54 replies to this topic

[DEVASTATOR]

The topic of weapons balance has come up many times - here and in every other forum for MW games ever created. I'd like to think that the "perfect" system of balance would be one where no weapon type, of any range, has an advantage. As a very simple example, if a large laser dealth 20 points of damage and a small laser dealt 5 points then the small laser should recycle 4 times as fast. This would mean that the Damage Per Second (DPS) would be identical between them and your weapons choice wouldn't depend on knowing that a certain weapon was the most owerful but would be based on your preferred style of play. In close or at a distance as an example.

There are other factors that go into balancing weapons such as heat (and the added heat sinks you may have to use), ammo needs, etc. All some smart person needs to do is to crunch some numbers so that all weapons balance out to be roughly equivalent and no one weapon type or range has a distinct advantage. Simple right?

The problem is that there's always been one factor that has almost never been factored in properly. Effective ranges. This applies only to large and medium range weapons (sshort range weapons are already limited) and the problem is how to make an er large laser less effective at shorter ranges. Doing so would drastically reduce boating as you'd need to make room for some small or medium lasers (as an example) for when your enemy got in close. There's been only one example of a MW game coming close and that was MW3 with LRM's. The specified turning speed for those missiles meant they were almost useless up close unless the target wasn't moving or if they were dumb fired.

So, if range considerations have been the missing link in weapons balance for lasers and projectile weapons (assuming they do something similar to missiles as was done in MW3) what's the answer? I've heard "spread" being used as an idea because its in the PnP version. Personally, I'm against trying to import a dice roll into the game as itds not realistic. But what else can eb done? You can't play too much with heat or recycle times to deal with it as that will throw off the balance for the weapons when used at their ideal range. I can only think of a few solutions.

1) Hardpoint-Like System:
I liked this system in MW4 because it detracted from boating quite a lot. Mechs regained their character as role specific tools instead of all being alike. Perhaps a system where each range of weapon was limited in quantitty somehow. An Atlas can only have 4 long range, 3 medium range and 4 short range (as an example). Its a bit contrived but would probably do the job. Not my first choice.

2) Damage Based On Range:
A large laser deals its maximum damage between 600 and 900m (example only). Between 300 and 600m it does 75% and below that it does 50% possibly making it no more effective than a medium or a couple of small lasers. This is still a bit contrived but it accompishes the goal better than option 1, is a better solution that weapons spread (in my opinion as you hit what you aim at) and at least reporduces the effect of long range weapons being less effective at shorter distances.


I do feel that if there was a way to factor in weapon ranges we'd have a completely different game free of boating weapons of one range or type. Thoughts or other ideas?

[Kaemon]

You might say, the missing ingredient is salt....



I've always had an issue with this, I believe it affects immersion (for me). Some weapons don't do the same amount of damage, that's IRL, and while it makes playing online games a bit more of a hassle (kinda like IRL) it makes more sense when you think about it.

Otherwise you have a light doing the same DPM (Damage Per Minute) as an Assault class mech, which to me, doesn't make alot of sense.

If you measure damage over time, which a lot of games do.

And if I'm faster, more agile, and can do the same damage (albeit less armor) why would you pilot anything but a light?

[DEVASTATOR]

By the way, I can make a completely logical case for this to be supported by realism for projectile weapons. Since they are still accelerating out of the muzzle when fired they probably wouldn't reach their terminal velocity until they've travelled some distance. So, a Gauss rifle slug should be travelling faster after 600m (and dealing more damage) than after 100m.

Not finding much science for the lasers though

[Fence]

I think that's where hardpoints (or just tonnage in general) come into play... As an daishi you DO do more damage and you DO have more armor than a light mech because you're a 100 ton mech as compared to a mosquito-sized osiris. Sacrificing mobility for firepower is something that seems to balance things. Take TF2 for example... the scattergun on the scout is powerful but its DPS pales in comparison to the Minigun... Meanwhile the crippling speed of the Heavy means that good players can usually out maneuver him and take him down.

Heavy weapons = slower movement seems to be the takeaway message I'm trying to convey.

[DEVASTATOR]

The hardpoint system of MW4 helped a lot but didn't eliminate it completely. You could still load up a Nova Cat with only ER Large lasers and use them at all ranges effectively. Often, you couldn't close fast enough before you got lasered to death to use short range weapons with punch. I think more can be done thus the idea of adding a range component to weapons balance.

Should make the BT purists happy as i believe there's a form of this in the PnP rules.

[Nerts]

DEVASTATOR, on 18 January 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

By the way, I can make a completely logical case for this to be supported by realism for projectile weapons. Since they are still accelerating out of the muzzle when fired they probably wouldn't reach their terminal velocity until they've travelled some distance. So, a Gauss rifle slug should be travelling faster after 600m (and dealing more damage) than after 100m.

