116 replies to this topic

[God of War]

a blue wipelash of lightning!

[HIemfire]

PyroAcid, on 16 January 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

for those fans of the ball and bolts or toroid

this is what you want

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Plasma_Rifle

just to bad its a 3060 weapon.

They really need to update that page. Plasma Rifles deal 10 damage and 1d6 heat to Aerospace fighters, Battlemechs and small craft. Against all other targets they deal the 10 damage + 2d6 damage grouped in sets of 5 as a cluster weapon (talley the dice roll in with the 10 base then divide into the clusters). (per Total Warfare Pg: 140)

Tarriss Halcyon, on 17 January 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

Uh, something tells me that those weapons won't appear. Always BattleArmor only. No way are the developers gonna go so far OOC and make a weapon, designed for something as small as BattleArmor, upscaled for a mech(1). Besides, that's essentially a solid-stream or ball flamer, not a PPC, which essentially fills it's place. Your point is moot (2).

(1) You are a tiny bit mistaken here Tarriss. The mech version was derived from the Infantry/Battle armor version in canon.

(2) What exactly renders PyroAcid's point "moot"?


As for not appearing, I (and PyroAcid, which I get from their post) would have to agree. Atleast not for 12 years real time.

[EDMW CSN]

Mech grade Plasma cannons and rifles will not be appearing until late 3060s. So those tank driving or BA wearing jocks don't have to worry about being instant vaporized at Large laser ranges.

That is IF BA and vehicles are implemented and MWO actually made it to 3060s.
But that would mean massive time skips.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 17 January 2012 - 02:53 AM.

[HIemfire]

[EDMW]CSN, on 17 January 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

Mech grade Plasma cannons and rifles will not be appearing until late 3060s. So those tank driving or BA wearing jocks don't have to worry about being instant vaporized at Large laser ranges.

That is IF BA and vehicles are implemented and MWO actually made it to 3060s.
But that would mean massive time skips.

Thank you for the catch on that. 3068 in canon, so we are looking at 19 years down the road (it having just flipped over to 3049 a couple of weeks ago)..... It's such a pretty gun though.

[Zervziel]

If we do get the lightning-like PPC I want the ability paint the likeness of William Wallace's @ss on the muzzle.

[Fyrwulf]

Kip Wilson, on 16 January 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

The exhaust of the Ion thruster isn't really any appreciable fraction of c but it is in the 10s of kilometers per second range. Considering the range of a PPC is only about 1200 meters, and assuming an "exhaust velocity" of 10km/s a PPC beam/bolt/ball would take a little more than 1/10th of a second to traverse its effective range. (im rounding here)

Don't take the BT ranges at face value. The same exact weapons in AeroTech have a range of 500m per hex. I think when FASA was developing this game they were going for a strict corollary between modern tanks and BT mechs. The first problem with this is the issue of visual horizon; an Atlas has a visual horizon of 30km if the 30m height is to be believed. Second, the above mentioned rules variations between BT and AT. Third, General Atomics just tested their first naval rail gun and it went 7km down range after punching through 1/8" armour plate at the 100m point, yet we're supposed to believe that the BT companies can only manage a little less than 2km with a much more advanced weapon? Fourth is that cannon's tech base is all over the place and the provided explanation just doesn't hold water.

Frankly I'd much rather PGI threw out the BT ranges and adopted the AT ranges.

Edited by Fyrwulf, 17 January 2012 - 04:31 PM.

[JTAlweezy]

I agree, likely the ball type is the best, since the weapon should not really have much of a trail after being fired (since it is not a bolt of lightning). Also the ball, if it is to ressemble electricity in the for of a ball, should travel at the rate equivalent to the force created by the firing mechanism. IE: since it is not a bolt of lightning, but charged particles, the weapons capability to fire it, determines it speed, or rather, muzzle velocity. I will say this, that i did enjoy the PPC in MW3. however, the recoil of a PPC also did not seem correct though. Recoil is created by the explosion of a gun firing, and igniting gun powder. So technically should their really but much of a recoil in an electrical gun? I have not looked into it yet, but if someone knows, please do tell.

[Fyrwulf]

The PPC is not a lightning gun like in Quake. It accelerates actual particles at relativistic speeds, so yes there should be recoil and a lot of it.

[Liam]

I hope you know how much energy you will be needed to accelerate only 1 g of matter to relativistic speed
1 g of matter to bring at speed of 100 km/s would require > 5 MJ

[Original ArchAngel]

Honestly i like the mw4 ppc's the most so far.. the look and sound of them is the best.. and the sound of them in the distance.. love it

[Liam]

I love MW3 sound of PPC thsshhhnnn
I think cracking sound fits more to electron based PPC

[Fyrwulf]

Liam, on 17 January 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

I hope you know how much energy you will be needed to accelerate only 1 g of matter to relativistic speed
1 g of matter to bring at speed of 100 km/s would require > 5 MJ

That's... Not a lot of energy. It's only a bit less than 1400 watt/hr of energy and there are modern PC power supplies that can do that. That's also the power a modern 120mm KEP delivers when fired by an M1A2 Abrams. That same amount of matter accelerated to 1% of the speed of light would require 4,494 megajoules, which is about 1,250 kw/hr and well within the range of modern diesel generators. And these things are powered by fusion plants.

