. But I am a 20 year Mechwarrior fan and something I've noticed over those years is the difference between the gameplay and the movies. Look at how combat goes in all the intro / outro scenes - that's what I've been wanting all this time.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

legatoblues, on 10 August 2015 - 09:40 PM, said:

Return the armour to it's original values so that pilots will have to think about their moves and be proactive rather than reactive.

Tie weapon accuracy and targeting in with movement, with big penalties for trying to fire while moving at speed. What if the difference between cruising and running speed actually meant something? What if we had a very low heat cap, but with a fast cooldown?

So you want lights to be worthless? Removing the ability to run and gun accurately for lights is a very bad move (especially if they were made to be twice as fragile), especially since this sort of change just encourages teams to pick a nice spot and set up camp by creating a massive firing line.

Sorry but no, this would not be a good change.

[FalconerGray]

I should also say that most of my time is spent in lights, including the fragile MLX and the underengined KFX and I don't see them being rendered useless, I see them as being potential game changers. I'm in the camp that wants different sensor capabilities, major changes to target info sharing and a far greater importance to spotting.

On the movement and firing thing, perhaps those with fewer weapons wouldn't be punished as greatly, but I see bigger, slower mechs having a much harder time of tracking and shooting at a fast moving target. Light mechs should be using their speed to reposition and work angles where needed, NOT play invincible ankle biter in the middle of an enemy formation.

The Fireflies in the MW3 opening? That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Looking for more examples? The MW2 archive was loaded with plenty of detailed battle recounts - I especially liked the depictions of the Battle of Tukayyid, even if my "side" was the losing one. (On that note, does anyone know if the MW2 holoprojector info is available online?)

Edit: but don't worry, it's not like I ever expect this to happen...

Edited by legatoblues, 10 August 2015 - 10:38 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

legatoblues, on 10 August 2015 - 10:32 PM, said:

I'm in the camp that wants different sensor capabilities, major changes to target info sharing and a far greater importance to spotting.

That wasn't included in what was I referencing, so.....

legatoblues, on 10 August 2015 - 10:32 PM, said:

On the movement and firing thing, perhaps those with fewer weapons wouldn't be punished as greatly, but I see bigger, slower mechs having a much harder time of tracking and shooting at a fast moving target.

Unless agility is adjusted on top of everything else, a firing line of assaults would have no problem tracking them.

legatoblues, on 10 August 2015 - 10:32 PM, said:

Light mechs should be using their speed to reposition and work angles where needed, NOT play invincible ankle biter in the middle of an enemy formation.

They are only "invincible" because most players are bad shots, in a coordinated environment, they are much less so.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 10 August 2015 - 10:38 PM.

[FalconerGray]

WM Quicksilver, on 10 August 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

That wasn't included in what was I referencing, so.....

All good. And apologies, as I probably should have explained my views in a more comprehensive manner.

Quote

Unless agility is adjusted on top of everything else, a firing line of assaults would have no problem tracking them.

Is that a bad thing though? It might also be an area where map design could come into play. A lance of assault mechs holding a hill should be terrifying, but what if they were in a dense urban environment, where lights could be used to coordinate traps allowing quick mediums to take a shot and return to cover before the bigger mech can bring it's weapons to bear.

Quote

They are only "invincible" because most players are bad shots, in a coordinated environment, they are much less so.

I want lights to be difficult to hit, but I don't want them to feel like they can jump into a brawl with a heavier mech and not be punished for it.

[Y E O N N E]

Alek Ituin, on 10 August 2015 - 09:05 PM, said:

Most of this is true.

One part, however, is very untrue:

"There's nothing forcing your railgun to only fire AP rods at Mach 8, you could configure it to fire an HE shell at a much more conventional Mach 4 if you wanted to, and it would then be no worse than a normal gun in terms of wear."

The very operation of a railgun creates quite destructive plasma arcs between the sabot and the rails. Due to the force of acceleration, heat generated by conduction, and plasma flaring literally everywhere, anything other than AP has a very good chance of failing before it ever leaves the barrel. Imagine a fuze trying to function after being accelerated to Mach 4 within a few meters of barrel... I can tell you right now that's not happening. Only AP shells ever reach that kind of velocity, HE shells will barely reach 750m/s, let alone 1500m/s+.

