95 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Hetfeng321, on 10 November 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

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.

I'd argue that the (canonical, not player-made) HOUNDs of Chromehounds - created by the Japanese company FROM Software, the same company that makes the Armored Core games - were even more "plausible"/"realistic"/"harder sci-fi" renditions than BT/MW's BattleMechs.



Similar arguments could be made for a number of other so-called "Real Robot" franchises (as opposed to so-called "Super Robot" franchises) - where, as it happens, the Gundam franchise is generally considered to be both the progenitor and one of the premier examples.
The notion of "Eastern Mecha versus Western Mecha" isn't quite as black-and-white as some make it out to be...

[canned wolf]

Hetfeng321, on 10 November 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

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.

Yeah, that's what I said when I first started trying to fix it.

So riddle me this. Why are lasers fixed mount instead of using targeting mirrors to guarantee hits? Why do missiles weigh 8 pounds apiece? Why do you wear armor away with shot after shot instead of just penetrating or not? Why in gods name do projectiles have shorter ranges as they get bigger? How does a 5 story tall armored engine of death only weigh 100 tons? Why would they engage at infantry ranges instead of mechanized ranges?

I can get into aerospace and dropships too, they're even worse.

The system is fun, some suspension of disbelief is required though.

[Martin Gray]

I hate the Autocannon 10 and 20. The projectiles are way too slow. They are too hard to hit a target with. The Autocannon 2 is good. All the projectiles from all the Autocannons should travel as fast as the Autocannon 2 obviously with the range limitations in place. The Gauss Rifle is not hard to hit with. I like it.

[Tyrzun]

Played a lot tonight and I will only use the data from Forest Colony. That is the closest map to "fair" for the different types of fighting. It's real close. Few rough spots and bouncing issues, but other than that it'll be great with aobut 20% more size. Anyways. with practice I can hit most mechs larger 50% at 500-600 range on that map(there is room for it and the proper open shots) That's leading them properly etc... Atlas of course is a bit easier. So, it can be done to a degree. Fast mechs forget about it at range with that "artillery" lobbing shell.

Yes lasers technically go the "speed of light", but a high power rifle has the bullet travel much faster than you could ever see and the impact is near instant to us at 300 meters. So, these partical or magnetic cannons... would go MUCH faster and really be instant impact. There really isn't a reason to not have instant impact from ballistic weapons. Maybe machine guns would need to lead etc... being really just a gun and not a magnetic cannon with a charge.

That being said I did some data pooling tonight. Crazy we won like 6 matches in a row on that map and everyone played as a team... I count myself very lucky considering I PUG. I admit it's small data pool, but I asked every match who was using ballistics or PPC.

Ballistics averaged 1.5 per match and PPC about 1. So, despite the slow slug speed and the bouncing terrain making it even harder to shoot at range... some people are still trying on maps that let them. They just hope they get one of them. This is encouraging.

This slow shell speed stuff is an extra negative variable that users have to deal with and there simply just isn't a good reason for it to happen.

Ballistics ARE better than lasers DPS wise if you take into acout the first shot... except for one thing they way MUCH MUCH more and the ammo has weight. So, if you had the lasers and the extra weight in heat sinks... over a 10 seconds span they even out. The fist shot sure the ballistics will do more, but not over time and you never run out of laser fire. Just can't get my head around why they nerfed the shell speed. PPCs with 2 pulse lasers for the inbetween shots with the proper heat ratio is some CONSTANT infinite pain... once clean shots are possible on most maps.

[Hetfeng321]

Strum Wealh, on 11 November 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

I'd argue that the (canonical, not player-made) HOUNDs of Chromehounds - created by the Japanese company FROM Software, the same company that makes the Armored Core games - were even more "plausible"/"realistic"/"harder sci-fi" renditions than BT/MW's BattleMechs.



Similar arguments could be made for a number of other so-called "Real Robot" franchises (as opposed to so-called "Super Robot" franchises) - where, as it happens, the Gundam franchise is generally considered to be both the progenitor and one of the premier examples.
The notion of "Eastern Mecha versus Western Mecha" isn't quite as black-and-white as some make it out to be...

