95 replies to this topic

[EtherDragon]

Just a reminder for Strum and Itwally:

Any muzzle velocity of 30,000m/s or higher would seem instantaneous at 30fps. So anything even aproaching relativistic speed (30,000m/s = 1/1000 C) can be treated (practically) as an instantaneous flash weapon.

[Hetfeng321]

Yet another problem that arises when you blindly follow the rules of a TT game to make a real-time videogame. The inconvenient truth is (for BT purists) is that some of the fluff of classic BattleTech has no place in a Sci-fi simulator videogame. You guys have no idea how much I would love to go to Piranha Game's dev studio for MWO, burn all their BT manuals, and say, "Okay, now let's get real and actually make a sci-fi sim that works." If MechWarrior was ever intended to copy BT in all respects (or most respects) MWO would look like this: http://ecx.images-am...L500_AA300_.jpg.

I don't now why many people immedeatly associate instant travel times for weapons with being unbalancable. That is simply not true. Look at MW4, PPCs were not quite instant but they were far faster than they are in MWO. They also caused secondary effects like jamming computers and sensors. Were they overpowered in multiplayer? Not at all. Gauss cannons also had realistic (or near realistic) travel times in MW4 too. They were also not overpowered.

Many, many people (noobs mostly) complain about light, fast mechs being too hard to hit. Guess what would help fix that? (Answer: faster muzzle velocities). Increasing travel time of projectiles might also reduce the percieved effects of the god-awful netcode on hit detection.

Edited by Hetfeng321, 21 November 2012 - 03:42 PM.

[ltwally]

EtherDragon, on 21 November 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Just a reminder for Strum and Itwally:

Any muzzle velocity of 30,000m/s or higher would seem instantaneous at 30fps. So anything even aproaching relativistic speed (30,000m/s = 1/1000 C) can be treated (practically) as an instantaneous flash weapon.

While I may be willing to debate the fluffy angle, my argument against increasing Gauss or PPC speed is game balance. TT rules should only be applied when they make sense, as PGI (and the previous MW video games) have already recognised -- modifying things as necessary, or occasionally outright throwing things out.

I do not agree with increasing Gauss or AC/2 velocity, though the heavier autocannons may need some improvements.

On the other hand, I think a reasonable approach to giving Gauss a minimum range nerf is warranted. It's just too effective at all ranges, as is. One of the more innovative solutions was from a previous poster: requiring the Gauss to be zoomed in before it will fire.

Strum Wealh, on 21 November 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

...
Perhaps, ltwally, you could elaborate on the specifics of why you strongly disagree?
How might MWO's gameplay and weapon balance suffer if the PPC muzzle velocity were substantially increased?
If the PPC muzzle velocity was so increased anyway, how might the MWO gameplay and weapon balance bebefit from reverting from that to the now-current setting?

But I already have laid out why I think PPC is fairly balanced. All you have to do is ... read.

As to the results of giving PPC a higher velocity? That provides a weapon with laser speed, yet projectile damage with none of the risks of carrying ammunition. As it is, few mechs have the hardpoints for ballistics. All mechs have plenty of hardpoints for energy. You give PPC "ludicrous speed" (I have this mental image of Rick Morranis...) and it's like giving every mech access to an autocannon that never runs out of ammo or has to worry about an ammo explosion, and is even more effective than autocannons / gauss. You'll have created a weapon so good that few mechs will want to be without one. When you start seeing that situation, you know things aren't balanced.

Simply put, it would overpower the PPC.

[Matthew Ace]

Strum Wealh, on 09 November 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

AC-10: ~900 m/s (Mach ~2.64) AC-20: ~600 m/s (Mach ~1.76)

AC20 is currently 750 and (IMO - YMMV) a little too slow, so can't say I agree to a nerf down to 600m/s..

[Martin Gray]

I still do not like the slow speeds of the Autocannon 5, 10 and 20 projectiles after the latest patch. There is improvement but it is still too slow. Should be as fast as the Autocannon 2 projectiles.

The Ultra Autocannon 5 rate of fire is also now too high. I feel like I am using a machine gun when I use it. Also if the Ultra Autocannon does jam it should be out of commision for at least 8 to 12 seconds. I also do not like how a mech shakes around after being hit with the Ultra Autocannon 5. The Ultra Autocannon now dominates all other weapons. It is too good now in my opinion.

[Strum Wealh]

Matthew Ace, on 21 November 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

AC20 is currently 750 and (IMO - YMMV) a little too slow, so can't say I agree to a nerf down to 600m/s..

Those did come from a much older post I made, on much the same subject.
'Twas also handy and convenient that each of the suggested speeds resulted in roughly the same time-to-effective range while also having at least some grounding in reality.

As an alternative...

With muzzle velocities of:

• AC/2: 1700 m/s
  
• AC/5: 1400 m/s
  
• AC/10: 1100 m/s
  
• AC/20: 800 m/s

This would give average travel times (to max. effective range) of:

• AC-2: ~0.42 seconds
  
• AC-5: ~0.39 seconds
  
• AC-10: ~0.41 seconds
  
• AC-20: ~0.34 seconds

versus

With muzzle velocities of:

• AC/2: 1700 m/s
  
• AC/5: 1500 m/s
  
• AC/10: 1300 m/s
  
• AC/20: 1100 m/s

This would give average travel times (to max. effective range) of:

• AC-2: ~0.42 seconds
  
• AC-5: ~0.36 seconds
  
• AC-10: ~0.35 seconds
  
• AC-20: ~0.25 seconds

I feel that my original proposal, followed by the second proposal above, would be the more preferable and palatable (and, frankly, elegant) ways of going bout an AC muzzle velocity increase.

