89 replies to this topic

[wolf74]

It simple the Transport casing for the Slug has to peel away before the Penetration Slug can do full damage. The Transport casing would cushion the impact on the target and greatly lower the damage done. AKA the 60min Range for a Guass Rifle came become like it should giving the AC/10 & AC/20 a Better Slot in the game.

[Joseph Mallan]

One Medic Army, on 25 November 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

In TT the AC/2 also has a minimum range, just saying.
Don't see anyone asking for that to come into play.
For that matter there's lots of weapons with a minimum range in TT.
In TT the minimum range just meant you had a big penalty to it at that range. It could be implemented by having a huge inaccuracy cone added to those weapons when fired at anything inside the minimum range, or just putting a limit to how short of a range they could converge to crosshairs properly at. (Note, this wouldn't work with LRMs obviously)

Oh Dear. Someone has hit a home run here! If we Nerf the Gauss with a Min Range then we need to hit the ACs with its Minimum Also. After all We are trying to Balance weapons... RIGHT?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 25 November 2012 - 09:14 AM.

[Moonsavage]

Gausswarrior online.

[Joseph Mallan]

Hmmm I have a Gauss on My Atlas. My Catapult, Hunchback and Centurion... No Gauss. I guess its WeaponWarrior on line.

[Sayyid]

Smokin Dragon, on 24 November 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

i don't understand why a gauss rifle would have a minimum range of 60m.

It's a cannon that accelerates a slug (usually metal) to very very fast speeds and spits it out of the barrel towards the target.

please stand 20m directly in front of one and test fire it, then come back and tell me why the minimum range didn't work like you thought.

Kindest Regards,

Smokin' Dragon

The minimum range isnt because of the same reasons as the PPC. The Gauss Rifle should take time to fire the shot, a delay this is described in the books, and a guass rifle draws a lot of power. If a longer trigger delay was added, like you have to HOLD the trigger for a half a second to charge the gauss rifle and fire. This would give it the "Minimum" range effect making it pretty useless at less than 60m.

And lets not forget, Autocannons dont have a minimum range here either. AC/2, AC/5 and UAC/5 should all have a minimum range.

Edited by Sayyid, 25 November 2012 - 09:22 AM.

[Khobai]

1) How many things in the battletech universe make no sense? Just about everything makes no sense.

2) Why are you trying to apply sense to the Gauss Rifle having a minimum range when nothing else makes sense?

3) The Gauss Rifle needs a minimum range for balance purposes. Simple as that. No other reason is required.

[Churzy]

wolf74, on 25 November 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

It simple the Transport casing for the Slug has to peel away before the Penetration Slug can do full damage. The Transport casing would cushion the impact on the target and greatly lower the damage done. AKA the 60min Range for a Guass Rifle came become like it should giving the AC/10 & AC/20 a Better Slot in the game.

Nice catch! Not only is a great explanation/excuse for it to be less effective at shorter range (at the very least, better than the one for PPC inefficiency...); it's also realistic. In fact, it is used on a lot of existing ballistic weapon systems, to increase their range and penetrating power.

However, before the armor-piercing core detaches, a Gauss round would still be a rather large projectile hitting at a moderate speed; so the damage wouldn't be entirely nullified in close-quarters.

[SteelPaladin]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 November 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Oh Dear. Someone has hit a home run here! If we Nerf the Gauss with a Min Range then we need to hit the ACs with its Minimum Also. After all We are trying to Balance weapons... RIGHT?

Are you seriously arguing that ACs need a nerf to be in balance? UAC/5 and AC/2 are the only ones even worth their tonnage at the moment.

Hell, it doesn't really matter. Slap a 90m minimum on an AC/5. It's not like anyone will notice, because no one is even using the bloody thing.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Khobai then let us apply a minimum distance to streaks of say 100m, a min range of 60m to machine guns, 100m to ALL lasers. see where this goes? the gauss rifle needs 0 min range because that weapon is in a bad spot as it is, its ultra fragile, has an obscenely low rate of fire.

[Joseph Mallan]

SteelPaladin, on 25 November 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Are you seriously arguing that ACs need a nerf to be in balance? UAC/5 and AC/2 are the only ones even worth their tonnage at the moment.