And if you're firing railgun projectiles at anything less than Mach 6, you're wasting the explosive potential of a Mach 6 impact.

I was honestly eyeballing the velocity, all I really remembered was that a shell out of an Iowa's 16-inch gun leaves the barrel at around 2500 ft/sec and, since we were talking naval grade, that was my point of reference. That'll actually be around Mach 2.25 at sea level.

Anyway, the stresses involved are all related to how hard you want to push the projectile. Do you want to reach 750 m/s in two meters or are you okay with reaching it in six? Harder acceleration requires more force, which requires more current, which begets more heat and, depending on how much your rails flex and separate from the armature, more arcing. We could take our gun that is capable of blasting out a round at 2,000 m/s and only shoot at 450 m/s if we want by regulating the current. That won't be as destructive as the full power shot because the direct heat from resistance will be less, the friction heat will be less, the bending will be less and the resulting arcing will be less.

As far as I'm aware, all of US military testing has been aimed at super-high-velocities. It's obtaining sufficient durability at those extreme velocities that seems to be the major hurdle for the reasons mentioned above and by you. The USN has advanced to the point where it claims it can run 400 rounds through a pair of rails at a classified power output. Assuming that classified level has a bombardment utility equivalent to the aforementioned 16-inch guns, that's already better than what they could achieve with said guns during World War II, which was around 300 rounds. That's why I say no worse than the wear in a normal gun; it's within acceptable tolerances. It only looks woeful if we compare it to a 5-inch gun (~4,500 rounds)...but we already know that it is a more potent weapon than a 5-inch gun.

Your last statement also doesn't make sense. If I'm firing a projectile at less than Mach 6, then I'm not trying to get the explosive potential of a Mach 6 impact, am I? Kinetic-kill at hypersonic velocities is the current objective of railguns, but it's not the only thing they are capable of. Design for the application.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

legatoblues, on 10 August 2015 - 10:51 PM, said:

Is that a bad thing though? It might also be an area where map design could come into play. A lance of assault mechs holding a hill should be terrifying, but what if they were in a dense urban environment, where lights could be used to coordinate traps allowing quick mediums to take a shot and return to cover before the bigger mech can bring it's weapons to bear.

There is the problem, most maps have some area that assaults can sit on and gun down things effectively, especially if movement penalties are added. You mess with the ability to push a defensible position which is already tough considering the power of a firing line.

legatoblues, on 10 August 2015 - 10:51 PM, said:

I want lights to be difficult to hit, but I don't want them to feel like they can jump into a brawl with a heavier mech and not be punished for it.

They get away with it because they are generally lower priority, because they can't deal damage as effectively, the only exception being the Huginn.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Coil gun nerds. Alrite. Which one of you was responsible for making this?

[RussianWolf]

Crotch RockIt, on 09 August 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

10 rounds of Gauss ammo weighs a ton. That's 100kg per round, which is a big damn slug.

30cm is 12 inches roughly. 12 inches in diameter is 4/3(pi x r^3) = 904 cubic inches if is spherical. 904 cubic inches of carbon steel is roughly 250 pounds...... or more than 1/10th of a ton.

edit:posted before I saw other posts.

Edited by RussianWolf, 11 August 2015 - 05:24 AM.

[Alek Ituin]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 August 2015 - 10:59 PM, said:

I was honestly eyeballing the velocity, all I really remembered was that a shell out of an Iowa's 16-inch gun leaves the barrel at around 2500 ft/sec and, since we were talking naval grade, that was my point of reference. That'll actually be around Mach 2.25 at sea level.

Anyway, the stresses involved are all related to how hard you want to push the projectile. Do you want to reach 750 m/s in two meters or are you okay with reaching it in six? Harder acceleration requires more force, which requires more current, which begets more heat and, depending on how much your rails flex and separate from the armature, more arcing. We could take our gun that is capable of blasting out a round at 2,000 m/s and only shoot at 450 m/s if we want by regulating the current. That won't be as destructive as the full power shot because the direct heat from resistance will be less, the friction heat will be less, the bending will be less and the resulting arcing will be less.

