95 replies to this topic

[Hetfeng321]

Most players, including me, find ballistic weapons (except machine guns) next to useless against fast mechs due to the odd flight time of the projectile. The speed of the cartridge doesn't make sense and ruins the immersion. At 100 m, I should not be able to blink during the time it takes for the round to impact. Most anti-armor cannons in real life have a muzzle velocity of around 1500 m/s. At a thousand meters, the flight time should be roughly 0.6 seconds. Gauss rifles are more difficult to use at their optimum range due to this too. A gauss rifle fires a projectile at speeds well over the speed of an autocannon (the speed eliminates the need for explosives in the warhead). I should not be able to track the slug with my eyes as it flies from my mech. It MechWarrior 4, the flight times of the ballistic weapons were spot on.

Edited by Hetfeng321, 03 November 2012 - 02:54 PM.

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

We really can't tell if it is right or not until they fix the netcode. Crossing fingers for next week.

[ltwally]

Energy weapons are better because they...

• Do not have ammunition
  
• Do not have to worry about ammo explosion
  
• Weigh less
  
• Use fewer critical spaces

Ballistic weapons are better because they...

• Deliver all damage in one quick punch
  
• Typically have longer ranges (for the damage done)
  
• Generate less heat per shot
  
• Have a higher Damage Per Second value
  
• Induce a "rocking" effect on targets

While what you say is true of real-life projectile weapons, from a game balance point-of-view I'm not really seeing a problem with ballistic projectiles not travelling at real-world speeds.

(Heck, most rockets and missiles travel a great deal faster than the LRMs & SRMs in this game. But I wouldn't vote to increase their velocity, either.)

[Cataphract]

Speeding up ballistics? Really?! someone obviously wants to break Gauss Rifles more lol. When the net code gets tightened up the projectile speed will be the least of your concerns using ballistics. Balancing a weapon based off of net code is a very bad idea. They have a perfect projectile speed now. This game needs more skill to play not less.

[Daycrist Bloodfang]

I think ballistic speeds are pretty well done PPC speed should be increased though as a Laser seems to travel faster than a Particle Projection cannon that should be firing at near the same speed

Hetfeng321, on 03 November 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

Most players, including me, find ballistic weapons (except machine guns) next to useless against fast mechs due to the odd flight time of the projectile. The speed of the cartridge doesn't make sense and ruins the immersion. At 100 m, I should not be able to blink during the time it takes for the round to impact. Most anti-armor cannons in real life have a muzzle velocity of around 1500 m/s. At a thousand meters, the flight time should be roughly 0.6 seconds. Gauss rifles are more difficult to use at their optimum range due to this too. A gauss rifle fires a projectile at speeds well over the speed of an autocannon (the speed eliminates the need for explosives in the warhead). I should not be able to track the slug with my eyes as it flies from my mech. It MechWarrior 4, the flight times of the ballistic weapons were spot on.

Psssh someone wants to make their gauss kitty even meaner

[Typhon27]

I would much rather see something done about the lag from when I pull the trigger and the actual firing of the gun, whichever it may be.

[Oppresor]

Yes the speed of the Gauss Rifle needs to be realistic. The whole idea behind this type of weapon is to deliver the projectile (with luck a depleated uranium projectile) into the target at devastating speed and with such impact that it can (in some cases) knock the unit over. I'm not saying it should be as quick as a laser, after all they travel at light speed; but it should be a lot faster than say an autocannon, any type.

[Thirdrail]

I have often thought that the velocity on PPCs is too slow. They just feel slightly wrong. Like they're underpowered in terms of their in-game execution, as opposed to their design statistics.

The ACs seem fine to me. I haven't used a gauss cannon yet.

I'm interested to see where it all lands when the netcode is updated. Maybe without the ubiquitous lag shielding, the PPCs will feel right again.

[ltwally]

Daycrist Bloodfang, on 03 November 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

I think ballistic speeds are pretty well done PPC speed should be increased though as a Laser seems to travel faster than a Particle Projection cannon that should be firing at near the same speed

Foreward: I am not advocating using real-world physics. I'm just rationalising, here.

A laser actually spits out photons (light particles), which by definition are traveling at or near the speed of light.

The description of the PPC, on the other hand, spits out a pile of ions from some form of particle accelerator. I'm no physicist, but as I understand it, the speed of the output on such a mechanism varies widely -- depending heavily on the method used and power invested in it.


