Jump to content

Removing Hard Min Range On All Weapons?


75 replies to this topic

#1 Andi Nagasia

    Volunteer Moderator

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,982 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 06:20 PM

and in turn Replace it with Soft Min Range,
Weapons doing Degrading Damage in their Min Range,

IS PPCs
90m = Full Damage,
45m = Half Damage,
0m = No Damage,

IS LRMs
180m = Full Damage,
90m = Half Damage,
0m = No Damage,

C LRMs
180m = Full Damage,
90m = 3/4 Damage,
0m = Half Damage

C ATMs
120m = Full Damage,
60m = Half Damage,
0m = No Damage,

Should Hard Min Range be Removed?

=(Poll)=

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 04 August 2017 - 07:32 AM.


#2 DaMuchi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 157 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 06:34 PM

I think it is only fair if the devs explained their design intentions before we decide if it should be done away.

#3 Andi Nagasia

    Volunteer Moderator

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,982 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 06:40 PM

View PostDaMuchi, on 25 July 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

I think it is only fair if the devs explained their design intentions before we decide if it should be done away.

well TT all these weapons had a Min Range,
in TT weapons were harder to Aim when firing in their Min Range,

#4 DaMuchi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 157 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 06:46 PM

I see. I think that the game should remain lore friendly, like for example, PPCs have a field inhibitor which explains a 90m minimum range. If a specific weapon has a minimum range for the sake of mimicking TT, then it should be done away, but if it is to remain lore friendly, it should stay as is. That's just my 2 cents.

EDIT: used PPC as an example instead of ATM

Edited by DaMuchi, 25 July 2017 - 06:50 PM.


#5 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 25 July 2017 - 06:48 PM

View PostDaMuchi, on 25 July 2017 - 06:46 PM, said:

I see. I think that the game should remain lore friendly, like for example, ATMs don't deal damage within 120m because of multistage deployment or whatevs. If a specific weapon has a minimum range for the sake of mimicking TT, then it should be done away, but if it is to remain lore friendly, it should stay as is. That's just my 2 cents.


No, Standard and Extended ATM ammo have min-range due to multi-stage rockets. The HE don't have that.

#6 The Silent Protagonist

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 647 posts
  • LocationUK, Buckinghamshire

Posted 25 July 2017 - 06:51 PM

In my opinion? Leave it as-is. Currently it's a reason beyond the bonus range to take an ERPPC on IS builds over the lighter or smaller counterparts. It'd remove the uniqueness of C-LRMs.

Take min engagement distance away as an absolute factor on all but C-LRMs and you blur the distinction between weapons which is definitely not what this game needs. It would result in less build diversity, I think.

#7 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 06:53 PM

Im okay with linear damage dropoff on PPC.


But ATMs should have no min range

theyre supposed to be effective at all ranges

and having a min range makes them not effective at all ranges

so min range has to go. and they should do less damage per missile. because 3 is too high.

Edited by Khobai, 25 July 2017 - 06:58 PM.


#8 Requiemking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Solitary
  • The Solitary
  • 2,479 posts
  • LocationStationed at the Iron Dingo's Base on Dumassas

Posted 25 July 2017 - 06:58 PM

View PostKhobai, on 25 July 2017 - 06:53 PM, said:

ATMs should have no min range

theyre supposed to be effective at all ranges

Then LRMs would be totally useless. Ditto for SRMs. In fact, the only reason SSRMs would still be used is because they are guaranteed to hit with all missiles.

#9 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 06:59 PM

Quote

Then LRMs would be totally useless. Ditto for SRMs. In fact, the only reason SSRMs would still be used is because they are guaranteed to hit with all missiles.


I said they should be effective at all ranges.

I didnt say they should be better than lrms at long range. or better than srms at short range.

#10 SeventhSL

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander
  • Galaxy Commander
  • 505 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:01 PM

You know this is something I have thought about for a while now. I've not come to a solid conclusion either way. As far as I'm concerned both options are good.

It would defiantly help IS tech more than Clan but I don't see that as a bad thing especially given the quirk and tonnage rebalance that will probably happen after enough data has been gathered and analysed.