As far as I'm aware, all of US military testing has been aimed at super-high-velocities. It's obtaining sufficient durability at those extreme velocities that seems to be the major hurdle for the reasons mentioned above and by you. The USN has advanced to the point where it claims it can run 400 rounds through a pair of rails at a classified power output. Assuming that classified level has a bombardment utility equivalent to the aforementioned 16-inch guns, that's already better than what they could achieve with said guns during World War II, which was around 300 rounds. That's why I say no worse than the wear in a normal gun; it's within acceptable tolerances. It only looks woeful if we compare it to a 5-inch gun (~4,500 rounds)...but we already know that it is a more potent weapon than a 5-inch gun.

Your last statement also doesn't make sense. If I'm firing a projectile at less than Mach 6, then I'm not trying to get the explosive potential of a Mach 6 impact, am I? Kinetic-kill at hypersonic velocities is the current objective of railguns, but it's not the only thing they are capable of. Design for the application.

I've never heard of the USN managing to get past the hurdle of rail durability... Mind linking a source? I'd actually like to read about that if at all possible. Getting past the rail durability issue is a pretty big f**kin deal, because their design used to be limited to pretty much one shot before replacing the rails. It also means they've discovered a balance between firing energy and material ability (conductivity and strength VS plasma arcing/extreme friction).

As for the last bit, that was half serious. Obviously you don't want a Mach 6 impact if you're not firing at Mach 6, but it's still wasting the sheer velocity a railgun can achieve. It'd be like using this to drive to work, it might very well be capable of doing so, but you're wasting its ability to go balls-out fast.

[Dino Might]

I thought BT gauss was a coil gun, not a rail gun, in which case you don't have to worry about barrel wear. You do have to worry about ultra-sensitive electronics timing to achieve your velocity as well as huge capacitor banks to generate the appropriate current at the appropriate times.

As for rail guns vs. conventional ballistic weapons, you have the same problem with barrel wear as you do with rail wear, but the extent is dependent on the weapon design. You create plasma in a shoulder fired rifle - some of the copper jacket gets converted into plasma from the friction generated by pushing the bullet through the barrel at high velocity. And we're talking about 2600 feet per second causing that. Friction is friction. Energy is energy. If you put too much heat energy into the rails, beyond their capacity to dissipate, they will melt. If you put too much heat energy into a gun barrel beyond its capacity to dissipate, it will melt. Same principles. Weapon design characteristics impact the magnitudes you are dealing with.

[Alek Ituin]

Dino Might, on 11 August 2015 - 06:19 AM, said:

I thought BT gauss was a coil gun, not a rail gun, in which case you don't have to worry about barrel wear. You do have to worry about ultra-sensitive electronics timing to achieve your velocity as well as huge capacitor banks to generate the appropriate current at the appropriate times.

Or you can just use an optical timing system.

Also, railguns require capacitor banks as well. Where do you think they store the energy required to fire?

[Telmasa]

Too many recent walls of text....

Bottom line is that RNG is bad. Luck is bad and not fun unless you're playing to lose or playing a tabletop turn-based game.

There are plenty other solutions to enhance the game that do not involve RNG.

The answer to convergence is to adopt an Elite Dangerous/World of Warships 'drifting reticule' setup.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Telmasa, on 11 August 2015 - 08:31 AM, said:

Too many recent walls of text....

Bottom line is that RNG is bad. Luck is bad and not fun unless you're playing to lose or playing a tabletop turn-based game.

There are plenty other solutions to enhance the game that do not involve RNG.

The answer to convergence is to adopt an Elite Dangerous/World of Warships 'drifting reticule' setup.

In any fight, luck plays a factor.

It could be as simple as being in the right place at the right time, or turning a corner so your enemy's back is at you at the right moment.