The MG, IMO, would be fine with a muzzle velocity of ~890 m/s (the same as that of the M2 Browning).

As for the Gauss Rifle... my original recommendation was for Mach 10 (3420 m/s - twice as fast as what any conventional gun can manage), but perhaps something closer to Mach 5.0 (1710 m/s - roughly the same as what is recommended for the AC/2, on par with the fastest of real-world conventional guns, and still fast enough to validate the "hypersonic" descriptor used in the BT novels) might be more appropriate?

-----

EtherDragon, on 21 November 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Just a reminder for Strum and Itwally:

Any muzzle velocity of 30,000m/s or higher would seem instantaneous at 30fps. So anything even aproaching relativistic speed (30,000m/s = 1/1000 C) can be treated (practically) as an instantaneous flash weapon.

Indeed... though, I'm quite aware of the implications - I've done the math, and stated as much myself.

Strum Wealh, on 10 November 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

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!

Also, 30000/(3*10^8) = 0.0001; 30000m/s is actually (1/10000)c.
And, case does matter - light-speed is always a lower-case (and usually italicized) "c", while an upper-case, non-italicized "C" is reserved for temperature in terms of Celsius degrees, especially when the degree symbol isn't used (e.g. "water boils at 100C/212F").

[Martin Gray]

Here are some additional suggestions to balance the Ultra Autocannon 5 in the game. Only allow two shots every 1.5 seconds. The regular Autocannon 5 fire rate should be reduced to one shot every 1.5 seconds.

Make it at least a 10 percent chance the Ultra Autocannon 5 jams whenever it is fired more than once in 1.5 seconds. When it jams make the recovery time 10 to 13 seconds.

[Creepy]

Yes but introduce trajectory.

Actually, I take that back. Just yes, I guess. I can see introducing drop as an irritating feature for a lot of players and complicating the system quite a bit. One of my thoughts on it was in regard to the MG and how it might not only extend the range a little but introduce the concept of using it as an inderect fire weapon similar to the way the MG34 was used sometimes when coupled with a lafette. For flatter trajectories in most ACs, the indirect fire element would be much more limited but still present. This would probably necessitate adding a pair of markers in the HUD that couples with the range finder in order to calculate drop -but some people use different AC pairings... Yeah, anyway. Just "yes" (forget about the trajectory thing)

Edited by Creepy, 22 November 2012 - 12:50 PM.

[AC]

EtherDragon, on 21 November 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Just a reminder for Strum and Itwally:

Any muzzle velocity of 30,000m/s or higher would seem instantaneous at 30fps. So anything even aproaching relativistic speed (30,000m/s = 1/1000 C) can be treated (practically) as an instantaneous flash weapon.

MW4 got around this by creating secondary effects. The PPC trails, the Gauss air trail, etc.... I am sure PGI could create an inflection in the air from the projectile if we need this to help trace where it is coming from.

[focuspark]

I agree with changing all ballistics velocities to whatever so long as PPC are changed to damn near instant and my suggestion for balancing gauss (shot fires 200ms after the trigger is pulled, making gauss inaccurate at close range) it implemented.

Edited by focuspark, 23 November 2012 - 05:07 PM.

[wanderer]

Just as a side note, http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/ was updated as of 11/23 to note a velocity increase for the AC/5, /10, and /20 of 30% across the board is being put in.

[Martin Gray]

I still do not like the slow speeds of the Autocannon 5, 10 and 20 projectiles after the latest patch. There is improvement but it is still too slow in my opinion. All Autocannon projectiles should be as fast as the present Autocannon 2 projectiles at 270 meters and closer.

The Ultra Autocannon 5 has been balanced out well enough. It jams frequently on me when firing it at a high rate of fire. Good work on the latest patch with the Ultra Autocannon 5.

Edited by Martin Gray, 24 November 2012 - 11:45 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

With Single Heat Sinks the AC/10 is better than the PPC, unless you never engage an enemy for more than 20 seconds. With DHS, the PPC is slightly better than the AC/10.

[Martin Gray]

After the latest patch I see huge improvements in the game. The video seems to run much more smooth. But I still do not like the slow speeds of the Autocannon 5, 10 and 20 projectiles. The Autocannon 5 is getting near where it should be at. Autocannon 5 and 10 projectiles should have almost no delay when shooting targets out to 425 meters. The Autocannon 20 should have no delay when hitting targets at 270 meters and closer.

[Dueliest]

I totally agree, but further more everything needs to be faster, missiles too. Air-to-land missiles dating back to the 80's were commonly capable of speeds close to mach 2.

[IrrelevantFish]

For the bajillionth time: stop trying to make MWO more realistic. It's like putting lipstick on a pig.

And the projectile speeds are just fine. I regularly leg lights with PPCs and AC20s (the only projectile weapons I much care for), and am regularly legged by the same when in a light myself. I have even seen some players good enough that they can leg lights reliably. When I'm in a light now, I'm even warier of mechs with high-damage projectile weapons than I am of mechs with pulse lasers.

Besides, when they implement state-rewind for ballistics, projectile-induced legging will become much easier and more common, perhaps even common enough to make piloting them an exercise in futility and frustration.

Additionally, I believe there are factors limiting projectile speed in game engines, and I'm pretty sure 2000m/s is pushing that limit. Projectiles that travel faster should probably be treated as having infinite speed (ie, like a pulse laser with just one pulse) and that would be very tricky to balance. Can you imagine how ridiculously powerful PPCs and Gauss Rifles would be if you didn't have to lead your target at all?