63 replies to this topic

[Curccu]

BlaizerP, on 19 March 2021 - 03:54 PM, said:

How about we compromise and remove minimum range completely?

Or have that scaling minimum range/damage that we had back in... beta?

[Stonefalcon]

Flak Kannon, on 19 March 2021 - 01:50 PM, said:

You done messed up the game PGI.

I post infrequently but have more games played than 99.9% of the player base.

PGI needs to make ALL ppcs now have a minimum 90 meter range so that that if you choose to play a PPC mech... you risk being eaten alive by lights. Its a fair trade off.

I'm fine with 12 damage and 17 damage ( Heavy PPC ) per shot, you can even lower the heat and or the timer for cooldown back to pre-patch with the elevated damage, but for the love of god.. there is no way a 4 ERPPC Warhammer IIC should be allowed to also tussle up close with a light or fast medium. If you get caught running a full PPC boat their needs to be a trade off...



Min 90 meter range for ALL PPC, both Clan and IS.


Enjoi

[Vindicated]

Navid A1, on 21 March 2021 - 10:14 AM, said:

The trade off is significantly higher heat on ERPPCs, that don't allow you to spam then up close.
When you are charging a powerful assault mech with a fast medium, you 100% should expect to take a beating, even up close. do you think you fair better against an AC2 boat?... a Gauss mech?... should those also have min range?... they certainly have no heat problems.

+1 on Navid's post, this is 100% reasonable, a. that a ERPPC mech is still close range limited by being heat capped (e.g. won't be able to outbrawl LBX mech) and b. that assault levels of firepower can still overwhelm mediums.

It's just a matter of mechs having to capitalize on their strengths, an ERPPC mech using range advantage to do damage on a brawler before it closes in, and a fast light/medium using speed and agility (and possibly JJs) to try to deal some unreturned damage to a slower mech (angles, poptarting, repositioning, etc.)

I also don't mind the replacement of hard min range on IS PPCs (possibly in exchange progressive damage drop off) but I'm sure whatever values the gulag came up took that into account (they came up with removal of min range on LPPC but gave no min range changes to the rest)

[50 50]

Gagis, on 19 March 2021 - 04:23 PM, said:

Sure. Minimum ranges are bad game design.

It's a hang over from the table top.
Even IS LRMs could be used and do full damage toe to toe.
In the table top, the minimum range imposed an aiming penalty just making them harder to hit with but if you rolled those dice well, you could still slap that mech at 0m range with your LRM20.

The question becomes translating something like that to a computer game, real time first person shooter where the skill to shoot something is down to a player's actual ability?
Firing arcs, reduced damage, no damage, lock on times are all mechanics that can be used to simulate a rule for a turn based dice roll.
Could easily suggest there should be no minimum range and leave it to player skill.

[Wildstreak]

Never ceases to amaze how often people assume stuff.
Like teaching how TT worked to someone who played it since it came out way back in its early days.
You REALLY want to get into the details?
Then do the math.

Average gunnery in TT was 4 for IS combined with different range modifies meant majority of the time with LRMs you had 50% usually less chance of hitting in minimum range.
With PPCs similar, at 2 hexes 50%.
This means majority of time at close range you would MISS.

PGI simply reflected THAT MATH thus did not create the 0 damage minimum range, they just reflected MATH in a game with no hit rolls.

Gunnery 4 pilots were the majority of BT lore like how the aim of their MWO design is to get majority into Tier 3 according to their posts.

Since we are really getting into it, I forget why PGI removed minimum ranges from AC5s and 2s for no penalty, THAT is a PGI thing.

LordNothing, on 21 March 2021 - 12:51 PM, said:

i like the idea to make it potentially destroy your weapon if you use it more than once or twice inside its min range.

Don't see it happening, look at UACs.
TT - once they jam, they NEVER unjam.
MWO - Once they jam, there is a RNG chance determined they unjam that repeats until they unjam.
MWO players would simply not stand for severely punishing effects of PPC destruction so a new penalty would have to be created.

Gas Guzzler, on 21 March 2021 - 11:10 AM, said:

He indicated that he used to play Cicada's but will now only play Commando's "until PGI fixes the PPCs"

Better than that guy I ran into in Paragon.

[50 50]

good for you

[Athom83]

Gagis, on 19 March 2021 - 04:23 PM, said:

Sure. Minimum ranges are bad game design.

Not really, they're more of an abstraction to account for very real weapon systems having a minimum safe distance (like Rockets and Torpedoes) programmed into them to either protect the launch platform/person, distance themselves enough from the launch platform to activate their seeker heads and start maneuvering, or for their engines to ramp up to full capability.

