Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see them make the lb-x work better as a primary weapon, cause the spread is honestly everywhere, but if I want a poor slug, why even bother with it over a regular ac again? The majority feel the ac10 is pretty meh at best too compared to other auto cannons, would you want an ac10 that does less ppfld where you aim?
I think without any major rebuild of the weapon, spread mechanics can work but the spread per meter fired is too wide. Can pgi make adjustments in spread by oh, say 25% or so on pts, or live, why not? Adjust in 1-5% increments until you get a weapon that hits about 75% damage where you aim at 300-350 meter ranges dead on, the last 25% going a little wide, but having a moderate connect rate. Still a cluster gun, but at least it won't be a slug fired ac7.5 with splash. It'll be an lb-x gun with about 75% accuracy at 300-350m.
7
316 replies to this topic
#102
-
-
- CS 2022 Gold Champ
- 4,963 posts
Member
Posted 19 December 2015 - 09:39 PM
Wintersdark, on 19 December 2015 - 08:31 PM, said:
Further, the whole "Light Mechs Legs" thing that otherwise smart people keep bringing up?
Come on.
1) Just hit the legs. You're not bad players, you know if you aim a bit higher, you pretty much can't miss them - the hips don't move.
2) LBX doing ~3-5 damage to each leg vs. a UAC20 firing 8 5 point damage slugs? The UAC20 is a far better machine for crushing light mech legs. Because the LBX cannot do full damage to legs, even at very close ranges. Not even 30% damage. The UAC20 can do 40 damage to one leg with a well aimed volley.
I just can not bring myself to believe how skilled players are advocating for a weapon to remain terrible "because they want to do damage when they miss a leg" despite the fact that that same effect ensures that they cannot ever do full damage to that leg.
An LBX10 fired at a lights legs will never do 10 damage.
LBX's are terrible weapons for legging lights. Terrible. Be less bad instead.
There is NO REASON to use an LBX right now, except that it's awesome and fun(This is a perfectly valid reason! But be aware that you're doing it because it's fun, not because it's somehow good). But it is inarguably a sh***y weapon if you're not incredibly terrible at the game.
It boggles my mind that we still need to have this discussion today.
Come on.
1) Just hit the legs. You're not bad players, you know if you aim a bit higher, you pretty much can't miss them - the hips don't move.
2) LBX doing ~3-5 damage to each leg vs. a UAC20 firing 8 5 point damage slugs? The UAC20 is a far better machine for crushing light mech legs. Because the LBX cannot do full damage to legs, even at very close ranges. Not even 30% damage. The UAC20 can do 40 damage to one leg with a well aimed volley.
I just can not bring myself to believe how skilled players are advocating for a weapon to remain terrible "because they want to do damage when they miss a leg" despite the fact that that same effect ensures that they cannot ever do full damage to that leg.
An LBX10 fired at a lights legs will never do 10 damage.
LBX's are terrible weapons for legging lights. Terrible. Be less bad instead.
There is NO REASON to use an LBX right now, except that it's awesome and fun(This is a perfectly valid reason! But be aware that you're doing it because it's fun, not because it's somehow good). But it is inarguably a sh***y weapon if you're not incredibly terrible at the game.
It boggles my mind that we still need to have this discussion today.
That is an example. I have no problems hitting legs on a light. be it gauss, PPC, or anything else.
The thing is, if you are going to make LBX single projectile with simulated splash.... then why not AC10???
Edited by Navid A1, 19 December 2015 - 09:41 PM.
#103
Posted 19 December 2015 - 09:46 PM
Bishop Steiner, on 19 December 2015 - 08:17 PM, said:
Pulse lasers don't preserve the accuracy bonus form TT either. I'd take range for short range "accuracy" boost... since at the ranges you are realistically hitting with a focused enough shot to be worth taking, you should be able to hit almost as easy with a standards AC (aka sub 350 meters)
I'm more into effectiveness than my Accuracy % looking better. Current mechanic is crap all the way around.
I'm more into effectiveness than my Accuracy % looking better. Current mechanic is crap all the way around.
Yeah that's true. In the case of Pulse Lasers vs Lasers, they're both pinpoint, but over here, the increased accuracy of Pulse Lasers in the form of ease of placing damage into an intended location (or on the receiving end, how much harder it is to spread the damage through defensive maneuvers).