I know the East/West compariosn is not cut and dry, but it is a useful phrase for describing my opinions. I like that term "hard sci-fi", I'll use that more often. On a side note, I really liked Chromehounds, it's a shame it died off.

Edited by Hetfeng321, 13 November 2012 - 05:42 PM.

[Hetfeng321]

canned wolf, on 12 November 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Yeah, that's what I said when I first started trying to fix it.

So riddle me this. Why are lasers fixed mount instead of using targeting mirrors to guarantee hits? Why do missiles weigh 8 pounds apiece? Why do you wear armor away with shot after shot instead of just penetrating or not? Why in gods name do projectiles have shorter ranges as they get bigger? How does a 5 story tall armored engine of death only weigh 100 tons? Why would they engage at infantry ranges instead of mechanized ranges?

I can get into aerospace and dropships too, they're even worse.

The system is fun, some suspension of disbelief is required though.

I can riddle some of those.

Firing a laser through a lens at an oblique angle would disturb the "convex lens" effect, disperse the laser into a cone and reduce the damage to nill.

The mechs is MWO appear to fire APDS (armor-piercing discarding sabot) cartridges (example: http://www.bandeplet...es/258_a313.jpg). These are more effective the closer the penetrator hits to 90 degrees relative to the armor surface. Mechs, like most armored vehicles in real life, are built with curves and edges (almost any shape other than a flat wall will do) to reduce the chances of that happening. If the penetrator hits at an angle that is to small, then it will skip off the armor and dig a chunk out, effectively wearing away the armor.

As for the ranges of autocannons getting smaller as they get larger, I am not bothered by that because it does not effect my gameplay experience. If it effects someone else's, then, by all means, let them say so. It is strange that the larger cannons have less range. If you could supply a reason why I would be interested.

The weights of the mechs are off, but that does not effect real time gameplay so I do not think players or the MWO devs should worry about it.

The mechs do fight closer than most heavily armored combat vehicles today (armored combat usually occurs around 1000 m to 2000 m), but it is not ridiculous like the speed of the ballistic weapons. However, you don't have to fight at that range. I strive to keep to the range of my weapons and avoid getting bunched up to the point that you can't hit your enemy. It is dangerous to do that in MWO and real life, so I think MWO handles that issue well.

MechWarrior is a sci-fi simulator. The behavior of the weapons should mimic the basic bahavior of such weapons in real life (basic behavior like muzzle speed, ammo capacity, drop-off). We know how cannons work. Most of the tech in the game is not too far from what we have proven to be plausible today. I feel that many people immedeatly associate realism in a game with unbalancing. I don't think that's true. I think the game can be realistic and balanced. Said balancing can likely be achieved by simply adjusting weapon damage. Let's say ballistics with realistic muzzle velocities are overpowered, then lower their damage or raise the damage of energy and missle weaponry.

Keep in mind that I am not trying to fix BattleTech, I am trying to fix MWO specifically. Most if not all other MW titles were not broken in the sense that the game's physics didn't make sense.

Edited by Hetfeng321, 13 November 2012 - 05:57 PM.

[canned wolf]

Hetfeng321, on 13 November 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

I can riddle some of those.

Firing a laser through a lens at an oblique angle would disturb the "convex lens" effect, disperse the laser into a cone and reduce the damage to nill.

The mechs is MWO appear to fire APDS (armor-piercing discarding sabot) cartridges (example: http://www.bandeplet...es/258_a313.jpg). These are more effective the closer the penetrator hits to 90 degrees relative to the armor surface. Mechs, like most armored vehicles in real life, are built with curves and edges (almost any shape other than a flat wall will do) to reduce the chances of that happening. If the penetrator hits at an angle that is to small, then it will skip off the armor and dig a chunk out, effectively wearing away the armor.

As for the ranges of autocannons getting smaller as they get larger, I am not bothered by that because it does not effect my gameplay experience. If it effects someone else's, then, by all means, let them say so. It is strange that the larger cannons have less range. If you could supply a reason why I would be interested.