[MyriadDigits]

Wildstreak, on 21 March 2021 - 06:27 PM, said:

Don't see it happening, look at UACs.
TT - once they jam, they NEVER unjam.
MWO - Once they jam, there is a RNG chance determined they unjam that repeats until they unjam.

That's not how UACs work. Its an RNG chance to jam, and a set time to unjam. I'd suggest looking for MWO resources regarding weapon mechanics, and not your TT rulebook.

Also, regarding min range on AC2/5, I'm going to completely spitball and just guess that PGI either didn't want AC2/5 to be completely butt like they are in TT, or felt new-to-franchise players would be put off by their bullet-gun not doing damage within a certain range (easier to handwave for missiles and an already handwavey energy gun), or possibly some combination of the two. As a further addendum, cLRM style damage slope min range would be a better representation of "the math" if you really wanted to be nit picky about it.

Edited by MyriadDigits, 21 March 2021 - 08:03 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

MyriadDigits, on 21 March 2021 - 07:39 PM, said:

That's not how UACs work. Its an RNG chance to jam, and a set time to unjam. I'd suggest looking for MWO resources regarding weapon mechanics, and not your TT rulebook.

Also, regarding min range on AC2/5, I'm going to completely spitball and just guess that PGI either didn't want AC2/5 to be completely butt like they are in TT, or felt new-to-franchise players would be put off by their bullet-gun not doing damage within a certain range (easier to handwave for missiles and an already handwavey energy gun), or possibly some combination of the two. As a further addendum, cLRM style damage slope min range would be a better representation of "the math" if you really wanted to be nit picky about it.

How the **** did you quote yourself in the very same post?

[MyriadDigits]

The6thMessenger, on 21 March 2021 - 07:53 PM, said:

How the **** did you quote yourself in the very same post?

good question. Forum had a brain fart I guess?

Edited out though because it was eye cancer.

[LordNothing]

Wildstreak, on 21 March 2021 - 06:27 PM, said:

Don't see it happening, look at UACs.
TT - once they jam, they NEVER unjam.
MWO - Once they jam, there is a RNG chance determined they unjam that repeats until they unjam.
MWO players would simply not stand for severely punishing effects of PPC destruction so a new penalty would have to be created.

i always say to copy the intent of the tt rules, not the implementation. because the implementation is for the table top medium. the intent was to get as close to mech combat as possible in that medium. the medium of video games mean you can simulate the behaviors that the dice rolls and tables were meant to represent.

also its quite simple, if you dont want to blow your guns off, check your range. there have been situations where i would have loved to have one or two shots against an enemy inside my range that i cant seem to shake. one or two shots is better than zero shots. you could also buff the health of the ppcs a bit. also if the damage is on a curve, then if you are at 45 meters, you would do about half damage, full damage is only done at 0 meters and you probably wouldn't be able to get all the way to zero given that the mechs would collide before that was closed in most situations. it might also require that the armor is stripped from the section first.

[Gagis]

Athom83, on 21 March 2021 - 07:15 PM, said:

Not really, they're more of an abstraction to account for very real weapon systems having a minimum safe distance (like Rockets and Torpedoes) programmed into them to either protect the launch platform/person, distance themselves enough from the launch platform to activate their seeker heads and start maneuvering, or for their engines to ramp up to full capability.

You just described a bad game design decision. It's utterly irrelevant if there exist a technobabble excuse for it if it makes a game worse to play.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Gagis, on 21 March 2021 - 11:46 PM, said:

You just described a bad game design decision. It's utterly irrelevant if there exist a technobabble excuse for it if it makes a game worse to play.

At a certain point, it’s ALL technobabble. Giant, two legged war bots are not as efficient as tracked tanks, so why use them? Because that’s the genre.

and the genre says certain weapons have issues at point blank range. A modifier to hit does not translate to a first person shooter, so they did other stuff to achieve the point blank issues thing. Damage trailing off to zero might be a better thing to do, but the genre says you need to do something.

[VaudeVillain]

LordNothing, on 21 March 2021 - 09:00 PM, said:

i always say to copy the intent of the tt rules, not the implementation. because the implementation is for the table top medium. the intent was to get as close to mech combat as possible in that medium. the medium of video games mean you can simulate the behaviors that the dice rolls and tables were meant to represent.

also its quite simple, if you dont want to blow your guns off, check your range. there have been situations where i would have loved to have one or two shots against an enemy inside my range that i cant seem to shake. one or two shots is better than zero shots. you could also buff the health of the ppcs a bit. also if the damage is on a curve, then if you are at 45 meters, you would do about half damage, full damage is only done at 0 meters and you probably wouldn't be able to get all the way to zero given that the mechs would collide before that was closed in most situations. it might also require that the armor is stripped from the section first.

