Jump to content

Removing Hard Min Range On All Weapons?


75 replies to this topic

#21 Khobai

    Member

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

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:51 PM

No weapon should have a deadzone where it does 0 damage

its simply not a fun mechanic to do 0 damage because the enemy got 1m too close to you

and no such thing exists in battletech, its not a faithful representation of how min range works in battletech

having linear or exponential damage dropoff is a better representation of the min range rule

Edited by Khobai, 25 July 2017 - 07:59 PM.


#22 Dr Hobo

    Member

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

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:53 PM

View PostAndi Nagasia, on 25 July 2017 - 07:36 PM, said:

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


I could go with that,but add various penalties to doing it. Feedback to PPCs,LRMs doing 1/4 damage for IS(or far less accurate for ISLRMS)

I would make so it's possible to do damage with those types of weapons,just risky in terms of heat,and possible feedback issues on PPCs.

PPCs NEED to have feedback on mechs on both ends. And they should make it so that way you can disable the protection to fire under range to deal damage,at the expense of extra heat and feedback to you.

View PostThe Silent Protagonist, on 25 July 2017 - 07:39 PM, said:

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.



I'd rather see feedback that happens but it doesn't damage the weapon per-se because that's dumb in a game,I think it should just cause feedback,mess up the mechs computers/sensors and cause the weapon to be unable to be fired.

#23 Khobai

    Member

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

Posted 25 July 2017 - 08:04 PM

Quote

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.


I would give CLRMs linear dropoff and ISLRMs exponential dropoff

Id give PPCs exponential dropoff

exponential dropoff still significantly reduces the damage, but its better than nothing

id also change linear/exponential dropoff so it always does a guaranteed minimum % of damage (say 25%). so even at pointblank range youd never do 0 damage.

Edited by Khobai, 25 July 2017 - 08:08 PM.


#24 The Silent Protagonist

    Member

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

Posted 25 July 2017 - 08:29 PM

View PostDr Hobo, on 25 July 2017 - 07:53 PM, said:


I could go with that,but add various penalties to doing it. Feedback to PPCs,LRMs doing 1/4 damage for IS(or far less accurate for ISLRMS)

I would make so it's possible to do damage with those types of weapons,just risky in terms of heat,and possible feedback issues on PPCs.

PPCs NEED to have feedback on mechs on both ends. And they should make it so that way you can disable the protection to fire under range to deal damage,at the expense of extra heat and feedback to you.




I'd rather see feedback that happens but it doesn't damage the weapon per-se because that's dumb in a game,I think it should just cause feedback,mess up the mechs computers/sensors and cause the weapon to be unable to be fired.


You mean like in MW4 where the HUD would scramble when hit by a PPC? Lose the crosshair for a couple of seconds or something? Would be interesting, but we'd have to find the sweet spot for feedback chance, risk vs reward. Plus, would this feedback apply only to H/L/PPCs, while snubs and ERPPCs get a pass?

View PostKhobai, on 25 July 2017 - 08:04 PM, said:


I would give CLRMs linear dropoff and ISLRMs exponential dropoff

Id give PPCs exponential dropoff

exponential dropoff still significantly reduces the damage, but its better than nothing

id also change linear/exponential dropoff so it always does a guaranteed minimum % of damage (say 25%). so even at pointblank range youd never do 0 damage.


Depending on the severity of the exponential drop I could also get behind this. It'd need to be punishing, as we're talking warheads that aren't detonating and just the kinetic energy of the missile connecting with the armour. I'd say have 10-15% as your minimum.

Here's a thought - would it be possible to code a percentage chance of warhead detonation within minimum distance? Or would that be infeasible? E.g; 0-90m 15% per missile to detonate on impact, 90-150m 40% chance, 150-180m 60% chance. So I'm talking rather than guaranteed payload priming at low damage you instead have a chance that the impact causes premature detonation anyway, dealing full damage for that missile but only a couple missile actually do so?

#25 Xetelian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 4,371 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 08:43 PM

No damage zones are terrible. They make no sense in regards to LRMs.

#26 evilauthor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 519 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 08:54 PM

In TT, targets inside minimum range are just harder to hit, not impossible.

In MWO, this would/should translate into a limit on weapons convergence. Which is to say that weapons will just plain refuse to converge on a point closer than their minimum range. They'd still fire, but they're going to be aiming at their minimum range point if the crosshairs are set on something closer than that. You MIGHT hit your target anyway, but it'd be off to the side of where the crosshairs were pointed at. A really skilled player may learn to offset their aim point in order to score a hit, just like high gunnery skill in TT can offset many to hit penalties.

