89 replies to this topic

[Rejarial Galatan]

Sokitumi: missiles have a minimum range in this game, because theoretically they MUST ARM the warhead before they are more than a KEPW. But here, they do 0 damage until they cross that line. THAT SEMI-VALID minimum range <the not exploding part is, the no damage for LRMs at POINT BLANK is not, because at PB they are a KEPW>. Saying a bullet, and that is WHAT a gauss rifle round is, big as a truck, but, a bullet, to have a minimum range before it does damage is silly.

Riffleman, on 25 November 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

Guys its not the bullet that has the minimum range, that I agree is dumb. The arguement is that the time the magnetic capacitors need to charge and the targeting system can sync with them to fire just isnt enough if someone is within 60 meters.

well that and the fact the capacitors begin to recharge the INSTANT they are emptied to make ready for that next shot, when ever it comes.

[Streeter]

the whole world is fiction, you could make up any number of imaginary reasons.

projectile stabilisation package that breaks away shortly after launch which would it give an effective min range? make the convergence on gauss stupid slow to follow canon with targeting computers?

arguing that an imaginary gun shouldnt have a min range cause it doesnt make sense is kind of strange isnt it?

Edited by Streeter, 25 November 2012 - 01:29 AM.

[KinLuu]

The GRs and ACs min. range in TT is different than the PPCs - it is not a dmg modifier, but a to-hit modifier. Meaning it is harder to hit with those weapons at close range. And this is - in a way - already implemented, with the strange convergeance system.

In my eyse, the correct way to handle this would be to remove the PPCs minimum range. While not true to the TT rules, this would improve PPC gameplay quite a bit.

[SteelPaladin]

KinLuu, on 25 November 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

The GRs and ACs min. range in TT is different than the PPCs - it is not a dmg modifier, but a to-hit modifier. Meaning it is harder to hit with those weapons at close range. And this is - in a way - already implemented, with the strange convergeance system.

In my eyse, the correct way to handle this would be to remove the PPCs minimum range. While not true to the TT rules, this would improve PPC gameplay quite a bit.

It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the PPC minimum range was a to-hit modifier as well. The linear damage reduction under 90m is an MWO thing.

I'm not entirely opposed to just dropping minimum ranges entirely, but that wouldn't address gauss rifle balance very well. It also wouldn't do ER PPCs any favors, since the extra range they get isn't really worth 4 extra heat per shot.

[KinLuu]

SteelPaladin, on 25 November 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the PPC minimum range was a to-hit modifier as well. The linear damage reduction under 90m is an MWO thing.

I'm not entirely opposed to just dropping minimum ranges entirely, but that wouldn't address gauss rifle balance very well. It also wouldn't do ER PPCs any favors, since the extra range they get isn't really worth 4 extra heat per shot.

Heat is a totally different topic and needs work in general.

[sokitumi]

Rejarial Galatan, on 25 November 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

Sokitumi: missiles have a minimum range in this game, because theoretically they MUST ARM the warhead before they are more than a KEPW. But here, they do 0 damage until they cross that line. THAT SEMI-VALID minimum range <the not exploding part is, the no damage for LRMs at POINT BLANK is not, because at PB they are a KEPW>. Saying a bullet, and that is WHAT a gauss rifle round is, big as a truck, but, a bullet, to have a minimum range before it does damage is silly.

I totally understand the logic. But one could just code and say a LRM could fly up and out and then back down to selected target if fired at range below 150m, you know, give them an absurd trajectory, thus also affecting their accuracy. There are a lot more creative ways like this to deal with min range than a simple cut-off.

Likewise for PPC.. simply no damage below min range? Silly.

The GR min range is totally illogical of course.

Edited by sokitumi, 25 November 2012 - 01:54 AM.

[Woska]

I agree that the Gauss should have a minimum range. Not because of real world physics, but to balance it against the AC type weapons. Why get an AC/10, when you can get a Guass with more damage and significantly more range?

So putting a minimum range on the Gauss would force you to maintain at least some distance to use your long range cannon. It's in place for the LRMs and nobody seems to object. The Gauss should be the same way. If you can survive the run in and get to point blank range, you should have some sort of advantage, not simply be an easier target.

All of the high damage long range weapons have this in Battletech. If you want to have range, you sacrifice your close in firepower. It makes those back up medium lasers so much more valuable.

