95 replies to this topic

[Dagger906]

Gauss dmg doesn't need to be reduced. PPC heat needs to be reduced.

[ltwally]

Random Numbers, on 09 November 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

Stream of Protons or Ions = Beam

PPCs and ERPPCs were ALWAYS beam weapons .. the descriptions always had them that way and so did the original art ... Just because every Mechwarrior game screwed it up doesn't mean they were correct ... BEAM WEAPON

And technically no the PPC isn't a theoretical weapon ... it's a Particle accelerator and yes those do exist.

Your misunderstanding is common... people think PPC == weaponized Particle Accelerator.

That is an incomplete and inaccurate view.

From the Master Rules, Revised, page 147:

Quote

A PPC consists of a magnetic accelerator firing high-energy proton or ion bolts that cause damage through both impact and high temperature.

So, the PPC creates this wad / ball / mass of high energy particles, and then launches it using a magnet. It is not a stream / beam. It never was.

Though there are particle accelerators in real life, there is nothing that uses one to create a mass of particles, held in place, and then launches it using magnets.

In real life, a particle accelerator is a beam type device. In this game, the PPC uses a particle accelerator, but the output itself is a mass of particles and not a beam, per-say.

If the PPC were a beam type weapon, then it would not be a single "bullet" that dealt its full damage to one location, but would operate as a laser does and take upwards of 1 second (or more) which could be swathed across like a scalpel.

As game balance goes, it makes sense that the PPC not travel (much) faster or slower than a ballistic weapon.

As far as "realism"... as I have often said: this is a game about giant robots fighting 1000 years in the future. Realism went out the window before the first line of code was written.

[ltwally]

Dagger906, on 09 November 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Gauss dmg doesn't need to be reduced. PPC heat needs to be reduced.

Alternately, DHS could actually be DHS. But that's another thread, altogether. (Actually, several other threads. Many, many other threads. Many, many totally repetitive other threads. Oh geeze, forget I said anything about DHS.)

[Nightfangs]

I would have no problem with missing a (fast) moving mech from 500 or 1000 m away because the bullet has a limited speed.
I do have a problem with being unable to hit a running scout mech from 10 m away when pointing my AC at it and firing.
The problem is caused by the latency and the warping of some players with bad connection.
No higher projectile speed will solve that problem.

[Nightfangs]

ltwally, on 09 November 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Your misunderstanding is common... people think PPC == weaponized Particle Accelerator.

That is an incomplete and inaccurate view.

From the Master Rules, Revised, page 147:


So, the PPC creates this wad / ball / mass of high energy particles, and then launches it using a magnet. It is not a stream / beam. It never was.

Though there are particle accelerators in real life, there is nothing that uses one to create a mass of particles, held in place, and then launches it using magnets.

In real life, a particle accelerator is a beam type device. In this game, the PPC uses a particle accelerator, but the output itself is a mass of particles and not a beam, per-say.

If the PPC were a beam type weapon, then it would not be a single "bullet" that dealt its full damage to one location, but would operate as a laser does and take upwards of 1 second (or more) which could be swathed across like a scalpel.

As game balance goes, it makes sense that the PPC not travel (much) faster or slower than a ballistic weapon.

As far as "realism"... as I have often said: this is a game about giant robots fighting 1000 years in the future. Realism went out the window before the first line of code was written.

I respectfully have to disagree. According to sarna.net, the PPC does damage due to thermal and kinetic energy. The beam is composed of protons and ions. To get those to do any kinetic damage, they would have to be accelerated to at least 90% c.
Please look around the internet for similar technology. You won't find a particle, plasma or ion-gun that doesn't get near c.

I agree with you that it's a design question. The PPC was designed as a fast firing high-damage energy weapon, with the tradeoff of the slower projectile speed. That's okay as long as it gets balanced right.

But it just can't be scientifically explained. And I don't think it has to be. But that should be the case for both sides of the "PPC too slow/ too fast"-community. :-)

[WardenWolf]

Gauss seem fine to me in terms of travel time / accuracy. My only complaint is a slight firing lag, but I understand that is because of server-side authentication - and worth it to avoid hacking.

I cannot speak to normal autocannons, as I do not run them - but my compatriots in DWAR who do seem to like them well enough.

[ltwally]

Nightfangs, on 09 November 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

I respectfully have to disagree. According to sarna.net, the PPC does damage due to thermal and kinetic energy.