For missiles like LRMs, missing targets inside minimum range is easy: they fire up in an arc and can easily overshoot a locked target. Heck, I've seen Clan LRMs actually do this despite having a lock.

Of course, if PGI were to implement convergence based minimum ranges, it's likely that they restore minimum ranges to weapons that have them in TT but currently don't in MWO: the lighter ACs, Gauss Rifles, etc etc.

#27 Dr Hobo

    Member

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

Posted 25 July 2017 - 08:57 PM

View PostThe Silent Protagonist, on 25 July 2017 - 08:29 PM, said:


You mean like in MW4 where the HUD would scramble when hit by a PPC? Lose the crosshair for a couple of seconds or something? Would be interesting, but we'd have to find the sweet spot for feedback chance, risk vs reward. Plus, would this feedback apply only to H/L/PPCs, while snubs and ERPPCs get a pass?



Depending on the severity of the exponential drop I could also get behind this. It'd need to be punishing, as we're talking warheads that aren't detonating and just the kinetic energy of the missile connecting with the armour. I'd say have 10-15% as your minimum.

Here's a thought - would it be possible to code a percentage chance of warhead detonation within minimum distance? Or would that be infeasible? E.g; 0-90m 15% per missile to detonate on impact, 90-150m 40% chance, 150-180m 60% chance. So I'm talking rather than guaranteed payload priming at low damage you instead have a chance that the impact causes premature detonation anyway, dealing full damage for that missile but only a couple missile actually do so?



PPCs that don't have a min range limit,so they would get the pass.

But Light/standard and heavy ppcs would cause feedback on both ends,scrambling the HUD and if fired under range,there is a chance that the PPC would feed back into itself causing it to be unable to be fired for X amount of time,like 3 seconds?

Possibly equal to the PPCs cooldown? I'm not sure how you cold balance that.

Convergence as said by EvilAuthor also would help and work too.

#28 Khobai

    Member

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

Posted 25 July 2017 - 09:00 PM

Quote

No damage zones are terrible. They make no sense in regards to LRMs.


no damage zones kindve make sense for LRMs because missiles have a mimimum arming distance

just like torpedos do for submarines. you dont want to blow yourself up. you wanna be out of the blast radius when they explode.

but as much as it might make sense, no damage zones are simply not a fun mechanic in MWO.

And I cant see PPCs causing feedback really being a fun mechanic either. Damaging yourself for firing a weapon in its min range is a lot of ways worse than having a no damage zone.

Edited by Khobai, 25 July 2017 - 09:03 PM.


#29 Dr Hobo

    Member

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

Posted 25 July 2017 - 09:04 PM

View PostKhobai, on 25 July 2017 - 09:00 PM, said:


no damage zones kindve make sense for LRMs because missiles have a mimimum arming distance

just like torpedos do for submarines. you dont want to blow yourself up. you wanna be out of the blast radius when they explode.

but as much as it might make sense, no damage zones are simply not a fun mechanic in MWO.

And I cant see PPCs causing feedback really being a fun mechanic either. Damaging yourself for firing a weapon in its min range is a lot of ways worse than having a no damage zone.



Thats why I suggested we would get feedback and like a UAC/RAC jam.

I think LRMs *should* do some damage even under their min range,but it's mostly just the missile denting the armor,and not exploding.

#30 Khobai

    Member

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

Posted 25 July 2017 - 09:07 PM

Quote

Thats why I suggested we would get feedback and like a UAC/RAC jam.


yeah something like that could work.

if a PPC does damage under 90m, it would do exponentially less damage (somewhere between 25% and 100% damage with damage plotted on exponential curve with distance) and youd get a feedback jam for 2-3 seconds

I dunno if the feedback jam is really necessary though. the damage reduction itself is probably enough.

Edited by Khobai, 25 July 2017 - 09:09 PM.


#31 Dr Hobo

    Member

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

Posted 25 July 2017 - 09:20 PM

View PostKhobai, on 25 July 2017 - 09:07 PM, said:


yeah something like that could work.

if a PPC does damage under 90m, it would do exponentially less damage (somewhere between 25% and 100% damage with damage plotted on exponential curve with distance) and youd get a feedback jam for 2-3 seconds

I dunno if the feedback jam is really necessary though. the damage reduction itself is probably enough.