So, they're very separate things.

[lsp]

ltwally, on 03 November 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

Energy weapons are better because they...

• Do not have ammunition
  
• Do not have to worry about ammo explosion
  
• Weigh less
  
• Use fewer critical spaces

Ballistic weapons are better because they...

• Deliver all damage in one quick punch
  
• Typically have longer ranges (for the damage done)
  
• Generate less heat per shot
  
• Have a higher Damage Per Second value
  
• Induce a "rocking" effect on targets

While what you say is true of real-life projectile weapons, from a game balance point-of-view I'm not really seeing a problem with ballistic projectiles not travelling at real-world speeds.

(Heck, most rockets and missiles travel a great deal faster than the LRMs & SRMs in this game. But I wouldn't vote to increase their velocity, either.)

**** game balance.

[Azrell]

I would just like see the day when a ballistic weapon has a chance to hit a moving jenner. As it stands i think the rate of fire could be doubled with other attributes like head and dmg cut in half with ACs giving them a more 'machine gun" feel while living the "cannon" feel to the gauss. More shots also equals a chance to correct inaccuracy.

As it stand a mech should not be able to out run a bullet. Shoot and impact should be almost simultaneous, at least at ranges under 500 meters.

On a side note, guass still seems to be able to hit things outside of its effective range. This totally defeats the idea of the weapons. letting an ACs cycle at increased rates but rack up head exponentially would be a balance, seeing at how even an AC2 weighs as much 6 lazors.

[Gaan Cathal]

ltwally, on 03 November 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

Foreward: I am not advocating using real-world physics. I'm just rationalising, here.

A laser actually spits out photons (light particles), which by definition are traveling at or near the speed of light.

The description of the PPC, on the other hand, spits out a pile of ions from some form of particle accelerator. I'm no physicist, but as I understand it, the speed of the output on such a mechanism varies widely -- depending heavily on the method used and power invested in it.


So, they're very separate things.

Whilst a PPC (which the Battletech Wiki tells me fires a stream of 'protons or ions') does have those differences from a laser at the technical level, and yes the ions would be travelling at substantially less than C, this difference is relative. If you compare with a Gauss Cannon for example, we can analogue to a Railgun since the theoretical limits are the same and see that real world examples vary between approx 3km/s in 1987 to around or above 6km/s as of 2010. An Autocannon appears analagous to a modern tank main gun, which the Real Life Wiki tells me hit around 1.7km/s muzzle velocity.

Autocannon: 1.7km/s
Gauss Cannon: 6km/s+
PPC assuming 90%c: 270Mm/s
Laser: <299.8Mm/s

So yeah, in 'realism' terms the PPC may as well be firing at c, for all the relative difference it makes. There is obviously however the 'it's not real' issue whereby an ingame Gauss round is blatently not travelling at Mach17, whether it should or not is another debate.

A side issue on PPCs is the very limited range their description implies, maintaining an ion stream over any distance in anything bar a vacum is incredibly difficult, and would cause a dramatic change in the 'output' energy over range relative to 'input' power (except when in a vacum, then all your TeV are hitting the target at whatever range).

All this is almost certainly moot to the discussion, but basically yes, PPC velocity should be indistinguishable from laser velocity in any real sense.

[Telthalion]

Azrell, on 03 November 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

...
On a side note, guass still seems to be able to hit things outside of its effective range.
...

Every non-missile weapon in the game can hit out to approximately double its effective range, for reduced damage. That's not unique to a Gauss.

[ltwally]

Telthalion, on 03 November 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

Every non-missile weapon in the game can hit out to approximately double its effective range, for reduced damage. That's not unique to a Gauss.

Actually, the ballistic weapons have a max range triple their effective range. Max range on both AC/2 and Gauss is over 2km.

[ltwally]

Gaan Cathal, on 03 November 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

A side issue on PPCs is the very limited range their description implies, maintaining an ion stream over any distance in anything bar a vacum is incredibly difficult, and would cause a dramatic change in the 'output' energy over range relative to 'input' power (except when in a vacum, then all your TeV are hitting the target at whatever range).

All this is almost certainly moot to the discussion, but basically yes, PPC velocity should be indistinguishable from laser velocity in any real sense.

