75 replies to this topic

[HGAK47]

Khobai, on 25 July 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

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

I dont always agree with everything I read from Khobai but I have to second this.

Im not a big lore buff but weapons that have a zone where they do 0 damage to me make them unreliable. Often battles end up at every range, including running for your life between buildings with enemies much closer than 90m. Reduced damage sure thats fine but being one or two meters too close and doing absolutly nothing for damage = not good.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Buff (L)PPCs and ATMs? SURE!

Also, LRMs? Eh, alright

[MischiefSC]

Making some weapons weak up close but strong at range creates some good dynamics and is not, fundamentally, a bad idea. Making weapons useless at point blank is fundamentally a bad idea in a DPS.

Just give them 1/2 damage inside min range. That easy. Accomplishes goal in a simple and effective way and makes those weapons viable with no risk of OP.

[Khobai]

Quote

Just give them 1/2 damage inside min range.

yeah but i dunno if I like the idea of my damage dropping off by half because of a 1m difference

i think linear/exponential dropoff with a guaranteed minimum amount of damage (25%?) you can do is better

[Rick T Dangerous]

LRMs and ATMs should do some damage when fired within min range. I mean, there's something hitting the mech, but doesn't do anything? If they would do reduced damage below min range, they could give some heat to the target. The minimum range makes sense in terms of target lock/guidance system. Within min range both weapon systems should be hard to aim with, but if they hit they should do something to the target.

[R Valentine]

I don't even get why it make sense that PPCs do 0 damage under 90 meters. Do the particles have an arming time? It's gimping IS mechs for no reason. Not like we need more handicaps.

[Gyrok]

Requiemking, 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.

ATMs also require a lock, SRMs are dumb fired.

That alone is a tremendous advantage to SRMs. In the time it takes an ATM mech to lock onto your mech, you could be behind cover, having already fired a volley that did 48 damage to mostly a single component, and moved on.

[Wildstreak]

PPCs have an inhibitor that can be disengaged but
- firing within 90m causes damage to the firing unit,
- I believe this ability happens at a certain year but cannot find the reference for that currently.

LRMs have something similar called Hot Loading but there is a drawback to that too, don't have my books to check what right now.

[Ruar]

As much as it would be nice to not have to worry about minimum range, it adds depth to the game. Additionally several weapons are balanced around the minimum range and removing it would require rebalancing those weapons into something much less than we see now.

In fact, an argument could be made for more weapons to have a minimum range. I could easily see anything with an optimal range over 800m getting a minimum range added to add more variety and better define short and long range builds.

[Wildstreak]

Should also be mentioned the AC2 and AC5 have no minimum range in this game when they do in TT.

[m]

Andi Nagasia, on 25 July 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

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

Here is my logical reasoning;


IS PPCs

0m = Quarter Damage (Reason - PPC's need to have a right skewed curve for damage whereas the damage builds and dissipates over a distance BUT is concentrated near the source and not at the source.


C LRMs

0m = No Damage (Reason - LRM missiles should need time to completely arm in the process of travel, hence the need for SRMs)

Edited by m, 04 August 2017 - 01:28 AM.

[GA1NAX]

Andi Nagasia, on 25 July 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

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

Totaly agree with except... ATM's, cause by Lore like LRM's they have "torpedo missles" with no minimum range at all.

Another thing is C-ERPPC... we need to rework it on 10(+4 internal damage)/14.8, or tune it back to 15/15.

Edited by GA1NAX, 04 August 2017 - 01:36 AM.

[Oldbob10025]

NO leave it as is.. Only reason is clans got a new ATM and many dont like the Min Range on that weapons system.. The ranges are fin where they are..

[Andi Nagasia]

Oldbob10025, on 04 August 2017 - 01:39 AM, said:

NO leave it as is.. Only reason is clans got a new ATM and many dont like the Min Range on that weapons system.. The ranges are fin where they are..

the poll seems to say other wise,
this isnt a min range removal, just a reduced damage in min range,
PPCs doing Full damage at 90m, 1/2 damage at 45, & 0 damage at 0,
instead of Full damage at 91m, and 0 damage at 89m,

[QuantumButler]

Oh you mean going back to how PPCs worked before they arbitrarily changed them for no reason at some point.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Dr Hobo, on 25 July 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

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?

Hey, thats PPC jam chance if fired below min range? Good idea to balance range removal.

[Lances107]

I am just going to say no. The min range on ATMS should be 90 or 100, given there devastating damage, making them easy to use would not be a good idea. Just look at the abuse of LRMS, now image that with a weapon like ATMS that actually does real damage. This is my concern. Also you would have every rookie picking up some of these weapons, and not bothering to figure out optimal range. The result would be a bunch of builds with these weapons but them doing way less damage then possible, because they had been turned into a easy mode weapon.

[Brain Cancer]

Honestly, PGI is terribad about min ranges and applies them in weird forms vs. TT.

ATMs? Apply the same 50m damage reduction bands we get at medium and long range to 120-70 and 70-20 as well. Likewise, lighten the heck up on both IS and Clan LRMs. At worst, they should do something like a base .33 per missile at pointblank range and none of them should deal zero, ever.

PPC/LPPC/HPPC should all just get damage reduction as well, rather than zeroing out inside a given number of meters.

And there's tons of weapons with minrange in TT that have no such disadvantage in MWO, like all Gauss weapons, AC/2 and AC/5. Some kind of damage modifier to represent this would have been nice, but the Dartboard of Disadvantage never takes them into account for that.

[KursedVixen]

I like this ,but i once again ask why not combine the poll and this into one topic??? Seems very wasteful.

[Fiona Marshe]

Add 15m physical attack button. Minimum range problem solved. (Kicks crotch-hugging locust in the head).