Edited by Fyrwulf, 17 January 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[CatJock]

Jeez, some of you guys are *really* severe . . .

Anyway, my personal preference on how this should look sort of mirrors what we see in Independence Day. A "targeting beam" lances out for a brief second, then a huge blast of particles and radiation (think MASER, not radium) issues forth from the PPC and impacts the target. You get maybe half a second to dodge, but it's very difficult in anything other than a scout 'Mech.

It makes sense to me, anyway, and it's something never seen before but which would be awesome in game terms. It doesn't have to make sense from a scientific point of view (when you've got hyperdrive and giant robots, why would you expect it to make sense from a scientific POV?).

[Graphite]

What really matters is how it plays.

The PPC is probably my favourite BT weapon, but if it isn't going to be done as a beam, then it's "projectile" has to be FAST, or I just won't be using it.
Say, at least speed of sound-ish (330m/sec), and preferably much, much faster.

Otherwise, it's next to useless.

Edited by Graphite, 17 January 2012 - 09:43 PM.

[Kip Wilson]

Fyrwulf, on 17 January 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

Don't take the BT ranges at face value. The same exact weapons in AeroTech have a range of 500m per hex. I think when FASA was developing this game they were going for a strict corollary between modern tanks and BT mechs. The first problem with this is the issue of visual horizon; an Atlas has a visual horizon of 30km if the 30m height is to be believed. Second, the above mentioned rules variations between BT and AT. Third, General Atomics just tested their first naval rail gun and it went 7km down range after punching through 1/8" armour plate at the 100m point, yet we're supposed to believe that the BT companies can only manage a little less than 2km with a much more advanced weapon? Fourth is that cannon's tech base is all over the place and the provided explanation just doesn't hold water.

Frankly I'd much rather PGI threw out the BT ranges and adopted the AT ranges.

Aerotech rules have nothing to do with MWO or how a PPC works on the ground. In every iteration of the BT board game or MW game, a PPC's maxiumum range on the ground is between 540 and 1200 meters. No one ever said a PPC bolt couldn't go father, it just doesn't go farther on the ground. Unless you are able to take a screen grab of your MWO battlemech suddenly sprouting wings and flying, how a PPC works in aerospace combat doesn't really apply to this conversation. (and no I don't believe LAM's are going to be allowed in MWO)

The main problem with range is if its too long, you end up fighting a sensor war instead of actually seeing your target. If you've ever played combat flight simulators, you'll understand how less than fun it is shooting at some blip on a radar screen compared to an intense and up close dogfight with some opponent who you can see the whites of their eyes as you are blasting at them with your machine gun or short ranged missiles. In summary, (long range = not fun, short range = fun).

I'll give you the fact that our weapons today have damage rates that approach those in the BT universe. The main difference however is armor technology. Let me provide a little blurb from the Star Leage Sourcebook detailing the first combat run of the Mackie against (at the time) the best tanks available. Pay special attention to what they say about the Mackie's armor... (and yes this is a direct quote, I have the book sitting on my shelf)

Quote

One of the tanks opened fire. Its shot was true and hit the 'Mech just above the right hip. Everyone in the brightly lit bunker seemed to hold his breath as all the readouts fuzzed into snow at the blast interference. No damage! A piece of steel no thicker than my finger, strengthened by radiation casting techniques and impregnated with a sheet of woven diamond fibers, had stopped cold an armor-piercing shell. That same shell would have gone straight through a third of a meter of normal steel.

So really, its not the weapons but the armor technology that is still far superior in the BT universe. So yes, in order for weapons of the same size and damage capability as today would need a drastic increase in damage capabilities just to contend with first generation Mackie battlemech armor. The easiest way to do that would be to exchange range for damage.

Back to PPC's bolt vs beam issue, you yourself have said that particle weapons are accelerated to a significant fraction of lightspeed. If that is the case, it really doesnt matter weather weapon distances are measured in 30 meter hexes or 500 meter hexes, a PPC shot would still appear as a bolt/beam and not as a ball because anything travelling at even 1% c is going to become elongated into a beam/bolt like object to an external observer. (kind of like how the enterprise stretches out as it starts going to warp)

But this is all a game so other than idle discussion any kind of real world comparison to science or whatever really doesnt apply. A PPC shot is whatever the designers feel like it to be. Though, one of the reasons I like BT because it is about the most hard sci-fi universe I know of and its designers try at least not to put too much handwavium into its canon. So I am sure we will see something that both looks cool and doesnt elicit too much face-palming.

end of line...