Again, you're attempting to apply real-world physics to a video game. That doesn't always work.

As to your physics: the PPC creates a ball of ions and then ejects it. It is not a "stream". It's more of a projectile in that sense -- just high energy charged particles instead of a shell or slug. The force of the ejection is not necessarily anywhere near the speed of light.

(While most of the theory behind such a PPC probably exists, anything nearing a PPC as a weapon is only theoretical. So, we can only hypothesize on how it would work in the real world... which still doesn't have much bearing on a game centred around giant robots battles 1000 years in the future.)

A laser, on the other hand, is an actual directed beam of light. Thus is does travel at or near speed of light.


Also, do keep in mind that from a balance point of view, having the PPC projectile move slower provides balance against the fact that it is, unlike lasers, a projectile effect.

[Telthalion]

ltwally, on 03 November 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

Actually, the ballistic weapons have a max range triple their effective range. Max range on both AC/2 and Gauss is over 2km.

So they do. 1980m for the Gauss, 2160m for the AC/2.

On the original topic: as stated earlier in the thread, projectile speed tweaks are irrelevant until the netcode and hit detection are improved. But it would still be nice to see projectiles move a bit faster - particularly PPCs. It makes for a more satisfying *bang-CRUNCH*.

[Gaan Cathal]

ltwally, on 03 November 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

As to your physics: the PPC creates a ball of ions and then ejects it. It is not a "stream". It's more of a projectile in that sense -- just high energy charged particles instead of a shell or slug. The force of the ejection is not necessarily anywhere near the speed of light.

(While most of the theory behind such a PPC probably exists, anything nearing a PPC as a weapon is only theoretical. So, we can only hypothesize on how it would work in the real world... which still doesn't have much bearing on a game centred around giant robots battles 1000 years in the future.)

A laser, on the other hand, is an actual directed beam of light. Thus is does travel at or near speed of light.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the game effects should be changed to mirror realistic properties, the PPC comment was more of an interests sake thing. That said (presuming it's of interest) the essentials of the PPC are already well established in a rather more benign form in the shape of medical linear accelerators, the only thing stopping theoretical weaponisation is the efficiency and power supply issues associated with projecting enough energy to damage a 60ton walking tank. In order to convey any significant energy, something as light as a proton or ion needs to be travelling at near-c speeds. Once again though, I do agree that realism semantics have a limited purpose in a game based on thousand-year-away walking tanks (in spaaace).

On topic, whilst it's not an issue that affets everyone, I'm a euro player and ergo tend to suffer from an unpleasently high ping on MWO as it stands. Netcode and hitreg aside (not that they don't need fixing), an increase in projectile speeds has a knock-on effect on the relative impact of ping differences. (The practical difference between 50 and 100 ping is 'bigger' with faster projectiles, in essence.)

[EtherDragon]

Take a look at some reference material...

A typical round fired from a modern tank is traveling at 1,700m/s. Last time I saw any data, the Guass round (for example) traveled at 1,800m/s...

How exactly do you propose to raise in-game projectile speeds to "realistic levels?"

[Hetfeng321]

EtherDragon, on 03 November 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

Take a look at some reference material...

A typical round fired from a modern tank is traveling at 1,700m/s. Last time I saw any data, the Guass round (for example) traveled at 1,800m/s...

How exactly do you propose to raise in-game projectile speeds to "realistic levels?"

1500 m/s would be a good starting point for autocannons. Gauss rifles exist today (often called railguns) and we could find out what the usual muzzle velocity for one is through a little hunting.

[Gaan Cathal]

Hetfeng321, on 03 November 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

1500 m/s would be a good starting point for autocannons. Gauss rifles exist today (often called railguns) and we could find out what the usual muzzle velocity for one is through a little hunting.

Gaan Cathal, on 03 November 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

...Gauss Cannon for example, we can analogue to a Railgun since the theoretical limits are the same and see that real world examples vary between approx 3km/s in 1987 to around or above 6km/s as of 2010.

The '87 test firing was a Yugoslav design that later achieved 4km/s, iirc. The ~6km/s value is the claimed muzzle velocity of current US navy testbed railguns, obviously since it's current weapons development that's unverifiable.

That said, I'm pretty sure 6km/s Gauss rounds in MWO as it stands would be problematic, especially with the gulf between it and other ballistics currently.