In the OP, there is nothing to make up for the loss of that ease of hitting a target though ("if you miss by a bit, you missed, no buts") - instead it is replaced by strong anti-internals property (which I do like; that is fine). I guess throwing in a velocity buff (i.e. better velocity than Ultras and IS regular ACs) should help to solve that?
Edited by Matthew Ace, 19 December 2015 - 09:53 PM.
#104
-
-
- The Raider
- 5,025 posts
Member
- LocationPittsburgh, PA
Posted 19 December 2015 - 09:50 PM
Mcgral18, on 19 December 2015 - 06:50 PM, said:
No one has posted the cEPPC splash code yet? I am disappoint Forum Warriors.
Entirety:
Important bit:
It's not a set amount, but percentage of the total.
Also doesn't deal with the damage being lost to the void (instead of the CoF, so nothing really lost)
LB20x code:
Relevant bits
So, a 2.8M CoF at whatever distance...I don't entirely know how they're calculated, but they're a radius at some distance. Optimal?
Crit chance increase is what is sounds like, adding to the 3 separate crit pools, to total 67%.
CritDamMult is what multiplies the damage, so 1 times 2, to total 2 Crit damage per Crit (or 15% of that, 0.3 extra real damage, per Crit)
numPerShot is the number of pellets.
I'd prefer to just change the 'critDamMult' to 5, from 2. Goes from needing 5 Crits to destroy your typical item to 2, with the LB20x shooting 20 (of which, maybe 5 hit the component?)
Simple change, which doesn't affect pre-armour penetration, but also has the effect of dealing 2.5x more REAL damage per crit, up to 0.75 per crit (not quite 2x damage).
Well, 1+0.75x real damage, depending how many Crits hit. Roll a 2x (14%+8%=22%) you'll deal 2.5 real damage.
That said, PPC code is theoretically transferable, but some modifications might be needed on the back end. We don't get all the details (like damage falloff, for example) in the .XML, but just the inputs.
If you wanted the LB20x to deal 15 PP FLD, 23 total damage, you'd set the 'splashPercent' to 25%, same as it is for the PPC.
Not sure how the Crit multipliers would affect that, and armour hit modifiers aren't listed. Shouldn't be hard to implement, theoretically, but best to just have the base damage be X, and Structure damage be X*Y. Fewer calculations that way.
Entirety:
Spoiler
Important bit:
splashPercent="0.25"
It's not a set amount, but percentage of the total.
Also doesn't deal with the damage being lost to the void (instead of the CoF, so nothing really lost)
LB20x code:
Spoiler
Relevant bits
damage="1" spread="1.40" critChanceIncrease="0.14,0.08,0.03" critDamMult="2.0" numPerShot="20"/>
So, a 2.8M CoF at whatever distance...I don't entirely know how they're calculated, but they're a radius at some distance. Optimal?
Crit chance increase is what is sounds like, adding to the 3 separate crit pools, to total 67%.
CritDamMult is what multiplies the damage, so 1 times 2, to total 2 Crit damage per Crit (or 15% of that, 0.3 extra real damage, per Crit)
numPerShot is the number of pellets.
I'd prefer to just change the 'critDamMult' to 5, from 2. Goes from needing 5 Crits to destroy your typical item to 2, with the LB20x shooting 20 (of which, maybe 5 hit the component?)
Simple change, which doesn't affect pre-armour penetration, but also has the effect of dealing 2.5x more REAL damage per crit, up to 0.75 per crit (not quite 2x damage).
Well, 1+0.75x real damage, depending how many Crits hit. Roll a 2x (14%+8%=22%) you'll deal 2.5 real damage.
That said, PPC code is theoretically transferable, but some modifications might be needed on the back end. We don't get all the details (like damage falloff, for example) in the .XML, but just the inputs.
If you wanted the LB20x to deal 15 PP FLD, 23 total damage, you'd set the 'splashPercent' to 25%, same as it is for the PPC.
Not sure how the Crit multipliers would affect that, and armour hit modifiers aren't listed. Shouldn't be hard to implement, theoretically, but best to just have the base damage be X, and Structure damage be X*Y. Fewer calculations that way.
From a game code standpoint, I'd propose the following as a counter-proposal...