The weights of the mechs are off, but that does not effect real time gameplay so I do not think players or the MWO devs should worry about it.

The mechs do fight closer than most heavily armored combat vehicles today (armored combat usually occurs around 1000 m to 2000 m), but it is not ridiculous like the speed of the ballistic weapons. However, you don't have to fight at that range. I strive to keep to the range of my weapons and avoid getting bunched up to the point that you can't hit your enemy. It is dangerous to do that in MWO and real life, so I think MWO handles that issue well.

MechWarrior is a sci-fi simulator. The behavior of the weapons should mimic the basic bahavior of such weapons in real life (basic behavior like muzzle speed, ammo capacity, drop-off). We know how cannons work. Most of the tech in the game is not too far from what we have proven to be plausible today. I feel that many people immedeatly associate realism in a game with unbalancing. I don't think that's true. I think the game can be realistic and balanced. Said balancing can likely be achieved by simply adjusting weapon damage. Let's say ballistics with realistic muzzle velocities are overpowered, then lower their damage or raise the damage of energy and missle weaponry.

Keep in mind that I am not trying to fix BattleTech, I am trying to fix MWO specifically. Most if not all other MW titles were not broken in the sense that the game's physics didn't make sense.

I said mirror not lens. Mirrors are used all the time with lasers.

The point here is that you have picked a few points that bug you that you would like to see fixed, but have ignored other items because they are not important to you. The devs did the same thing. I'm sure at one point in their development cycle they had ballistics that traveled extremely fast, because why wouldn't they? Then problems became apparent and they adjusted the game mechanics.

I'm curious why they chose to go with CRY engine 3. It's pretty, but the limitations it imposes are pretty crazy. No camera in camera? That's only been around since source came out. Virtually zero netcode? Seems questionable for a game played purely online. But the alternative at this point would be to pull a Duke Nukem and dump all the progress they've made so far and start over.

Don't assume you know all the variables involved here. If you want a realistic robot shooter, go talk with From software and get the rights to Chromehounds. If you do a decent job with it, I and most of my friends will buy it.

[Hetfeng321]

canned wolf, on 14 November 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

I said mirror not lens. Mirrors are used all the time with lasers.

The point here is that you have picked a few points that bug you that you would like to see fixed, but have ignored other items because they are not important to you. The devs did the same thing. I'm sure at one point in their development cycle they had ballistics that traveled extremely fast, because why wouldn't they? Then problems became apparent and they adjusted the game mechanics.

I'm curious why they chose to go with CRY engine 3. It's pretty, but the limitations it imposes are pretty crazy. No camera in camera? That's only been around since source came out. Virtually zero netcode? Seems questionable for a game played purely online. But the alternative at this point would be to pull a Duke Nukem and dump all the progress they've made so far and start over.

You are correct. I am only addressing issues that matter to me because I do not have telepathy and cannot know the grievances of the other players until they tell me. It us up to the other players to state their issues with the game, not mine. If I was a dev, I would obviously listen to the opinions of the masses, but sadly I am not.

PS: I used lenses instead because I assumed you might realize while reading my response what would happen if you fired a laser capable of vaporizing steel at an opaque substance (the answer: the mirror goes bye-bye). Also, how would a mirror in the muzzle guarantee a hit? The aiming is still controlled by the pilot so the chances of hitting would still rely on the pilot's skill.

canned wolf, on 14 November 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

Don't assume you know all the variables involved here. If you want a realistic robot shooter, go talk with From software and get the rights to Chromehounds. If you do a decent job with it, I and most of my friends will buy it.

You clearly don't know your MechWarrior history. MechWarrior was defined in the gaming world by a few major things, such as: it was loosely based off an immensly popular table-top game and it was a sci-fi simulator (not a common genre, sims are usually based off of real world stuff like flight sims).

Edited by Hetfeng321, 17 November 2012 - 01:24 AM.

[Lightfoot]

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. 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. :-)

PPCs travel at just under the speed of light and do auto-cannon style damage.