PGi should have made a selectable game mode that respected the Solaris VII rules so people can choose which way they want to play.

[Tarl Cabot]

ScrapIron Prime, on 22 March 2021 - 04:18 AM, said:

At a certain point, it’s ALL technobabble. Giant, two legged war bots are not as efficient as tracked tanks, so why use them? Because that’s the genre.

and the genre says certain weapons have issues at point blank range. A modifier to hit does not translate to a first person shooter, so they did other stuff to achieve the point blank issues thing. Damage trailing off to zero might be a better thing to do, but the genre says you need to do something.

It could if a COF was being used, since in BT TIC (weapon groups) were not rolled to hit the same spot, it was done per weapon, provided the To-Hit roll was successful to being with.. just say....

And notice that there are several weapons which had a Min Range limit, which under that range To-Hit penalties added up, but PGI has only set the no-damage on a few select few.

For LRM, I would have the damage drop quickly, ie fewer missiles hitting target as well as not being hotloaded

PPCs with min range, reduce damage due to inhibiter.. This inhibitor degrades the performance of the weapon at close ranges of less than 90 meters, or another to look at it is that the focal point is 90m away from the firing mech, it does not come into full strength until 90m. BT made that a harder to hit modifier with the min range.

[Athom83]

Gagis, on 21 March 2021 - 11:46 PM, said:

You just described a bad game design decision. It's utterly irrelevant if there exist a technobabble excuse for it if it makes a game worse to play.

Again "minimum range" is a very real concept for very real weapon systems. Water is incompressible so torpedoes physically can't be fired within a certain range or else they'd do damage to the firing platform as well. Similarly a shoulder fired missile will most likely kill or injure the person who fired it if they shot at something within 20 meters or so, hence why most rockets and missiles fired from them usually have a safety fuse that disables them going boom if they haven't traveled far enough. It doesn't matter if you don't like the reasoning for why things have a minimum range or the fact it exists at all, it is a very real thing used to model the very real minimum range rules from the pen and paper dice roll game this game is based off of.

Tarl Cabot, on 22 March 2021 - 06:07 PM, said:

And notice that there are several weapons which had a Min Range limit, which under that range To-Hit penalties added up, but PGI has only set the no-damage on a few select few.

For LRM, I would have the damage drop quickly, ie fewer missiles hitting target as well as not being hotloaded

PPCs with min range, reduce damage due to inhibiter.. This inhibitor degrades the performance of the weapon at close ranges of less than 90 meters, or another to look at it is that the focal point is 90m away from the firing mech, it does not come into full strength until 90m. BT made that a harder to hit modifier with the min range.

Agreed, they could have done the 'minimum range' thing much differently for a lot of weapons. Cruise missiles as fired from a VLS have to drop their booster phase and activate their seeker heads away from the interference of the launching platform's radar before they can actually be used, hence why most navies that use a VLS heavy doctrine also employ escort ships with smaller horizontally fired missiles and various autocannons to combat small boats that could potentially get within that minimum range and pose a threat to the mainline ships. However they don't really have the same safety fuses to keep them from detonating if they strike something before then.

LRMs and ATMs could have been done in a way in that they're a bit slower under the minimum range and don't really track their targets until 50-100 meters. PPCs on the other hand... while I agree they could have that damage rampup before that range on the other hand PPCs in general probably will be reworked whenever the next timeline advance is and they add in Plasma Rifles, TSEMPs, and other similar weapons.

The smaller ACs though I'd have no idea how they'd translate the min-range rule from TT into this.

[DUMAR]

Why and no

[Vorpal Puppy]

It's not the increased damage that's making the various PPCs so deadly to lights, its the increased velocity. I've been a terrible shot with peeps up close for years. Since the patch I can actually hit lights up close sometimes.

[DisasterTheory]

Heavy PPC should have no minimal range. They are mainly a brawling weapon anyway.

[ScrapIron Prime]

DisasterTheory, on 08 April 2021 - 12:16 PM, said:

Heavy PPC should have no minimal range. They are mainly a brawling weapon anyway.

Actually, snubs are the brawling weapon. Heavies are just the high alpha version, 3 more tons for 5 more damage.