- The game can clearly determine the distance to a target, and pass that value from one element (e.g. the part actually doing that determination) to another (e.g. the UI element that allows range-to-target to be displayed on the players' screens).
- We also know that the game can query a number of characteristics of a target (variant identity, damage to each location, weapon loadout and status, etc).
- We also know that the shortest 'Mechs in MWO are ~8-9 meters tall, while the tallest are ~17-18 meters tall.
- Further, we know the basic equations governing the dimensions of a cone.
- Finally, we know that the spread of a LB-X AC can be adjusted by changing the value "spread" (see the 21 May 2013 patch notes (where the LB 10-X spread was changed from 2.25 from 3.00), and the quoted LB 20-X weapon code).
So, we make the spread on the LB-X family dynamic, and calculated as a function of distance-to-target and (possibly) target size.
When an enemy 'Mech is targeted, one's 'Mech receives the distance to the target (the same number that is displayed as range in the cockpit UI element) and the height of the target (e.g. "If targetID = 'AS7-D' then targetHeight = 17.6")
The LB-X code then calculates the spread angle as:
spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((targetHeight/2)/(targetRange))
So, if the target is an AS7-D (MWO height = 17.6 meters) at a distance of 540 meters (the optimal range limit for the LB 10-X), the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((17.6/2)/540) = 0.033 radians = 1.867 degrees.
However, if the same AS7-D were at a distance of, say, 264 meters, the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((17.6/2)/264) = 0.067 radians = 3.818 degrees.
Likewise, if a JR7-D (MWO height = 9.4 meters) were at a distance of 540 meters (the optimal range limit for the LB 10-X), the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((9.4/2)/540) = 0.017 radians = 0.997 degrees; putting the same JR7-D at 264 meters would result in a spreadAngle = 0.036 radians = 2.040 degrees.
Lore/fluff-wise, this would be attributed to the Mercury-IV FCS (an integral canonical component of the LB-X ACs) working in concert with the 'Mech's main targeting systems to optimize the spread of the LB-X cluster round as a function of the target type & distance-to-target, and using those calculations to actuate a servo-driven adjustable "choke" mechanism built into the LB-X barrel.
This would allow the MWO LB-X ACs to maintain their canonical character as "anti-BattleMech shotguns", allow them to tighten/loosen their spread to compensate for the range & size of a target to ensure consistent spread against the target with each salvo (an aspect implied by the nature of rolling the Cluster Hits Table in the TT game), AND adds an element of InfoTech to the weapon (modules, quirks, equipment, and tactics that improve one's targeting speed and target retention become beneficial to one's LB-X ACs & improve their performance; modules, quirks, equipment, and tactics that hamper/impair an opponent's targeting speed and target retention become detrimental to the opponent's LB-X ACs & degrade their performance).
#105
-
-
- Bad Company
- 2,049 posts
Member
Posted 19 December 2015 - 09:56 PM
Strum Wealh, on 19 December 2015 - 09:50 PM, said:
Above post
So basically static spread with no target lock, and dynamic with lock based on the mech and distance? If they could program it with decent accuracy that wouldn't be bad, but hard to explain the mechanics. It'd have to be a learned skill using them.
#106
Posted 19 December 2015 - 10:03 PM
Strum Wealh, on 19 December 2015 - 09:50 PM, said:
From a game code standpoint, I'd propose the following as a counter-proposal...
Spoiler
(Thrown in spoiler to shorten the post)
I love this one.
Throw in some form of through-armor critical being implemented (even in our current iteration of LBX) and then laugh diabolically as your opponents get stripped of weapons or die of ammo-boom before armor breach in that location.
#107
Posted 19 December 2015 - 10:04 PM
Navid A1, on 19 December 2015 - 09:39 PM, said:
That is an example. I have no problems hitting legs on a light. be it gauss, PPC, or anything else.
The thing is, if you are going to make LBX single projectile with simulated splash.... then why not AC10???
Because the LBX does more damage to internal structure?
