84 replies to this topic

[Kubernetes]

Mystere, on 27 July 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

Just think of the sabot as having significant weight and do the math backwards. <shrugs>

Nah, there's no point. It seems that we're all in agreement that these weapons behave the way they do simply for gameplay reasons. If you think too hard about this stuff you'll obsess about little things like why gauss damage doesn't increase with velocity quirks. I've given up. None of it really makes sense, so just enjoy the game.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Kubernetes, on 27 July 2016 - 11:38 AM, said:

That's only Gauss. The name auto-CANNON suggests it fires explosive shells. The AC20 flies at a whopping 540m/s. All kinetic?

And yes, I know that all the wonky weapons physics exist solely for gameplay. Any attempt to compare MWO weapons to real world counterparts reveals just how absurd the former really are.

Wintersdark, on 27 July 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

A "whopping" 540 m/s = 540*360/1000 = 1944 km/h. 1 AC20 round = 142.8kg. Lets say roughly 2/3rds in the shell itself, and call it 95kg.

That's 13,851,000 joules of kinetic energy in a small shell that's going to be stopping in a short distance (mech armor cannot be very thick. Even assuming it was stopping in 1m, that would be 13,851kN of force. That's a TREMENDOUS impact.

Wintersdark, on 27 July 2016 - 03:15 PM, said:

but for game balance.

And of course that trying to apply real world physics to Battletech weapons is a good errand anyways.

Maybe Gauss rounds have more mass in casing or what have you, accounting for how the smaller and weapon accelerates a Gauss round to such high speeds?

*Shrugs*

You'd expect the Gauss projectile to have significantly less mass given the relative velocities.

Ultimately game balance wins any contest here though.

A HEDP 155mm shell that the US uses for artillery is just shy of 46kgs and with a Charge II moves about 450m/s (but flies out to nearly 4000m).

And the gauss is likely using a sabot since the books describe it as tungsten rod in some.

[Stone Wall]

Mystere, on 27 July 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

As I keep saying, if you see such things happening, just "Banzai!" into the enemy and drop into a new fight. There is no point in frustrating one's self waiting out till then end.

Might as well. You can get your 200+ damage doing that.

[DaFrog]

Wintersdark, on 26 July 2016 - 05:36 AM, said:

We've always had falloff, or at least since I started in November 2012.

But I ask: how do you feel hard limits would improve things, other than making brawling even harder?

Hard limits are silly. Consider the AC20. With a range of 270m, I can hammer you for 20 damage there. Step one meter further away, and I still hit for 19.something damage. With hard limits, that AC20 projectile would suddenly lose all its energy and become useless at 271m. How does that make any sense or provide better gameplay?

It'd just make short ranged weapons worse.

the same reason we can run through water at full speed. Last I checked, Usain Bolt couldn't break the world record in 3 feet of water. Maybe after Rio ...

[Stone Wall]

Short range weapons didn't suffer in MW3 from an instant cut off from distance. Don't see how this game is any different.