Then add the scrambling of computers on the mech a la ECM on the part of both mechs

The feedback jam would be the risk v reward. You COULD do some extra panic damage,at the expense of temporarily shutting down that weapon for a few seconds.

#32 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 16,734 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 09:27 PM

i have nothing against linear ramping between 0 and min on some weapons.

#33 Leone

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,693 posts
  • LocationOutworlds Alliance

Posted 25 July 2017 - 09:37 PM

View PostKhobai, on 25 July 2017 - 09:00 PM, said:

and no such thing exists in battletech, its not a faithful representation of how min range works in battletech

Neg, Long Range Missiles have a minimum range due to safeties on the missiles. This can be gotten around by Hot Loading the missiles, but then you increase your chance of ammo explosion. Which, to be fair, I'd be fine with hot loading Lrms and ATMs as an option in the mechlab. Also cool with disabling ppc field inhibitors.

~Leone.

#34 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 25 July 2017 - 11:19 PM

View PostLeone, on 25 July 2017 - 09:37 PM, said:

Neg, Long Range Missiles have a minimum range due to safeties on the missiles. This can be gotten around by Hot Loading the missiles, but then you increase your chance of ammo explosion. Which, to be fair, I'd be fine with hot loading Lrms and ATMs as an option in the mechlab. Also cool with disabling ppc field inhibitors.

~Leone.


I think I'd also add the ability for enemy AMS to make missiles blow up on your face if they're in range. Posted Image

#35 jss78

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,575 posts
  • LocationHelsinki

Posted 25 July 2017 - 11:25 PM

Linear damage dropoff below minimum would be a good idea.

First, it'd just be more intuitive in terms of MWO gameplay. It's just asinine that your weapon would do full damage 90 metres. Take one step forward and it magically does zero damage. It makes no sense.

Second, it'd better replicate the intent of the TT rules. In TT PPC's/LRM's/low-caliber AC's are more difficult to hit with at 90-180 m. However they do FULL damage. So they CAN be used, however they're suboptimal.

This is exactly what the damage dropoff for PPC's/LRM's would achieve. You can still use the weapon, but it'll be a very suboptimal close-range weapon -- e.g. PPC's would have high heat/weight for the damage dealt.

#36 Tiantara

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 815 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 03:14 AM

- In case of PPC and LRM I think better inflict some damage both - target mech and those who shoot. That bring scenario where "facehugging" become potential danger for both, but leave choice - shoot target from 10m and get damage or not, if you already damaged. Also, to prevent "suicide end" make only armor affected from that. That make really close combat on PPC, LRM, heavy ballistic - more tactical. But that impossible to do correctly...
So - I'm really glad to see soft-min range for weapons as
PPC (all types)
LRM (All types)
Maybe add that to gauss and heavy gauss (same 100m)

#37 Metus regem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 10,282 posts
  • LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses

Posted 26 July 2017 - 06:48 AM

I'd just like PGI to be somewhat consistent on the minimum range issues...

Class 2 and 5 AC/s both have minimum ranges, yet they are ignored
All Gauss Rifles have a minimum ranges, yet are given a charge up
PPC/LPPC/HPPC all have minimum range, yet are given a dead zone
IS LRM/s have a minimum range, yet are given a dead zone
Standard and ER ATM ammo have minimum range, yet are given a dead zone.


Now from my perspective, how LRM/s and ATM/s work with tracking close targets, they really don't need the dead zone, a moving target close in is hard enough for them to hit, and would be a good way to deal with it.

The PPC family are a different animal, perhasp a charging mechanic would be better... it would also make sense, considering how PPC's would work. They would need to charge capacitors to be able to emit the bolt of charged particles....

Guass is fine as is.

#38 Sjorpha

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,472 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 26 July 2017 - 07:05 AM

Yes absolutely make all the minranges soft falloffs instead of hardcaps. Do it now.

#39 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,697 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 08:52 AM

Just make all min range weapons 1/2 damage within min range. Boom. IS/Clan LRMs, PPCs, ATMs. This doesn't hurt balance but does make all these sub-standard weapons suddenly viable.

Would be a significant balance change and a good one.

#40 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,599 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 09:51 AM

Personally I think they need to distinguish the weapons ranges more by implementing min ranges (as well as meaningful max ranges) on all the weapons. MGs/Auto cannons would probably be the only systems without a min range, but they could have more meaningful roll offs to make them more distinct to each other.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users