Quote
ON ARMOR
LB2X: 1.33 | 0.33 | 0.33
LB5X: 3.00 | 1.00 | 1.00
LB10X: 6.50 | 1.50 | 1.50
LB20X: 14.00 | 3.00 | 3.00
ON INTERNALS (1.75x Modifier)
LB2X: 2.32 | 0.57 | 0.57
LB5X: 5.25 | 1.75 | 1.75
LB10X: 11.37 | 2.62 | 2.62
LB20X: 24.50 | 5.25 | 5.25
LB2X: 1.33 | 0.33 | 0.33
LB5X: 3.00 | 1.00 | 1.00
LB10X: 6.50 | 1.50 | 1.50
LB20X: 14.00 | 3.00 | 3.00
ON INTERNALS (1.75x Modifier)
LB2X: 2.32 | 0.57 | 0.57
LB5X: 5.25 | 1.75 | 1.75
LB10X: 11.37 | 2.62 | 2.62
LB20X: 24.50 | 5.25 | 5.25
It does "less" damage to armor (same, but spread out), more to structure.
Edited by Wintersdark, 19 December 2015 - 10:05 PM.
#108
-
-
- The Hammer
- 47,187 posts
ForumWarrior
- Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 19 December 2015 - 10:27 PM
Strum Wealh, on 19 December 2015 - 09:50 PM, said:
From a game code standpoint, I'd propose the following as a counter-proposal...
When an enemy 'Mech is targeted, one's 'Mech receives the distance to the target (the same number that is displayed as range in the cockpit UI element) and the height of the target (e.g. "If targetID = 'AS7-D' then targetHeight = 17.6")
The LB-X code then calculates the spread angle as:
spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((targetHeight/2)/(targetRange))
So, if the target is an AS7-D (MWO height = 17.6 meters) at a distance of 540 meters (the optimal range limit for the LB 10-X), the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((17.6/2)/540) = 0.033 radians = 1.867 degrees.
However, if the same AS7-D were at a distance of, say, 264 meters, the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((17.6/2)/264) = 0.067 radians = 3.818 degrees.
Likewise, if a JR7-D (MWO height = 9.4 meters) were at a distance of 540 meters (the optimal range limit for the LB 10-X), the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((9.4/2)/540) = 0.017 radians = 0.997 degrees; putting the same JR7-D at 264 meters would result in a spreadAngle = 0.036 radians = 2.040 degrees.
Lore/fluff-wise, this would be attributed to the Mercury-IV FCS (an integral canonical component of the LB-X ACs) working in concert with the 'Mech's main targeting systems to optimize the spread of the LB-X cluster round as a function of the target type & distance-to-target, and using those calculations to actuate a servo-driven adjustable "choke" mechanism built into the LB-X barrel.
This would allow the MWO LB-X ACs to maintain their canonical character as "anti-BattleMech shotguns", allow them to tighten/loosen their spread to compensate for the range & size of a target to ensure consistent spread against the target with each salvo (an aspect implied by the nature of rolling the Cluster Hits Table in the TT game), AND adds an element of InfoTech to the weapon (modules, quirks, equipment, and tactics that improve one's targeting speed and target retention become beneficial to one's LB-X ACs & improve their performance; modules, quirks, equipment, and tactics that hamper/impair an opponent's targeting speed and target retention become detrimental to the opponent's LB-X ACs & degrade their performance).
- The game can clearly determine the distance to a target, and pass that value from one element (e.g. the part actually doing that determination) to another (e.g. the UI element that allows range-to-target to be displayed on the players' screens).
- We also know that the game can query a number of characteristics of a target (variant identity, damage to each location, weapon loadout and status, etc).
- We also know that the shortest 'Mechs in MWO are ~8-9 meters tall, while the tallest are ~17-18 meters tall.
- Further, we know the basic equations governing the dimensions of a cone.
- Finally, we know that the spread of a LB-X AC can be adjusted by changing the value "spread" (see the 21 May 2013 patch notes (where the LB 10-X spread was changed from 2.25 from 3.00), and the quoted LB 20-X weapon code).
When an enemy 'Mech is targeted, one's 'Mech receives the distance to the target (the same number that is displayed as range in the cockpit UI element) and the height of the target (e.g. "If targetID = 'AS7-D' then targetHeight = 17.6")
The LB-X code then calculates the spread angle as:
spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((targetHeight/2)/(targetRange))
So, if the target is an AS7-D (MWO height = 17.6 meters) at a distance of 540 meters (the optimal range limit for the LB 10-X), the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((17.6/2)/540) = 0.033 radians = 1.867 degrees.
However, if the same AS7-D were at a distance of, say, 264 meters, the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((17.6/2)/264) = 0.067 radians = 3.818 degrees.