Not finding much science for the lasers though

Uhhh, no you can't
Terminal velocity only applies to things that have constant thrust, which non-rocket propelled projectiles don't have, and the ones that do have those rely on a warhead and not their momentum to damage mechs.

Shells and bullets don't speed up in flight, they're going their fastest when they leave the barrel, there's nothing pushing them forward after that so they cannot accelerate.

Lasers however, would have an optimum range since anything closer or further than that would mean the laser wouldn't be focused on it just as well.

[DEVASTATOR]

Nerts, on 18 January 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

Uhhh, no you can't
Terminal velocity only applies to things that have constant thrust, which non-rocket propelled projectiles don't have, and the ones that do have those rely on a warhead and not their momentum to damage mechs.

Shells and bullets don't speed up in flight, they're going their fastest when they leave the barrel, there's nothing pushing them forward after that so they cannot accelerate.

Lasers however, would have an optimum range since anything closer or further than that would mean the laser wouldn't be focused on it just as well.

Not quite true on your definition of terminal velocity. Its generally defined as the point at which acceleraiton is 0 (meaning velocity is constant). That's why skydivers reach their terminal velocity (caused by air resistance negating the effects of gravity) and they are accelerated by a propulsion system. I believe that most projectiles are still accelerating once they leave the muzzle and reach their terminal velocity shortly after that exit although the duration of acceleration after muzzle exit is very short.

Regardless, I still think its a plausible excuse for reducing damage rating of Gauss rfiles, AC's, LBX's and possibly PPC's over short ranges. IF someone was getting stuck on the realism factor of the idea.

[Liam]

I would like to see Weapon slot system from MW4 combined with MW3 equipment slot system.
That means slots should be balanced around shared critical space for both weapons and equipment.

[TheRulesLawyer]

DEVASTATOR, on 18 January 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

The problem is that there's always been one factor that has almost never been factored in properly. Effective ranges. This applies only to large and medium range weapons (sshort range weapons are already limited) and the problem is how to make an er large laser less effective at shorter ranges.

This has been long long long long long addressed. Short range weapons do more damage per ton and per heat. Longer range weapons are less efficient and you pay for it in BV as well.

[Nerts]

DEVASTATOR, on 18 January 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

Not quite true on your definition of terminal velocity. Its generally defined as the point at which acceleraiton is 0 (meaning velocity is constant). That's why skydivers reach their terminal velocity (caused by air resistance negating the effects of gravity) and they are accelerated by a propulsion system. I believe that most projectiles are still accelerating once they leave the muzzle and reach their terminal velocity shortly after that exit although the duration of acceleration after muzzle exit is very short.

Regardless, I still think its a plausible excuse for reducing damage rating of Gauss rfiles, AC's, LBX's and possibly PPC's over short ranges. IF someone was getting stuck on the realism factor of the idea.

The constant thrust on a skydiver is gravity, and yeah, it would still have force from the gun acting on it until it's out of the muzzle flash then it's just sailing through the air, and even with the biggest weapons that's going to be what, a few feet?

[DEVASTATOR]

Nerts, on 18 January 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

The constant thrust on a skydiver is gravity, and yeah, it would still have force from the gun acting on it until it's out of the muzzle flash then it's just sailing through the air, and even with the biggest weapons that's going to be what, a few feet?

Rifle bullets accelerate for a few metres after leaving the muzzle (as i just Googled). Don't know what a Gauss rifle would do. Anyhoo, not a critical point really.

[Nerts]

DEVASTATOR, on 18 January 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Rifle bullets accelerate for a few metres after leaving the muzzle (as i just Googled). Don't know what a Gauss rifle would do. Anyhoo, not a critical point really.

It kind of is a critical point, you're bringing this mechanic up as a realistic approach, and I dunno what sites you were looking at, but all the results I'm seeing on google say it either doesn't accelerate or has negligible acceleration.

[DEVASTATOR]

Nerts, on 18 January 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

It kind of is a critical point, you're bringing this mechanic up as a realistic approach, and I dunno what sites you were looking at, but all the results I'm seeing on google say it either doesn't accelerate or has negligible acceleration.

No, its not. And not the real subject here. And, if you do enough searching you will find articles that describe rifle bullet acceleration as going to 0 shortly after the bullet leave the muzzle. And, if you refer to simple physics it has to be this way because the projectile is accelerating all the way down the barrel at a high rate. That doesn't immediately drop to 0 once its out of the barrel. Accleration = energy and that energy has to go somewhere and it doesn't do so instantaneously (Law of conservation of energy).

Again, its not a relevant point to the suggesiton. Merely a way to substantiate it based on reality. Its not like MW in general is based entirely on reality anyway now is it?