"The Particle Projector Cannon (or PPC) is a unique energy weapon. PPCs fire a concentrated stream of protons or ions at a target, causing damage through both thermal and kinetic energy. As such, despite being an energy weapon, it produces recoil. The lethality of the weapon rivals that of a higher-caliber autocannon; just three shots from a PPC will vaporize two tons of standard military-grade armor. Targets hit by multiple, simultaneous PPCs can also suffer electrical side-effects, such as overloaded computer systems or targeting sensors. The ion beam also extends to much farther ranges than autocannon fire, though PPCs generate large amounts of waste heat.

PPCs are equipped with a Field Inhibitor to prevent feedback which could damage the firing unit's electronic systems. This inhibitor degrades the performance of the weapon at close ranges of less than 90 meters. Particularly daring warriors have been known to disengage the inhibitor and risk damage to their own machine when a target is at close range."

I don't really care if the PPC has some travel time, but please correct the damage type. Without working PPCs, MWO has made Ballistics too over-powered. See 2x Gauss Rifles and 2x AC20's. Those are ridiculous (stupid) configs with MWOs balancing.

[ltwally]

Lightfoot, on 19 November 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

PPCs travel at just under the speed of light and do auto-cannon style damage.

"The Particle Projector Cannon (or PPC) ....sarna sarna sarna .....

Sarna is a fine site. It's bookmarked in my browser, too.

That said, some folks need to recognise an unpleasant truth: Sarna is not cannon. It is not an official source. It's like wikipedia for battletech -- and just like wikipedia, sometimes people put in their own, non-cannon and completely incorrect, fluff.

So quoting Sarna when you're referring back to cannon BTech rules immediately weakens your position. If you want to quote canon, then pull out your BTech books and type in what you read there, citing the book and the page while you're at it.


Second, I don't recall reading anywhere in the BTech books that a PPC travels at any speed at all. People have extrapolated that, all on their own.

As far as cannon goes, the Master Rules indicate the PPC works one way, while other books indicate it works in other ways. For TT, it didn't really matter. In MW:O, the differences would have a massive difference.



That said....

From a game-balance point of view, having an energy-based projectile that traveled at/near laser speed would be drastically over-powered. Having PPC projectiles move at autocannon speeds is the balanced solution.

[Bobzilla]

In my head, PPC's seem to go slower as it takes a buildup of the flow on the target to cause damage. So really its just rendered wrong, it should look like a flashlight hitting instantly then a bunch of blue sparks forming very very shortly after (anyone remember in Akira when the satalie laser hit, eveything lit up for a second, small things started to float).

I thought the point of the gauss was it was super fast, almost the speed of light. High damage at far range, with no drop.

[EtherDragon]

ltwally, on 20 November 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

(lots of good stuff said...)

That said....

From a game-balance point of view, having an energy-based projectile that traveled at/near laser speed would be drastically over-powered. Having PPC projectiles move at autocannon speeds is the balanced solution.

I disagree. I think the current heat and ROF of the PPC in MW:O would be well balanced with an "instant" effect beam for the PPC.

[Sayyid]

The ballistics for the most part need some muzzle velocity increase. The AC2 and AC5 are ok but could use a slight increase.

Overall I think all Autocannons could use a 20% increase in muzzle velocity. As it stands right now an AC20 is only slightly faster than a max speed Commando. (exageration)

Gauss Rifles are ok too, but wouldnt suffer or become OP with the same increase in muzzle velocity.

[Strum Wealh]

Bobzilla, on 20 November 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

In my head, PPC's seem to go slower as it takes a buildup of the flow on the target to cause damage. So really its just rendered wrong, it should look like a flashlight hitting instantly then a bunch of blue sparks forming very very shortly after (anyone remember in Akira when the satalie laser hit, eveything lit up for a second, small things started to float). I thought the point of the gauss was it was super fast, almost the speed of light. High damage at far range, with no drop.

Not so much...