Likewise, if a JR7-D (MWO height = 9.4 meters) were at a distance of 540 meters (the optimal range limit for the LB 10-X), the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((9.4/2)/540) = 0.017 radians = 0.997 degrees; putting the same JR7-D at 264 meters would result in a spreadAngle = 0.036 radians = 2.040 degrees.
Lore/fluff-wise, this would be attributed to the Mercury-IV FCS (an integral canonical component of the LB-X ACs) working in concert with the 'Mech's main targeting systems to optimize the spread of the LB-X cluster round as a function of the target type & distance-to-target, and using those calculations to actuate a servo-driven adjustable "choke" mechanism built into the LB-X barrel.
This would allow the MWO LB-X ACs to maintain their canonical character as "anti-BattleMech shotguns", allow them to tighten/loosen their spread to compensate for the range & size of a target to ensure consistent spread against the target with each salvo (an aspect implied by the nature of rolling the Cluster Hits Table in the TT game), AND adds an element of InfoTech to the weapon (modules, quirks, equipment, and tactics that improve one's targeting speed and target retention become beneficial to one's LB-X ACs & improve their performance; modules, quirks, equipment, and tactics that hamper/impair an opponent's targeting speed and target retention become detrimental to the opponent's LB-X ACs & degrade their performance).
Frosty Brand, on 19 December 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:
So basically static spread with no target lock, and dynamic with lock based on the mech and distance? If they could program it with decent accuracy that wouldn't be bad, but hard to explain the mechanics. It'd have to be a learned skill using them.
Matthew Ace, on 19 December 2015 - 10:03 PM, said:
(Thrown in spoiler to shorten the post)
I love this one.
Throw in some form of through-armor critical being implemented (even in our current iteration of LBX) and then laugh diabolically as your opponents get stripped of weapons or die of ammo-boom before armor breach in that location.
It's a nice idea but gets away from a key principle of the OP... KISS.
It's a LOT more work programming, and introducing new mechanics. The more complicated, the less likely to making it happen. One could easily use a lot of Strum's basic idea to make my original proposal work
http://mwomercs.com/...b-10x-proposal/
which would, do to proximity explosion, also maintain that accuracy you want, Matthew Ace.
Thing is, It's all but guaranteed to be too much work for them to go for it on a chance it might satisfy. One huge driving force behind the OP is the simplicity by reusing an existing mechanic, which greatly enhances the chance of it being looked at.
You'll notice that as a common theme, whether here, on the PPC thread etc. We never claim it is the BEST option (blue sky mining, skies the limit, we can come up with some wicked stuff). But it's probably about as close as we can get and have a realistic expectation that PGI might try it.
#109
Posted 19 December 2015 - 10:41 PM
Bishop Steiner, on 19 December 2015 - 10:27 PM, said:
It's a nice idea but gets away from a key principle of the OP... KISS.
It's a LOT more work programming, and introducing new mechanics. The more complicated, the less likely to making it happen. One could easily use a lot of Strum's basic idea to make my original proposal work
http://mwomercs.com/...b-10x-proposal/
which would, do to proximity explosion, also maintain that accuracy you want, Matthew Ace.
Thing is, It's all but guaranteed to be too much work for them to go for it on a chance it might satisfy. One huge driving force behind the OP is the simplicity by reusing an existing mechanic, which greatly enhances the chance of it being looked at.
You'll notice that as a common theme, whether here, on the PPC thread etc. We never claim it is the BEST option (blue sky mining, skies the limit, we can come up with some wicked stuff). But it's probably about as close as we can get and have a realistic expectation that PGI might try it.
It's a LOT more work programming, and introducing new mechanics. The more complicated, the less likely to making it happen. One could easily use a lot of Strum's basic idea to make my original proposal work
http://mwomercs.com/...b-10x-proposal/
which would, do to proximity explosion, also maintain that accuracy you want, Matthew Ace.
Thing is, It's all but guaranteed to be too much work for them to go for it on a chance it might satisfy. One huge driving force behind the OP is the simplicity by reusing an existing mechanic, which greatly enhances the chance of it being looked at.
You'll notice that as a common theme, whether here, on the PPC thread etc. We never claim it is the BEST option (blue sky mining, skies the limit, we can come up with some wicked stuff). But it's probably about as close as we can get and have a realistic expectation that PGI might try it.