#11 Andi Nagasia

    Volunteer Moderator

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,982 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:02 PM

View PostThe Silent Protagonist, on 25 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

Take min engagement distance away as an absolute factor on all but C-LRMs and you blur the distinction between weapons which is definitely not what this game needs. It would result in less build diversity, I think.

well right now the Min Range on C-LRMs is (180=1Damge/Missile)(120=0.5)(100=0.25)(75=0.1)
not exactly what i would call degrading Damage,

personally i can see the removal of Min Range for C-LRMs if this were done,

#12 Tarl Cabot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Tai-sho
  • Tai-sho
  • 7,643 posts
  • LocationImperial City, Luthien - Draconis Combine

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:03 PM

The under minimum range damage drop off should be different for each weapon type, not linear drop off damage across the board.

#13 Requiemking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Solitary
  • The Solitary
  • 2,479 posts
  • LocationStationed at the Iron Dingo's Base on Dumassas

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:05 PM

View PostKhobai, on 25 July 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:


I said they should be effective at all ranges.

I didnt say they should be better than lrms at long range. or better than srms at short range.

Except, they would be. SRMs deal two damage per missile, ATMs deal 3 damage per missile at the same ranges with more missiles. LRMs have terrible spread, ATMs have better spread due to having fewer missiles. Not to mention that ATMs are actually useful at the ranges where both of the more specialised missile systems fail at.

#14 Andi Nagasia

    Volunteer Moderator

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,982 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:18 PM

View PostRequiemking, on 25 July 2017 - 07:05 PM, said:

Except, they would be. SRMs deal two damage per missile, ATMs deal 3 damage per missile at the same ranges with more missiles. LRMs have terrible spread, ATMs have better spread due to having fewer missiles. Not to mention that ATMs are actually useful at the ranges where both of the more specialised missile systems fail at.

SRMs are lighter, they dont have a lock on mechanic(so player controls Viability)
and as they have a much higher velocity(they are more Accurate, and AMS resistant)

ATM3(9Damage/1.5Tons) weighs the same as an SRM6(12Damage/1.5Tons)
ATM6(18Damage/3.5Tons) weighs the as much as 2SRM4+A(16Damage/4Tons)
ATM9(27Damage/5Tons) weighs the as much as 2SRM6+A(24Damage/5Tons)

you can see they would still be viable even with ATMs having a Min Range,
as ATMs would still be ECM/AMS vulnerable, as where SRMs arnt,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 25 July 2017 - 07:19 PM.


#15 Dr Hobo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 530 posts
  • LocationA cardboard box drinkin mah hooch.

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:22 PM

Min range CAN be removed,but it causes other issues.

This could ONLY work if we had heat penalties and PPC feedback.

I.e since broken weapons would be stupid,if you fire a PPC under 90M you can cause feedback and make it stop firing for a set time,like an autocannon jam.

If LRMs are fired under range,they're more likely to miss and they only do 1/4 their possible damage(as it would mostly be the rocket chipping armor,and the warhead isn't armed)

#16 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:22 PM

Im fine with the proposal. Alternatively reduce hard minimum range for missiles and PPCs.

#17 ingramli

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 554 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:27 PM

For most existing weapons i'd say leave it as is, except for RLs. Its min range combined with its SRM class velocity make it a useless junk.

#18 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:32 PM

Quote

ATMs deal 3 damage per missile at the same ranges with more missiles.


which is why I said lower the damage

#19 Andi Nagasia

    Volunteer Moderator

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,982 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:36 PM

View PostDr Hobo, on 25 July 2017 - 07:22 PM, said:

Min range CAN be removed,but it causes other issues.

This could ONLY work if we had heat penalties and PPC feedback.

I.e since broken weapons would be stupid,if you fire a PPC under 90M you can cause feedback and make it stop firing for a set time,like an autocannon jam.

If LRMs are fired under range,they're more likely to miss and they only do 1/4 their possible damage(as it would mostly be the rocket chipping armor,and the warhead isn't armed)

not proposing it be removed, just removing hard Min Range, Dead Min Range vs Degrading Damage Min Range,

#20 The Silent Protagonist

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 647 posts
  • LocationUK, Buckinghamshire

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:39 PM

View PostAndi Nagasia, on 25 July 2017 - 07:02 PM, said:

well right now the Min Range on C-LRMs is (180=1Damge/Missile)(120=0.5)(100=0.25)(75=0.1)
not exactly what i would call degrading Damage,

personally i can see the removal of Min Range for C-LRMs if this were done,

To be fair, if you're suggesting using this degrading system for LRMs and ATMs, and then giving C-LRMs no min distance at all then I'd be all for that - lore bore that I am; but PPCs I definitely think should stay as-is.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users