The Gauss Rifle (so named for the scientist that developed the underlying principles, Carl Friederich Gauss) is a "coilgun" (which is not to be conflated with or mistaken for a "railgun") that fires a large, magnetic projectile (usually described as a solid, melon-sized, nickel-iron slug) at supersonic (Mach 1.2 to 4.9) to hypersonic (Mach 5.0 to 10.0) velocities.
A number of the novels specify "hypersonic" (1710 m/s to 3420 m/s), while the technical specifications for the Yellow Jacket gunship (TRO 3058, pgs 30-31) specifically states "Mach 2.2" (equal to 748.64 m/s).

The PPC, on the other hand, is an ion cannon or a particle beam weapon where the result of firing is described in both the novels and rulebooks (TechManual, pg. 233) as resembling a lightning bolt (which may potentially indicate some level of relation to an electrolaser).
While there are very few (if any) references to specific velocities for PPC bolts, the general line of thinking is that it must be far slower than a laser beam (which travels at 3x10^8 m/s, represented as "c") but far faster than any conventional cannon or missile weapon (real-world examples tend to be in the mid-to-high supersonic range, with only a very few examples being in the low hypersonic range).
Personally, I would give PPCs a muzzle velocity somewhere between the speed of natural lightning (50,000-60,000 m/s) or the exhaust velocity of most real-world ion thrusters (~31,000-90,000 m/s).

Edited by Strum Wealh, 20 November 2012 - 07:25 PM.

[ltwally]

EtherDragon, on 20 November 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

I disagree. I think the current heat and ROF of the PPC in MW:O would be well balanced with an "instant" effect beam for the PPC.

On the PPC vs Autocannon front, the AC/10 is probably the closest autocannon comparison with PPC,

AC/10:

• Heat: less than 1/2
  
• ROF: (slightly) higher
  
• DPS: (slightly) higher
  
• Max Range: higher
  
• Ammo: 15/tonne. potential explosion from enemy fire or over-heat
  
• Weight: 12 tonnes + ammunition

PPC:

• Heat: more than 2x
  
• ROF: (slightly) lower
  
• DPS: (slightly) lower
  
• Max Range: lower
  
• Ammo: ∞. no worries about explosions
  
• Weight: 7 tonnes + heat sinks

The PPC is already fairly well balanced against an AC-10. Once they add in the secondary effects to PPC -- which is on their To-Do list -- the PPC will be just fine.

Just my opinion.

Sayyid, on 20 November 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

The ballistics for the most part need some muzzle velocity increase. The AC2 and AC5 are ok but could use a slight increase.

Overall I think all Autocannons could use a 20% increase in muzzle velocity. As it stands right now an AC20 is only slightly faster than a max speed Commando. (exageration)

Gauss Rifles are ok too, but wouldnt suffer or become OP with the same increase in muzzle velocity.

I don't have the link handy, but if you search the forums you'll find that the PGI folks already have plans to give AC/5 & UAC/5 minor speed buff, AC/10 a good speed buff, and AC/20 a major speed buff.

Pretty sure I remember reading that they have no intentions on changing Gauss or AC/2 at all.

[ltwally]

Strum Wealh, on 20 November 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

The PPC, on the other hand, is an ion cannon or a particle beam weapon where the result of firing is described in both the novels and rulebooks (TechManual, pg. 233) as resembling a lightning bolt (which may potentially indicate some level of relation to an electrolaser).

Firstly, we all need to recognise that the TT / Canon materials on the PPC only pertain to damage, heat, crits. There are no official secondary effects (unless someone found them in an optional book that I do not have).

Having said that...

The fluff description for PPC varies from book to book. For instance, page 146 of the Revised Master Rules (which is, without argument, the single most important BTech book), says this:

Quote

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

Here, the term "bolt" seems more of a projectile, and less of a lightning bolt. The MW:O interpretation (as well as most of the previous MW video games) went with the projectile implementation.

Now, the TechManual fluff description is somewhat different, and the effect would be more akin to a laser than a projectile.

So, my 2-cents: If you want to increase the speed of a PPC to that of a laser, you need to fully change the effect to that found in TechManual... It would no longer be a projectile, and would deal damage over time as a laser does. What you wind up with is a PPC that is, in effect, little more than a Extended-ER-Large Laser that also does a secondary effect.

Doing so would, of course, totally nerf the long-range worth of a PPC.