Respectfully, this is your first mistake: You're taking Sarna.net as an official source. It is not. I quoted the Master Rules, which is an official source. No where does it say the PPC is a "beam" / "stream".

However, it does describe using a particle projector to create a "bolt", and then accelerating that bolt out the barrel with a magnetic accelerator.

So, clearly, first the "bolt" is created inside the PPC, and then the PPC ejects it using an electro-magnet. This is not a "beam" or "stream". It's a projectile -- albeit one comprised of a whole lot of little charged particles.

Quote

The beam is composed of protons and ions. To get those to do any kinetic damage, they would have to be accelerated to at least 90% c.

A Mac-truck can impart a large amount of kinetic energy at low velocity due to its great mass.

A single B-B needs incredibly velocity to impart the same energy due to its low mass.

However, a large number of B-B's could impart a large degree of damage at low velocity, due to their combined mass.

Obviously, the design of the PPC is operating under that last.

Quote

Please look around the internet for similar technology. You won't find a particle, plasma or ion-gun that doesn't get near c.

Respectfully, this is your second mistake: You're then applying Sarna.net's incorrect description to real-world technology, and attempting to extrapolate how a weapon in a video game about giant battle robots 1,000 years in the future should work.

Quote

I agree with you that it's a design question. The PPC was designed as a fast firing high-damage energy weapon, with the tradeoff of the slower projectile speed. That's okay as long as it gets balanced right.

But it just can't be scientifically explained. And I don't think it has to be. But that should be the case for both sides of the "PPC too slow/ too fast"-community. :-)

First you try to scientifically disagree... and then you go the other direction. You confuse me.

[Hetfeng321]

To Itwally and Nightfangs,

I can verify that everything on Sarna.net is straight from the original rule books that came from the box sets. There is no question the info is reliable.

Nightfangs is right. For indivudual, separated particles to do any damage near that of an actual solid bullet, they would have to be moving at speeds near c. Because this "wad of ions" or beam is similar in density to a gas relative to an AC cartridge, the speed would have to be astronomical relative to an AC round or a missle to do any damage, as it has very little mass. I don't know where the "wad of energy" thing came from and I would like to something along the lines of a PDF of the game book that you are getting this from.

[ltwally]

Hetfeng321, on 09 November 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

To Itwally and Nightfangs,

I can verify that everything on Sarna.net is straight from the original rule books that came from the box sets. There is no question the info is reliable.

How? Are you the domain owner?


Your idea of reliable seems different from my own. Sarna.net describes a PPC differently than the Master Rules. That doesn't seem very reliable to me.

Quote

Nightfangs is right. For indivudual, separated particles to do any damage near that of an actual solid bullet, they would have to be moving at speeds near c. Because this "wad of ions" or beam is similar in density to a gas relative to an AC cartridge, the speed would have to be astronomical relative to an AC round or a missle to do any damage, as it has very little mass. I don't know where the "wad of energy" thing came from and I would like to something along the lines of a PDF of the game book that you are getting this from.

Again, what the Master Rules (Revised) book that I own says is

Quote

A PPC consists of a magnetic accelerator firing high-energy proton or ion bolts that cause damage through both impact and high temperature.

No where does it describe it as a "beam" effect. It describes a "bolt" that is launched via a magnetic accelerator. This description is closer to a Gauss Rifle than it is a Laser, where a Gauss is firing solid slug projectiles, and the PPC is firing "high-energy proton or ion bolts".

It describes the damage as a combination of heat and kinetic energy. It does not define the ratio, which leaves the door wide open for the vast majority of a PPC bolt's damage coming from it simply melting your armor away.

I apologize if my calling it a "ball" or a "wad" confused anyone. None-the-less, that description is much closer to the "bolt" in the official sources than a "beam" is.

The fact remains, the PPC is not a beam weapon. It was not in the official TT rules, and it most definitely is not in this game. Making a non-beam weapon travel at instantaneous speed would definitely be a step back as far as game-balance is concerned.

Edited by ltwally, 09 November 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

The "bolt" verbiage is also used in TechManual, on page 233.

Quote

Consisting of a magnetic accelerator, firing high-energy proton or ion bolts, PPCs can flay armor through kinetic and thermal damage. While popular belief may hold that PPCs are an electromagnetic weapon, it’s worth mentioning that even though most PPC bolts look like a flash of manmade lightning, the actual electrical component of a PPC attack is little more than an intense burst of static.