Edited by Woska, 25 November 2012 - 02:01 AM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Because an AC10 weighs less? Sorry Woska but the gauss slug is at FULL speed as it exits the barrel and thus, I can shove my gauss into your face and hit you as hard as possible. Only after a long distance will it slow down and not be as harsh.

@sokitumi: the PPC min range as they said above is because the mech has a limiter that prevents the pilot from using the weapon on a mech that is close enough that the PPC shot could arc back and damage the pilot that shot it. ALSO, you could theorize that the 'slug' of PPC fire is still coalescing into something meaningful at close range and would be more spread out and do less.

[Keisuke Nagisa]

The reason for the GR minimum range in TT has to do with the difficulty of aiming such a large unwieldy weapon. The way this should be implemented is that larger and heavy weapons should slow down the speed and convergence of the sections they are located in since so much weight it focused in that area. This makes perfect sense. As is with efficiencies maxed even the big mechs become incredibly agile.

[Lykaon]

The function of the minimum range for the gauss rifle in the table top game was indeed for ballance.

However the table top game structure is so vastly different from the computer game that min ranges can not be adiquately ballanced.

First off min range in table top is not a blanket no fire/no damage zone.It is a penalty to hit accumulating with each hex the target is withing min range.

The Gauss rifle min range of 2 hexes (60M) only means that a target standing between 31-60 meters (1 hexes) would have an additional +1 to hit penalty applied.A target within 0-30m (1 hex) would have a +2 penalty applied to hit
.
So basically a gauss rifle firing at a target that is standing very close to the firing unit would be no harder to hit than a target standing at medium range for the gauss rifle.Essentially this is not a tough shot to make it's an average target number of 6 vs a 4 on 2d6.Hardley worthy of making the weapon totally ineffective in MWo and a reason I do not advocate min ranges for PPCs.

Now the second point I want to make about table top rules vs computer game mechanics.

In the table top game units are moved in turns based on initiative roll made each combat turn.This of course means it's a simple matter moving in initiative order to elliminate the min range penalty.

Example: Target mech begins it's turn standing one hex from the gauss rifle equiped mech (this would be a +2 penalty to target numbers) BUT...These units must move during their movement phase activations based on initiative order.The Gauss rifle equiped player can if initiative was won wait until the target standing in min range ends it's movement activation and simply walk 2 hexes out of the min range.If intiative was lost it is still possible to "force" the target mech to move out of min range (activate other units instead of the gauss mech,declare a charge with another unit on the target forcing displacement etc) It may be as simple as moving the gauss mech first and faster than the target can close in one turn.

In MWo all this movement is simultanious.Therefore this table top mechanic does not translate well or at all.It's very easy to "facehug" targets indeffinatley because we do not move in turns.

Slapping min ranges onto weapons just because table top used min range as a ballancing factor will not work for all weapons (actually I would only advocate min range for LRMS currently) as long as the effects of min range are the complete nullification of the weapon system.

This path only leads to a clear advantage to the player who can facehug the fastest and eliminate some weapon systems by simply being close enough.

What I am getting at is min ranges for direct fire weapons in this video game DO NOT MAKE SENSE for any direct fire weapon as long as min range is the nullification it is now.

[Nightfangs]

Ronin Starwalker, on 24 November 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

According to my calculations the GR should have a minimum range of 60m.

Why is this not implemented, yet the PPC's minimum range is?

Can anyone elaborate on the thought process behind this?

The gauss rifle having a minimum range would be nearly as illogical as the PPC having one (while the ER PPC doesn't),
A first error shouldn't be the excuse to make another one.

We could talk about weapon balance that leads to minimum ranges, but please don't start with "a bullet should not hurt within *** m, that doesn't make sense" or something logic-defying like that!
While there are some compromises that have to be made, we are still talking about a "realistic" simulation, and the ingame mechanics should be treated that way.

[Keisuke Nagisa]

I agree there shouldn't be minimum ranges as far as damage goes but weapons should have more unique characteristics., For instance if one arm weighs 5 tons and the other weighs 20 I think its makes sense that it shouldn't move quite as fast as normal. At range not a big deal but harder to bring to bear when something is in your face.

As for PPC theres good fluff reasons for the minimum range. They should still do full damage in minimum as long as you disable your field inhibitor.

[Merrik Starchaser]

sigh they reduce its maximum range instead, if anything they should have reduced its rate of fire, the increase ROF over 1 shot per 10 seconds is what makes it OP

that said THE GAUSS RIFLE DOES NOT HAVE A MINIMUM RANGE it has a TO HIT
penalty on the attack roll.