I agree wholeheartedly with the last paragraph (though there's hardly any harm in generating complex or alternative ideas - it's rather enjoyable even.
)A simplier (but ultimately, still more complex then OP suggestion) implementation of Strum Wealh's idea would be to make it such that the weapon will only spread so much regardless of range fired. So let's say if LB10 has a spread radius of 0.75m at 180m (based on someone mentioning spread was changed to 2.25m at its optimal range of 540m), then that 0.75m spread radius would be its new value, and made to apply at all ranges.
Edited by Matthew Ace, 19 December 2015 - 10:41 PM.
#110
-
-
- 2,520 posts
Member
Posted 20 December 2015 - 12:02 AM
Frosty Brand, on 19 December 2015 - 09:29 PM, said:
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see them make the lb-x work better as a primary weapon, cause the spread is honestly everywhere, but if I want a poor slug, why even bother with it over a regular ac again?
Because Clans don't have an auto cannon that fires slugs. The larger UACs see limited use due to usability issues like heat, face time, jam chance, and damage spread (but UACs are a different discussion). However, if I had the option to take an LB-20 with a 3/14/3 split I could see using it much like the Gauss Rifle before the nerf.
#111
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 7,537 posts
Member
- LocationGrand Duchy of Lithuania
Posted 20 December 2015 - 02:26 AM
#112
-
-
- Big Brother
- 382 posts
Member
Posted 20 December 2015 - 02:58 AM
Having the OP's suggestion of using the mechanic from the cERPPC, is effectively a code-simplified way of depicting the downrange airbursting concept given multiple times here as a counter proposal. I say, go with OP's method but add a large airburst fireball/blast effect on or within a short distance from point of impact to cosmetically depict the airburst. This would also add to the psychological impact of the weapon.
Needless to say, i approve of OP's idea. Bishop Steiner, any response from Russ?
Needless to say, i approve of OP's idea. Bishop Steiner, any response from Russ?
#113
-
-
- Veteran Founder
- 4,242 posts
Member
- LocationLouisville, KY
Posted 20 December 2015 - 04:37 AM
Frosty Brand, on 19 December 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:
So basically static spread with no target lock, and dynamic with lock based on the mech and distance? If they could program it with decent accuracy that wouldn't be bad, but hard to explain the mechanics. It'd have to be a learned skill using them.
Nah, just give it a circle that shows the area in which the pellets will land the changes size appropriately.
#114
-
-
- Bad Company
- 6,612 posts
Member
- LocationOlympus Mons
Posted 20 December 2015 - 04:49 AM
Sounds okay. What should actually be happening with LB-X is that they do their full damage at optimal range, minus 20-30 percent if the mech has armor, but at 50% of optimal range they do bonus damage, minus the armor reduction if armor is still present, plus of course the chance to crit bonus. So they become the brawler's choice for ballistics.
The current set-up is not logical since LB-X just do much less damage if the mech is armored, but gain almost nothing once the armor is gone.
The current set-up is not logical since LB-X just do much less damage if the mech is armored, but gain almost nothing once the armor is gone.
#115
Posted 20 December 2015 - 08:08 AM
Strum Wealh, on 19 December 2015 - 09:50 PM, said:
From a game code standpoint, I'd propose the following as a counter-proposal...
When an enemy 'Mech is targeted, one's 'Mech receives the distance to the target (the same number that is displayed as range in the cockpit UI element) and the height of the target (e.g. "If targetID = 'AS7-D' then targetHeight = 17.6")
The LB-X code then calculates the spread angle as:
spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((targetHeight/2)/(targetRange))
So, if the target is an AS7-D (MWO height = 17.6 meters) at a distance of 540 meters (the optimal range limit for the LB 10-X), the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((17.6/2)/540) = 0.033 radians = 1.867 degrees.
However, if the same AS7-D were at a distance of, say, 264 meters, the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((17.6/2)/264) = 0.067 radians = 3.818 degrees.
Likewise, if a JR7-D (MWO height = 9.4 meters) were at a distance of 540 meters (the optimal range limit for the LB 10-X), the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((9.4/2)/540) = 0.017 radians = 0.997 degrees; putting the same JR7-D at 264 meters would result in a spreadAngle = 0.036 radians = 2.040 degrees.