[Nerts]

DEVASTATOR, on 18 January 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

No, its not. And not the real subject here. And, if you do enough searching you will find articles that describe rifle bullet acceleration as going to 0 shortly after the bullet leave the muzzle. And, if you refer to simple physics it has to be this way because the projectile is accelerating all the way down the barrel at a high rate. That doesn't immediately drop to 0 once its out of the barrel. Accleration = energy and that energy has to go somewhere and it doesn't do so instantaneously (Law of conservation of energy).

Yeah, it stops accelerating after it leaves the barrel, that's what I'm saying.

I don't see why ballistic weapons need something nerfing them at those ranges anyway, they've already got ammo reserves and ammo bin explosions to worry about.

[MitchellTyner]

I was about to say, I target shoot as a sport and hobby and I can tell you guys, once the bullet leaves the crown of the barrel it starts to slow


Muzzle velocity is the highest velocity the round will achieve, loosing hundreds of feet per second every hundred yards or meters.

Agreed don't nerf them since they have so many problems as it is.

[Steel Talon]

ACs should NOT lose damage with distance, cause they are practicaly HEAT shells with cumulative charge, but they should lose speed & suffer trajectory drop

[Liam]

steel talon, on 18 January 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

ACs should NOT lose damage with distance, cause they are practicaly HEAT shells with cumulative charge, but they should lose speed & suffer trajectory drop

+
muzzle velocity for AP rounds is around ~ 1500 - 1700 m/s
muzzle velocity for HEAT rounds is around ~ 900 - 1100 m/s
(depending on projectile weight, amount of propellant and bore length)

After a range of 1000 m:

AP penetrator would have a drop of the travel velocity of around ~ 100 m/s
HEAT would have a drop of the travel velocity of around ~ 200 m/s

AP ammunition will suffer some kinetic energy and lose some damage but this is almost insignificant.
Maybe mech sized auto canons have shorter barrels and less propellant so the muzzle velocity will be smaller.

if the range dependence of ballistic weapons will be included there will be a need of implementation of wetter dependence for energy weapons (Laser, PPC)

Edited by Liam, 19 January 2012 - 02:13 AM.

[Captain Hat]

The way ACs work in BTech has never been particularly realistic for a "traditional" gun: For the effective ranges to be an adequate indicator of kinetic energy transfer the armour of the 'mechs would have to have roughly the consistency of chewing gum, and we all know that's pretty silly as far as ideas go. The only explanation that makes sense is that most large ACs are extremely short-barelled, low-velocity guns that fire large HEAT rounds that do not rely on velocity but rather explosive power to deliver damage, and the short range is largely due to inaccuracy and drop-off of the projectile.

As such, the damage done will be largely unaffected by the range at which the target is hit, but the weapon will be quite short-ranged.

For the lighter ACs, which (from roughly the AC-5 on down) behave a lot more like actual KE-based projectile weapons, it's a trickier issue, but as long as we assume they're still basically cannon rounds (i.e. explosive either on or after contact) we can keep the game fairly realistic without breaking the mechanics (i.e. no damage dropoff with range) as a lot of the damage they cause will still be due to explosive effect.

Edited by Captain Hat, 19 January 2012 - 02:35 AM.

[MitchellTyner]

Captain Hat, on 19 January 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

The way ACs work in BTech has never been particularly realistic for a "traditional" gun: For the effective ranges to be an adequate indicator of kinetic energy transfer the armour of the 'mechs would have to have roughly the consistency of chewing gum, and we all know that's pretty silly as far as ideas go. The only explanation that makes sense is that most large ACs are extremely short-barelled, low-velocity guns that fire large HEAT rounds that do not rely on velocity but rather explosive power to deliver damage, and the short range is largely due to inaccuracy and drop-off of the projectile.

As such, the damage done will be largely unaffected by the range at which the target is hit, but the weapon will be quite short-ranged.

For the lighter ACs, which (from roughly the AC-5 on down) behave a lot more like actual KE-based projectile weapons, it's a trickier issue, but as long as we assume they're still basically cannon rounds (i.e. explosive either on or after contact) we can keep the game fairly realistic without breaking the mechanics (i.e. no damage dropoff with range) as a lot of the damage they cause will still be due to explosive effect.

Agreed, sounds about right. If you got mechs walking around I'd figure they would have at least put some major high explosives and armor penetrator rounds on these beast. Good idea on the large ac's about them only being good for short ranges b/c of the drop off of the larger shells.

The smaller ones probably go out longer distances and don't drop as much etc b/c they are smaller projectiles... also that's why damage would be limited in comparison to the ac20 etc.

[AlanEsh]

It's been brought up before, and I like the idea... long range weapons would have targeting reticles (guns on limited gimbles) that don't track near as fast as those for short range weapons. So in close your disadvantage with an ERLL or AC2 is the slow tracking speed of your targeting reticle.

This can be explained easily with the notion that a long range weapon's gimble must move the barrel in much smaller increments so it can be accurate at long range. However when at close range this precise movement equates to slower tracking than the guy in the Jenner who is dodging back and forth with small weapons blazing.