[Derbowk]

Needs to be light the Old school Battletech beam. Lightening Takes the shortest path to Ground though so It does not make a shread of sense that it would be like lightening.

[Fyrwulf]

Kip Wilson, on 17 January 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

Aerotech rules have nothing to do with MWO or how a PPC works on the ground. In every iteration of the BT board game or MW game, a PPC's maxiumum range on the ground is between 540 and 1200 meters. No one ever said a PPC bolt couldn't go father, it just doesn't go farther on the ground. Unless you are able to take a screen grab of your MWO battlemech suddenly sprouting wings and flying, how a PPC works in aerospace combat doesn't really apply to this conversation. (and no I don't believe LAM's are going to be allowed in MWO)

I'm not saying those aren't the rules, I'm saying the distances are entirely arbitrary.

As for flight sims, I used to have a copy of Jane's and I can honestly say I enjoyed BVR combat more than dogfighting. That said, if I can take a flight on a 747 and see a single story house from 9km up, there's not much chance I'll miss a three story tall Atlas at 11km. The shot should be difficult, don't get me wrong, but I'm going to see the mech and he's going to see me. That is also, IMO, the answer to MW's version of n00btubers.

Edited by Fyrwulf, 17 January 2012 - 11:01 PM.

[Liam]

Fyrwulf, on 17 January 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

That's... Not a lot of energy. It's only a bit less than 1400 watt/hr of energy and there are modern PC power supplies that can do that. That's also the power a modern 120mm KEP delivers when fired by an M1A2 Abrams. That same amount of matter accelerated to 1% of the speed of light would require 4,494 megajoules, which is about 1,250 kw/hr and well within the range of modern diesel generators. And these things are powered by fusion plants.

kw/hr is bad choice you do not want wait so long till your capacitors are loaded ... with this argumentation you can even load it with a moped engine ... but how long ...
try with [J/s] and for 10 sec reload time.

Fusion reactor doesn't mean it has 4 GW package in compact value, thats why there are some limits to energy density ... and not to forget heat losses which need to be rejected.

Edited by Liam, 18 January 2012 - 02:57 PM.

[PewPew]

Kip Wilson, on 17 January 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

Aerotech rules have nothing to do with MWO or how a PPC works on the ground. In every iteration of the BT board game or MW game, a PPC's maxiumum range on the ground is between 540 and 1200 meters. No one ever said a PPC bolt couldn't go father, it just doesn't go farther on the ground. Unless you are able to take a screen grab of your MWO battlemech suddenly sprouting wings and flying, how a PPC works in aerospace combat doesn't really apply to this conversation. (and no I don't believe LAM's are going to be allowed in MWO)

The main problem with range is if its too long, you end up fighting a sensor war instead of actually seeing your target. If you've ever played combat flight simulators, you'll understand how less than fun it is shooting at some blip on a radar screen compared to an intense and up close dogfight with some opponent who you can see the whites of their eyes as you are blasting at them with your machine gun or short ranged missiles. In summary, (long range = not fun, short range = fun).

I'll give you the fact that our weapons today have damage rates that approach those in the BT universe. The main difference however is armor technology. Let me provide a little blurb from the Star Leage Sourcebook detailing the first combat run of the Mackie against (at the time) the best tanks available. Pay special attention to what they say about the Mackie's armor... (and yes this is a direct quote, I have the book sitting on my shelf)



So really, its not the weapons but the armor technology that is still far superior in the BT universe. So yes, in order for weapons of the same size and damage capability as today would need a drastic increase in damage capabilities just to contend with first generation Mackie battlemech armor. The easiest way to do that would be to exchange range for damage.

Back to PPC's bolt vs beam issue, you yourself have said that particle weapons are accelerated to a significant fraction of lightspeed. If that is the case, it really doesnt matter weather weapon distances are measured in 30 meter hexes or 500 meter hexes, a PPC shot would still appear as a bolt/beam and not as a ball because anything travelling at even 1% c is going to become elongated into a beam/bolt like object to an external observer. (kind of like how the enterprise stretches out as it starts going to warp)

But this is all a game so other than idle discussion any kind of real world comparison to science or whatever really doesnt apply. A PPC shot is whatever the designers feel like it to be. Though, one of the reasons I like BT because it is about the most hard sci-fi universe I know of and its designers try at least not to put too much handwavium into its canon. So I am sure we will see something that both looks cool and doesnt elicit too much face-palming.

end of line...

Logged in just to like this post. Finally, an articulate, level headed, realistic response. I'm getting so tired of people posting "according to my limited knowledge of physics, this is what it should look like"

[PyroAcid]

iam down with it being a small whiteish blue beam with lighting travaling down it. but also could the the weapons effects be who makes them?

like one from inc. does a pluse ones a soild stream one does a ball etc. onley way i think the ball ppc whould work if you had it conducting in a cold plasma dart