Lore/fluff-wise, this would be attributed to the Mercury-IV FCS (an integral canonical component of the LB-X ACs) working in concert with the 'Mech's main targeting systems to optimize the spread of the LB-X cluster round as a function of the target type & distance-to-target, and using those calculations to actuate a servo-driven adjustable "choke" mechanism built into the LB-X barrel.
This would allow the MWO LB-X ACs to maintain their canonical character as "anti-BattleMech shotguns", allow them to tighten/loosen their spread to compensate for the range & size of a target to ensure consistent spread against the target with each salvo (an aspect implied by the nature of rolling the Cluster Hits Table in the TT game), AND adds an element of InfoTech to the weapon (modules, quirks, equipment, and tactics that improve one's targeting speed and target retention become beneficial to one's LB-X ACs & improve their performance; modules, quirks, equipment, and tactics that hamper/impair an opponent's targeting speed and target retention become detrimental to the opponent's LB-X ACs & degrade their performance).
- The game can clearly determine the distance to a target, and pass that value from one element (e.g. the part actually doing that determination) to another (e.g. the UI element that allows range-to-target to be displayed on the players' screens).
- We also know that the game can query a number of characteristics of a target (variant identity, damage to each location, weapon loadout and status, etc).
- We also know that the shortest 'Mechs in MWO are ~8-9 meters tall, while the tallest are ~17-18 meters tall.
- Further, we know the basic equations governing the dimensions of a cone.
- Finally, we know that the spread of a LB-X AC can be adjusted by changing the value "spread" (see the 21 May 2013 patch notes (where the LB 10-X spread was changed from 2.25 from 3.00), and the quoted LB 20-X weapon code).
When an enemy 'Mech is targeted, one's 'Mech receives the distance to the target (the same number that is displayed as range in the cockpit UI element) and the height of the target (e.g. "If targetID = 'AS7-D' then targetHeight = 17.6")
The LB-X code then calculates the spread angle as:
spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((targetHeight/2)/(targetRange))
So, if the target is an AS7-D (MWO height = 17.6 meters) at a distance of 540 meters (the optimal range limit for the LB 10-X), the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((17.6/2)/540) = 0.033 radians = 1.867 degrees.
However, if the same AS7-D were at a distance of, say, 264 meters, the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((17.6/2)/264) = 0.067 radians = 3.818 degrees.
Likewise, if a JR7-D (MWO height = 9.4 meters) were at a distance of 540 meters (the optimal range limit for the LB 10-X), the spread angle would be spreadAngle = 2 * arctan((9.4/2)/540) = 0.017 radians = 0.997 degrees; putting the same JR7-D at 264 meters would result in a spreadAngle = 0.036 radians = 2.040 degrees.
Lore/fluff-wise, this would be attributed to the Mercury-IV FCS (an integral canonical component of the LB-X ACs) working in concert with the 'Mech's main targeting systems to optimize the spread of the LB-X cluster round as a function of the target type & distance-to-target, and using those calculations to actuate a servo-driven adjustable "choke" mechanism built into the LB-X barrel.
This would allow the MWO LB-X ACs to maintain their canonical character as "anti-BattleMech shotguns", allow them to tighten/loosen their spread to compensate for the range & size of a target to ensure consistent spread against the target with each salvo (an aspect implied by the nature of rolling the Cluster Hits Table in the TT game), AND adds an element of InfoTech to the weapon (modules, quirks, equipment, and tactics that improve one's targeting speed and target retention become beneficial to one's LB-X ACs & improve their performance; modules, quirks, equipment, and tactics that hamper/impair an opponent's targeting speed and target retention become detrimental to the opponent's LB-X ACs & degrade their performance).
It would be fantastic if it was doable. It really would be, and I think it would be a superior system to what I am suggesting. Again, though, it's a matter of likelihood. I don't like to suggest things that the odds of them happening are next to zero. Given unlimited resources and time, I would love to see suggestions as in depth and sweeping as this. Ones that use fresh code to make a brand new mechanic.
On the other hand, if a simple method that is already in the game can be repurposed and used quickly, and simulate most of the thematic effect of the weapon while keeping it semi-useful? Given the limited resources at PGI's hands, the odds of it actually getting considered skyrocket if it is simple. If it was easy.
Edited by Pariah Devalis, 20 December 2015 - 08:10 AM.