The closest comparable real-world technology that I know of off-hand is a device called an "electrolaser".

Quote

An electrolaser is a type of electroshock weapon which is also a directed-energy weapon. It uses lasers to form an electrically conductive laser-induced plasma channel (LIPC). A fraction of a second later, a powerful electric current is sent down this plasma channel and delivered to the target, thus functioning overall as a large-scale, high energy, long-distance version of the Taser electroshock gun.

Essentially, a Particle Projector Cannon would be a weapons-grade electrolaser (or similar device) that projects (via the aforementioned "magnetic accelerator") a bolt/packet/etc of electrically-charged particles along a LIPC.

Your thoughts?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 09 November 2012 - 04:53 PM.

[ltwally]

I'd never heard of this device. From the Wikipedia description, it reads like a Taser that uses Plasma instead of wires.

Doesn't really seem like the Master Rules description of a PPC, and would lend more credence to the beam crowd.

Then again, while the individual components (particle accelerator, magnetic accelerator, etc) behind a PPC may exist in real life, the combined, weaponized PPC has no real world analogy. And, really, trying to create one just seems pointless.... unless you're a real-life high-energy physicist or weapons engineer. If that is the case... play ball.

But all that is just fluff. The really important thing that keeps getting ignored here is game balance.

An energy weapon that moved at the speed of light and had instantaneous, non-beam damage would be quite over-powered. And that's the most important thing.

If the PPC were to be turned into a beam weapon like the laser, and its damage distributed over the course of its beam... it would be far less stellar. (Keeping a beam weapon on target at long range for any length of time is extremely difficult.)

Edited by ltwally, 09 November 2012 - 05:09 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

ltwally, on 09 November 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

I'd never heard of this device. From the Wikipedia description, it reads like a Taser that uses Plasma instead of wires.

Doesn't really seem like the Master Rules description of a PPC, and would lend more credence to the beam crowd.

Then again, while the individual components (particle accelerator, magnetic accelerator, etc) behind a PPC may exist in real life, the combined, weaponized PPC has no real world analogy. And, really, trying to create one just seems pointless.... unless you're a real-life high-energy physicist or weapons engineer. If that is the case... play ball.

But all that is just fluff. The really important thing that keeps getting ignored here is game balance.

An energy weapon that moved at the speed of light and had instantaneous, non-beam damage would be quite over-powered. And that's the most important thing.

If the PPC were to be turned into a beam weapon like the laser, and its damage distributed over the course of its beam... it would be far less stellar. (Keeping a beam weapon on target at long range for any length of time is extremely difficult.)

One of the major problems with a PPC-like device - and directed-energy weapons in general - is "blooming".

Quote

Blooming is also a problem in particle beam weapons. Energy that would otherwise be focused on the target spreads out; the beam becomes less effective:
Thermal blooming occurs in both charged and neutral particle beams, and occurs when particles bump into one another under the effects of thermal vibration, or bump into air molecules.
Electrical blooming occurs only in charged particle beams, as ions of like charge repel one another.

-----

Laser beams begin to cause plasma breakdown in the air at energy densities of around a megajoule per cubic centimeter. This effect, called "blooming," causes the laser to defocus and disperse energy into the atmosphere. Blooming can be more severe if there is fog, smoke, or dust in the air.

Reducing blooming:

• Spread the beam across a large, curved mirror that focuses the power on the target, to keep energy density en route too low for blooming to happen. This requires a large, very precise, fragile mirror, mounted somewhat like a searchlight, requiring bulky machinery to slew the mirror to aim the laser.
  
• Use a phased array. For typical laser wavelengths this method requires billions of micrometre-size antennae. No way to make these is known. However, carbon nanotubes have been proposed. Phased arrays could theoretically also perform phase-conjugate amplification (see below). Phased arrays do not require mirrors or lenses, can be made flat and thus do not require a turret-like system (as in "spread beam") to be aimed, though range will suffer at extreme angles (that is, the angle the beam forms to the surface of the phased array).
  