Or it could be as complex as having a SSRM track the enemy behind you and headshooting yourself [I literally watched this happen to someone in my old corp]

Luck factors in, no matter what. You simply, do not like factors outside of your control Telmasa, and that's fine... but there will ALWAYS be factors outside of your control. At least with RNG, you can know to expect it.

[Tombstoner]

Alek Ituin, on 11 August 2015 - 06:02 AM, said:

I've never heard of the USN managing to get past the hurdle of rail durability... Mind linking a source? I'd actually like to read about that if at all possible. Getting past the rail durability issue is a pretty big f**kin deal, because their design used to be limited to pretty much one shot before replacing the rails. It also means they've discovered a balance between firing energy and material ability (conductivity and strength VS plasma arcing/extreme friction).

As for the last bit, that was half serious. Obviously you don't want a Mach 6 impact if you're not firing at Mach 6, but it's still wasting the sheer velocity a railgun can achieve. It'd be like using this to drive to work, it might very well be capable of doing so, but you're wasting its ability to go balls-out fast.

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2011/1000-Electromagnetic-Railgun-Fire.aspx
progress has been made

[Almond Brown]

Hit the Deck, on 09 August 2015 - 04:21 AM, said:

Quote: The Executioner's right-arm Gauss rifle spat out a hunk of metal about thirty centimeters in diameter.

That's naval gun's territory. Stackpole can't into physics?

How big would a 200 pound ball of solid metal be then? 12 inches around sounds ok...

Edited by Almond Brown, 11 August 2015 - 11:09 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Alek Ituin, on 11 August 2015 - 06:02 AM, said:

I've never heard of the USN managing to get past the hurdle of rail durability... Mind linking a source? I'd actually like to read about that if at all possible. Getting past the rail durability issue is a pretty big f**kin deal, because their design used to be limited to pretty much one shot before replacing the rails. It also means they've discovered a balance between firing energy and material ability (conductivity and strength VS plasma arcing/extreme friction).

As for the last bit, that was half serious. Obviously you don't want a Mach 6 impact if you're not firing at Mach 6, but it's still wasting the sheer velocity a railgun can achieve. It'd be like using this to drive to work, it might very well be capable of doing so, but you're wasting its ability to go balls-out fast.

But would not using a coil-gun to achieve hyper-sonic ballistic velocities also be wasting the potential? The way I see it, we're just using one gun to do many tasks, no different than using the 5-inch to fire a bombardment round at 800 m/s or an illumination round at 450. We're not really wasting anything; we don't lose the ability to shoot hard just because we chose to fire one round a bit softer.

Also, here's another source.

[Telmasa]

Flash Frame, on 11 August 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

In any fight, luck plays a factor.

It could be as simple as being in the right place at the right time, or turning a corner so your enemy's back is at you at the right moment.

Or it could be as complex as having a SSRM track the enemy behind you and headshooting yourself [I literally watched this happen to someone in my old corp]

Luck factors in, no matter what. You simply, do not like factors outside of your control Telmasa, and that's fine... but there will ALWAYS be factors outside of your control. At least with RNG, you can know to expect it.

That is a different kind of luck.

Nowhere is a dice-roll force injected as to whether you are seen, can see, are hit, can hit, are damaged, can do damage, etc. etc. etc.

Expecting the game to dice-roll factors that "ought" to be controllable & take them out of my hands completely is not fun, enjoyable, or enhancing the experience whatsoever.

[El Bandito]

Telmasa, on 12 August 2015 - 09:06 PM, said:

That is a different kind of luck.

Nowhere is a dice-roll force injected as to whether you are seen, can see, are hit, can hit, are damaged, can do damage, etc. etc. etc.

Expecting the game to dice-roll factors that "ought" to be controllable & take them out of my hands completely is not fun, enjoyable, or enhancing the experience whatsoever.

Cricital hits are dice-roll. Ammo/Gauss Rifle explosion is dice-roll. Artillery Strike is dice-roll. Overheating damage section selection is dice-roll.

They can all be controlled to certain degrees. Regardless of the method to curb large PP alphas, M:WO already has dice-roll mechanics in place.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 August 2015 - 09:56 PM.