But if you're going to argue to increase the speed because the fluff description is different than the MW:O implementation, then you should argue to do it fully. That's just being honest about it.

Edited by ltwally, 20 November 2012 - 06:19 PM.

[Martin Gray]

With the latest software patch release did they increase the ballistic speed of the Autocannon 10 and Autocannon 20? If not I am dumping my Autocannon 10 for now and likely going with the new improved Ultra Autocannon 5. I am tired of trying to hit mechs with a nerf football.

[Strum Wealh]

ltwally, on 20 November 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Firstly, we all need to recognise that the TT / Canon materials on the PPC only pertain to damage, heat, crits. There are no official secondary effects (unless someone found them in an optional book that I do not have).

Having said that...

The fluff description for PPC varies from book to book. For instance, page 146 of the Revised Master Rules (which is, without argument, the single most important BTech book), says this:

Here, the term "bolt" seems more of a projectile, and less of a lightning bolt. The MW:O interpretation (as well as most of the previous MW video games) went with the projectile implementation.

Now, the TechManual fluff description is somewhat different, and the effect would be more akin to a laser than a projectile.

So, my 2-cents: If you want to increase the speed of a PPC to that of a laser, you need to fully change the effect to that found in TechManual... It would no longer be a projectile, and would deal damage over time as a laser does. What you wind up with is a PPC that is, in effect, little more than a Extended-ER-Large Laser that also does a secondary effect.

Doing so would, of course, totally nerf the long-range worth of a PPC.

But if you're going to argue to increase the speed because the fluff description is different than the MW:O implementation, then you should argue to do it fully. That's just being honest about it.

Actually, Total Warfare and its companion books (TechManual, Tactical Operations, and Strategic Operations) have long since (since ~2006, to be more specific) superseded any and all editions of Master Rules as the official Classic BattleTech rule sets.
As such, I doubt that Master Rules (Revised or otherwise) can still be claimed to be "the single most important BT book".

Also, TRO 3050 Revised (which is still canon) does specifically state (on page 216) that being struck by all three of a Burke's PPCs "can overload a 'Mech's computer or cause enough electronic noise to temporarily jam communications or targeting data", and that "most SLDF BattleMechs carried dampers to channel out such power bursts, but many owned by the Successor States do not".
In theory, an Awesome with its three PPCs (among other, similarly-armed 'Mechs) could/should be able to do much the same thing.
Additionally, TechManual does indicate (on page 33) that the measures that BattleMechs use to protect themselves against natural lightning strikes are at least somewhat effective against negating the electrical effects of PPC as well.
Granted, there are no gameplay effects to reflect such interference (such as penalties against a PSR, or some such), but it is (supposed to be) there nontheless.

There are also several additional rules (Tactical Operations, pgs. 103-104) regarding disengaging the Field Inhibitor to remove the minimum range penalty (at the risk of exploding the weapon), overcharging a PPC for extra damage (at the risk of exploding the weapon), and use of a PPC Capacitor to achieve similar effects to (and in addition to) overcharging, at somewhat less (immediate) risk.

A PPC could still have all of that, and be endowed with a much higher velocity than 1200 m/s, and still be modeled as a more-conventional projectile (more in the style of "ball lightning" rather than a conventional lightning bolt, perhaps) that can still deliver all of its damage value at once to a single point.
'Twould certainly go a long way toward increasing the PPCs' popularity and prevalence relative to the Gauss Rifles, AC/10s, and UAC/5s, I would imagine.

[ltwally]

Strum Wealh, on 20 November 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

Actually, Total Warfare and its companion books (TechManual, Tactical Operations, and Strategic Operations) have long since (since ~2006, to be more specific) superseded any and all editions of Master Rules as the official Classic BattleTech rule sets.
As such, I doubt that Master Rules (Revised or otherwise) can still be claimed to be "the single most important BT book".

I stand corrected. Shows how long it's been since I played TT BTech.