So not only would giving the gauss a minimum range be illogical it would also violate canon

PPC's had a minimum range due to a mechs inhibitor field

Edited by Merrik Starchaser, 25 November 2012 - 02:37 AM.

[Wolf Ender]

**** the TT, balance the game.

[Grisnir]

Riffleman, on 25 November 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

Guys its not the bullet that has the minimum range, that I agree is dumb. The arguement is that the time the magnetic capacitors need to charge and the targeting system can sync with them to fire just isnt enough if someone is within 60 meters.

it's better explained, that the capacitors need time to charge up, so we have a little fire delay or you can increase the damage and cooldown time and you have the same dps and a minium range (missing in closed range isn't good)

btw a fire delay on the PPC would be better instead a damage reduction

[Onyx Rain]

Wolf Ender, on 25 November 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

**** the TT, balance the game.

Agreed....

Just don't **** the game by making one of the most popular weapons completely un-fun to play to a majority or even a large number of users. At least the PPC crowd has the ERppc with no min range to play with....put min range on a gauss and all the gauss people are screwed.

There are much better ways of balancing the gun such as just upping the heat to 2-3, thus limiting other weapons you can fire around the same time or just after gauss.... or increasing the refresh time from 4 to 4.10-4.25.

Plus, we have this whole 3 health gauss fix coming soon so we definitely need to wait and see how that plays out before anything else is done. Which frankly scares me because the gun is so fragile anyways. Basically I think gauss is fine as it is...I was using an aws-9m with no gauss and doing great against gauss cats, atlas, etc... even tried it against some phracts...no more of a problem then any other mech.

It boils down to mostly missile boat users not wanting a weapon that can back them off their perch, crappy scouts that can't dodge complaining because they get gaussed, and just a general flock of sissies that don't want anyone to have anything that might be able to kill them...and completely overestimate their own skill level. If I a medium skilled pilot (at best) can run an XL awesome with no gauss against all these mech using gauss and do well (1-6 kills 400-900+dmg most matches)....why can't you people just deal?

Hell most the gauss users can't hit the broad side of a barn anyways.

Edited by Onyx Rain, 25 November 2012 - 03:30 AM.

[sholos]

I always thought a smart idea to balance out the gauss was to give it a deliberate ;P delay in firing. So as you click LMB you start by hearing a buzzing sound as the magnetic coils charge up and then after 1-1.5 (?) the thing fires. Considering the massive range advantage of the gauss to the heavier AC weapons i think it would even things out nicely. It would also promote the roll of the gauss as a "sniper" weapon while the AC 20 would be for close range brawling...

[Blood Skar]

I'd have to agree it does need somekind of minimum range. Its a devastating weapon...i was fiddling around with 4x AC5 in my phract 4x...that was until i went dual gauss and 2 med las...no looking back now.

60m minimum range seems fair enough, considering how powerful guass is. If i was 100% honest 60m seems a bit generous really - 90m might be better.

Edited by Blood Skar, 25 November 2012 - 04:33 AM.

[Terox]

Get over the fact you got killed by a Gauss

its slow rate of fire makes it easy to dodge if you are moving fast enough and not running up to the mech head on

If you are standing still on a ridge line and you get owned by a gauss, it isn't the Gauss weapon that's at fault, its the way you pilot'd your mech

[Churzy]

I agree that it doesn't make much sense to slap a minimum range on the Gauss; but I also have to say that using them as some sort of "melee shotgun" feels terribly wrong. It is an insult to the larger caliber ACs, which sport similar damage output, size, and ammo load; but at a shorter range, lower projectile speed, and considerably more heat generation. Not to mention risks of ammo explosions.

As it stands now, Gauss have no actual weaknesses and are superior to the competition; but I don't think an artificial minimum range is the solution. I wouldn't agree with the firing delay suggested by sholos above, either. While it could be "fun", it would make Gauss ridiculously hard to use, and it'd hurt their "sniper" use the most (which should be the main role of the weapon).

An upcoming patch making them fragile and volatile will surely help, but they'll still be tremendously effective in a brawl until you can scrap all the armor. So I'd say that a small decrease in Firing Rate would be the ultimate solution - wouldn't be very noticeable for snipers, but would mean a small handicap over ACs in close quarters.