• Use a phase-conjugate laser system. Here, a "finder" or "guide" laser illuminates the target. Any mirror-like ("specular") points on the target reflect light that is sensed by the weapon's primary amplifier. The weapon then amplifies inverted waves in a positive feedback loop, destroying the target with shockwaves as the specular regions evaporate. This avoids blooming because the waves from the target passed through the blooming, and therefore show the most conductive optical path; this automatically corrects for the distortions caused by blooming. Experimental systems using this method usually use special chemicals to form a "phase-conjugate mirror". In most systems, the mirror overheats dramatically at weapon-useful power levels.
  
• Use a very short pulse that finishes before blooming interferes.
  
• Focus multiple lasers of relatively low power on a single target.

The idea behind the electrolaser and similar devices (like a PPC?) is that using a laser beam to create an ionized path (the plasma channel) that both provides "a path of least resistance" (thus helping an ion bolt to remain coherent on its journey to the target) and removes/negates the dust/vapor/etc that would also otherwise sap energy from the bolt itself (thus resulting in blooming).

(I'm not a real-life physicist - just someone who is interested in such things as well as the relative "hardness" of favored sci-fi franchises. )

But, I propose that (in addition to a boost to AC muzzle velocities) a PPC bolt would remain a bolt (rather than a beam), and would be far slower than any laser beam (around two ten-thousandths of the speed of light), but still far faster than what any ballistic or missile weapon could manage (at most, ten times the speed of sound).

Your thoughts?

[ltwally]

I've actually pondered blooming (as well as energy focus / beam diameter) several times while watching my medium laser blasts suddenly terminate at ~540m. That's quite different from the way a laser works in reality!

Then again... it's a game. And realism is often at odds with balance and fun.

In this case, I think lasers (the only actual beam-weapons in MW:O as the game currently stands) already have enough going against them without adding in the serious energy loss effects of bloom.


So, my thoughts? I'm against modifying the energy weapons to any substantial degree. Why? Because it'd upset game balance, and that decreases fun. And a video game should be first and foremost fun.

About the only thing I would like to see is adding in the secondary effects to PPC blasts. (minor electronics disruptions on hit, added heat on hit, etc)

[Supercakers]

I seriously want the AC's to have their speed upped, the round travel speed is so slow. I feel like I'm trying to lead targets with a rocket launcher in rune Quake on a dialup server in New Zealand I used to play on in the mid 90's. (quake.xtra.co.nz - I miss it!)

[Hetfeng321]

Can you agree that a near-c muzzle velocity would be the best way to deal with blooming and to stabilize the target? The bolt of energy would be losing heat to the air constantly. If it hits the target sooner and is in the air for a smaller amount of time, then it would have more energy when it impacts.

I think the word "bolt" is probably the best way to describe it. A PPC fires protons (I am pretty sure, different sources say different things) (please correct me if I am mistaken) which have mass, unlike photons, the ammunition of a LASER. A PPC's projectile will behave differently than a LASER's and I do not think that they should be exactly the same. Protons also have a positive charge, making them vulnerable to the air molecules and could stray off course. Near-c speeds should help reduce such straying.

On a second note, I can't seem to find out how a PPC collects the protons (or other particles) beforing firing them. PPC's don't use ammo so do they gather protons from the surrounding atmosphere?

Edited by Hetfeng321, 10 November 2012 - 04:14 PM.

[Random Numbers]

Well .. I guess it comes down to the definition of "bolt".

We have a choice ...
1) Bolt as in crossbow bolt which is the current idea
2) Bolt as in lightning bolt which is the idea they used on some of the original box art.

Definition 1 could make the the PPC any speed from slower than auto cannon fire to light speed.
Definition 2 would pretty much be a light speed beam.

Technically both are correct from the way the rules read. Though I personally always thought of them as definition 2.

[Strum Wealh]

Hetfeng321, on 10 November 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

On a second note, I can't seem to find out how a PPC collects the protons (or other particles) beforing firing them. PPC's don't use ammo so do they gather protons from the surrounding atmosphere?

Basically, yes.
There are several types of devices capable of this (with a number used as propulsion systems) with hydrogen (the same stuff that powers the BattleMechs' fusion reactors, and generally thought to be the most common element in the universe), nitrogen (which makes up ~78% of Earth's atmosphere, and will probably be common on any planet worth fighting over), argon, xenon, and ammonia (among others).

As PPCs fire bolts of "protons or ions" (with ions simply being "atoms or molecules in which the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons, giving them a net positive or negative electrical charge"), it would not be hard to get a fairly focused stream of either; NASA's been doing it since 1957 (in the form of the electrostatic ion thruster).