Quote

Also, TRO 3050 Revised (which is still canon) does specifically state (on page 216) that being struck by all three of a Burke's PPCs "can overload a 'Mech's computer or cause enough electronic noise to temporarily jam communications or targeting data", and that "most SLDF BattleMechs carried dampers to channel out such power bursts, but many owned by the Successor States do not".
In theory, an Awesome with its three PPCs (among other, similarly-armed 'Mechs) could/should be able to do much the same thing.
Additionally, TechManual does indicate (on page 33) that the measures that BattleMechs use to protect themselves against natural lightning strikes are at least somewhat effective against negating the electrical effects of PPC as well.
Granted, there are no gameplay effects to reflect such interference (such as penalties against a PSR, or some such), but it is (supposed to be) there nontheless.

But this is pure fluff. There is no mechanics for implementing this. Correct?

Quote

There are also several additional rules (Tactical Operations, pgs. 103-104) regarding disengaging the Field Inhibitor to remove the minimum range penalty (at the risk of exploding the weapon), overcharging a PPC for extra damage (at the risk of exploding the weapon), and use of a PPC Capacitor to achieve similar effects to (and in addition to) overcharging, at somewhat less (immediate) risk.

I believe the PPC Capacitor is a later era design. As for the rest... there are a lot of things that aren't practical to carry over from TT to a simulator-video-game. While these concepts may or may not be good in a video game, they definitely should be at the bottom of the (incredibly lengthy, at this point) To-Do list.

Quote

A PPC could still have all of that, and be endowed with a much higher velocity than 1200 m/s, and still be modeled as a more-conventional projectile (more in the style of "ball lightning" rather than a conventional lightning bolt, perhaps) that can still deliver all of its damage value at once to a single point.
'Twould certainly go a long way toward increasing the PPCs' popularity and prevalence relative to the Gauss Rifles, AC/10s, and UAC/5s, I would imagine.

Disagree. Strongly. PPC is pretty good where it's at, and potentially much cooler once they add in secondary effects (which I'm pretty sure I read are on their To-Do list).

[Strum Wealh]

ltwally, on 20 November 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

But this is pure fluff. There is no mechanics for implementing this. Correct?

Indeed; I said as much myself.

However, the same is also essentially true of all other projectile velocities - there is no gameplay mechanic for differentiating the actual time-to-target (and, thus, muzzle velocities) of an AC/5 at 400 meters vs an UAC/5, AC/10, LB 10-X, or Gauss Rifle at the same range at the same range. Yet, the fluff tends to imply that a GR slug should generally be far faster than any AC shell.

Additionally, the TT game mechanics do not generally account for things like recoil and knockback - things that would have some effect in a real-time simulator. A single GR slug or a triplet of Medium Lasers may not cause the 20 points of damage needed to check for a fall, but in real-time both should have some effect (with the effect of the former being more pronounced than the latter), yes?

The TT includes a substantial level of abstraction, that is generally necessary to make the game playable within reasonable space and time constraints; Total Warfare explicitly states as much, as a way of explaining (among other things) why weapon ranges are so short.
However, much of that previously-abstracted information can be determined easily and in very short order by modern computers, and (IMO) a lot of it (like reasonable/believable projectile velocities) are necessary in order to make a real-time game workable.

ltwally, on 20 November 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

Disagree. Strongly. PPC is pretty good where it's at, and potentially much cooler once they add in secondary effects (which I'm pretty sure I read are on their To-Do list).

I agree that PPCs will see a benefit - and a rise in popularity - when the secondary effects (which, as noted above, are strictly fluff where the TT game is concerned) are implemented.

However, I feel that PPCs could also benefit substantially from a higher projectile speed.
From a gameplay perspective, it would reduce the degree by which players would have to lead targets at range, which would help to offset its lower per-salvo damage and high heat cost versus the currently-ubiquitous Gauss Rifle. Additionally, it should also help to combat some of the effects of network latency by reducing the degree by which a given player should have to "lag shoot".
From an immersion perspective, it would make the PPC better fit the common description of resembling a "azure/cerulean bolt/flash of man-made lightning" as well as bring it closer to fitting what is currently known/believed of the capabilities and limitations of directed-energy weapons technology.

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?