#116
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 23,969 posts
Member
Posted 20 December 2015 - 08:25 AM
Quote
Huh? An LBX that does 25 damage to one location, IF armor is gone. The CUAC that does 40 damage to one location, armored or not, if you can aim. Even if you spread that a bit (not much; it's a 0.4s volley), it's 40 damage vs. 25.
Youre not putting x8 UAC20 shots into the same location against a moving target. Especially when youre being shot back at and your mech is shaking. Youve also completely ignored the fact the UAC20 can jam and you may not even get 8 shots. Also the OP said 14/3/3 vs armor and 25/5/5 vs internals for the LB20X. We havent even mentioned the LBX's additional splash damage to adjacent locations. The LBX is the outright better weapon here.
The WHOLE reason PGI made clan ultra autocannons burst fire is so the damage would spread out more and not always go into the same location. So no the CUAC20 is at a huge disadvantage against pinpoint weapons. The only time CUAC20 consistently puts all their damage in the same location is if the enemy mech shuts down in front of you and the RNG gods dont subject you to a jam.
Again if youre going to balance the LB20X with the CUAC20 you need to make them both equal... not make the LB20X outright better.
Edited by Khobai, 20 December 2015 - 08:36 AM.
#117
Posted 20 December 2015 - 08:31 AM
Khobai, on 20 December 2015 - 08:25 AM, said:
The only time CUAC20s consistently puts all their damage in the same location is if the enemy mech shuts down in front of you.
...or is moving towards you, or is in brawling range, or is in the process of going forward to backwards, or if they are not a light mech that keeps a consistent speed and direction that lets you track their movement. The times you can put most of your weapon fire onto a specific part exceed the times you cannot. Remember, again, the worst is only a ~0.4 second burst. How much trouble do you have with C-SPLAs?
It is disingenuous to act as if it is particularly difficult to track with UAC. Is it as good as it would be if it was PPFLD? Of course not. But it isn't crap either. Right now CUACs suffer from two issues: their jam chance is a little too high, and a lot of people still have that stigma from when they were total and complete crap.
Edited by Pariah Devalis, 20 December 2015 - 08:32 AM.
#118
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 23,969 posts
Member
Posted 20 December 2015 - 08:38 AM
Quote
..or is moving towards you, or is in brawling range
not how most people play
in the current meta people dont move towards you in the open. nor do they willingly enter brawling range unless theres some advantage for them to do so.
laser vomit has a very long range so theres no reason to brawl with it.
Quote
Right now CUACs suffer from two issues: their jam chance is a little too high
Were specifically talking about the CUAC20. The other CUACs like the 5 and 10 are more or less fine. The CUAC10 is the best one of the bunch by far. Especially with the ammo buff.
The CUAC20 is absolute garbage though. Its range is short. Its projectile velocity blows. Its damage is broken up into four smaller chunks which is awful. It has the highest jam chance. High heat. And it weighs a crapton and takes up the same number of crit slots as TWO CUAC10s. And it only has 10 health so it gets critted out like a mofo (the ISAC20 gets 18 health). CUAC20 is one of the worst weapons.
Edited by Khobai, 20 December 2015 - 08:48 AM.
#119
Posted 20 December 2015 - 09:10 AM
Guess what? LB20 is just as heavy and takes up even more space. Not as many mechs even have it as an option to equip due to that. If we neutralize the bulk, critability, and weight, you are running out of disadvantages here that its rate of fire compensates for. The only legitimate complaint I've actually seen when using it in its optimal range is the jam chance, and I think most agree it jams a little too often.
All in all, they would seem under these changes fairly equal weapon systems. What do you favor more, the flexibly of the LBX or the potentially devastating firepower of the UAC? That's the forced trade off we need to have for meanigful choices.
All in all, they would seem under these changes fairly equal weapon systems. What do you favor more, the flexibly of the LBX or the potentially devastating firepower of the UAC? That's the forced trade off we need to have for meanigful choices.
#120
-
-
- The Hammer
- 47,187 posts
ForumWarrior
- Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 20 December 2015 - 03:32 PM
Pariah Devalis, on 20 December 2015 - 08:31 AM, said:
It is disingenuous to act as if it is particularly difficult to track with UAC.
well.....considering the amount of bad play I see in MWO....not sure I can back that up, lol.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