Hetfeng321, on 10 November 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Can you agree that a near-c muzzle velocity would be the best way to deal with blooming and to stabilize the target? The bolt of energy would be losing heat to the air constantly. If it hits the target sooner and is in the air for a smaller amount of time, then it would have more energy when it impacts.

I think the word "bolt" is probably the best way to describe it. A PPC fires protons (I am pretty sure, different sources say different things) (please correct me if I am mistaken) which have mass, unlike photons, the ammunition of a LASER. A PPC's projectile will behave differently than a LASER's and I do not think that they should be exactly the same. Protons also have a positive charge, making them vulnerable to the air molecules and could stray off course. Near-c speeds should help reduce such straying.

Faster would indeed be better, but near-luminal (greater than, say, 0.01c) velocity isn't strictly necessary - especially when considering the distances involved.

Consider, the speed of lightning through Earth's atmosphere is on the order of approximately 50,000 m/s (a mere 0.000167c).
For an ER PPC bolt traveling at that speed to reach its MWO max. effective range (810 meters, or 0.503 miles), the time-to-target would be:
speed = distance/time -> time = distance/speed
time = 810/50000 = 0.0162 seconds

The LCT-6M Locust, with MASC active, is one of the fastest known 'Mechs, topping out at 302.4 kph (84 m/s).
In the time it takes a PPC bolt moving at the "speed of lightning" to reach a Locust circling the firing 'Mech at the weapon's max. effective range, the Locust could have displaced itself by:
speed = distance/time -> distance = speed*time
distance = 84*0.0162 = 1.3608 meters (~4.46 feet)

For comparison, JR7-D Jenner (with a top speed of 118.8 kph (33 m/s)) could have displaced itself by:
speed = distance/time -> distance = speed*time
distance = 33*0.0162 = 0.5346 meters (~1.75 feet)

By contrast, an AS7-D Atlas (with a top speed of 54 kph (15 m/s)) doing the same thing could have displaced itself by:
speed = distance/time -> distance = speed*time
distance = 15*0.0162 = 0.2430 meters (~9.56 inches)

At less than two ten-thousandths of light-speed, an ER PPC bolt moving at the "speed of lightning" (as well as a standard PPC bolt with the same velocity) would have to lead most targets by less than two feet and would hit a target roughly a half-mile away in just under two one-hundredths of one second after firing!

[canned wolf]

Holy crap boats guys!!

Let me try and put this into perspective. I tried once to "fix" battletech. A friend of mine came across the notes I made in the aattempt recently, and described them as looking like the rantings of a lunatic.

There is so much departure from the real world that if you fix it, it's not Battletech any more. The weights are wrong, the scale of the mechs is questionable, the ranges make no sense, the detection and fire control systems are subpar to what an eight year old could design with parts from Radio Shack. Ammo per ton is either too heavy or too light. The weight distribution of the mechs is all wrong..... God, I could go on for an hour and still not be done.

Love BT or don't, but don't ask for it to be turned into something that is not BT.

[Sawa963]

In real life, multi-billion-dollar machines of war would not walk around on two legs.

This is not real life.

The bullet speeds are perfect how they are. What they need to fix is convergence. The random convergence combined with the trigger delays makes everything ridiculous

[Hetfeng321]

canned wolf, on 10 November 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Holy crap boats guys!!

Let me try and put this into perspective. I tried once to "fix" battletech. A friend of mine came across the notes I made in the aattempt recently, and described them as looking like the rantings of a lunatic.

There is so much departure from the real world that if you fix it, it's not Battletech any more. The weights are wrong, the scale of the mechs is questionable, the ranges make no sense, the detection and fire control systems are subpar to what an eight year old could design with parts from Radio Shack. Ammo per ton is either too heavy or too light. The weight distribution of the mechs is all wrong..... God, I could go on for an hour and still not be done.

Love BT or don't, but don't ask for it to be turned into something that is not BT.

BT isn't absurdly far from real-world possibilities (except melee with mechs, that is absurd). Keep in mind, MechWarrior is not a copy of BattleTech in videogame form, it is it's own adaptation. It has become an adaptation that pleases a more western audience. Eastern mech culture is all about Gundams which are a complete fantasy. MechWarrior tries to represent plausible war machines.