Hell, it doesn't really matter. Slap a 90m minimum on an AC/5. It's not like anyone will notice, because no one is even using the bloody thing.

Yes if you change one you have to change all. That is balance. So if you Add the Min to Gauss you MUST add the 120 M Minimum for AC2 and the 90 M minimum for AC5. Cause they also have minimum ranges and it would be unbalancing to change just one Ballistic weapon. Its all about the balance remember? AC 2 & 5 had minimums before there was Gauss in TT I will accept it either way. Game balance all the weapons either way. Also I hear lots of AC fire so I think it would matter.

[SteelPaladin]

Rejarial Galatan, on 25 November 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

Khobai then let us apply a minimum distance to streaks of say 100m, a min range of 60m to machine guns, 100m to ALL lasers. see where this goes? the gauss rifle needs 0 min range because that weapon is in a bad spot as it is, its ultra fragile, has an obscenely low rate of fire.

Complete strawman. The fact that BattleTech is so divorced from reality that "realism" arguments are absurd in no way requires, supports, or even hints at throwing completely random and senseless minimum ranges around. You don't think the gauss needs a minimum range for balance reasons? Fine. Argue the balance point w/o resorting to logical fallacies.

On the balance point, I disagree w/your assertion that the gauss is "in a bad spot." It is still arguably the most effective ballistic weapon in the game. Its rate of fire is hardly "obscenely low;" it is equal to a medium laser and faster than a large laser, equal to an AC/20, and on a par w/most missile weapons. It WILL BE fragile (it is not yet), yet it remains the only weapon whose balance mechanics require you to completely burn through a target's armor before they take effect (during which period the gauss is returning fire at full effectiveness if the pilot doesn't suck).

Joseph Mallan, on 25 November 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Yes if you change one you have to change all. That is balance. So if you Add the Min to Gauss you MUST add the 120 M Minimum for AC2 and the 90 M minimum for AC5. Cause they also have minimum ranges and it would be unbalancing to change just one Ballistic weapon. Its all about the balance remember? AC 2 & 5 had minimums before there was Gauss in TT I will accept it either way. Game balance all the weapons either way. Also I hear lots of AC fire so I think it would matter.

The hell are you smoking? Balance != fanatical adherence to TT and never has. Balance is keeping all weapons viable by refusing to allow a small subset of them to completely overshadow the others. Gauss were never supposed to be the best ballistic weapon at all ranges; the fact that they are is a failure of balance that needs to be addressed. It would only be unbalancing to change just one ballistic weapon if all of the ballistic weapons were already balanced, which is obviously not the case.

Edited by SteelPaladin, 25 November 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Khobai then let us apply a minimum distance to streaks of say 100m, a min range of 60m to machine guns, 100m to ALL lasers. see where this goes? the gauss rifle needs 0 min range because that weapon is in a bad spot as it is, its ultra fragile, has an obscenely low rate of fire.

Nope I dont see your point. Because Gauss has a minimum range in tabletop. None of those other weapons do.

In tabletop the Gauss has a minimum range for a reason. That reason is so the AC/20 retains its place as the best close-range ballistic weapon. A direct consequence of removing the minimum range is that the Gauss replaces the AC/20 as the best close-range ballistic weapon. That is why the minimum range needs to be re-added.

AC/20 = best close range ballistic weapon
Gauss = best sniping ballistic weapon

Simple as that. Gauss should not be the best at everything.

Edited by Khobai, 25 November 2012 - 01:39 PM.

[Jacob Dieffenbach]

My two cents:

In tabletop, minimum range isn't a damage modifier, it's a to-hit modifier. In other words, getting hit point blank by a gauss rifle hurts as much as getting hit at maximum range--it's just much harder to aim a gauss close range.

If they wanted to replicate that 'sucks at close range' feel for gauss rifles, while maintaining the sniper, the solution is simple: increase the time between firing and the slug leaving the rifle (not a RANDOM amount of time--a consistent 1 second or something). Make a vmmmm charge sound or something as the capacitors build up.

For snipers, there would be a negligable effect on sniping: stationary targets are still easy, and you still have to lead moving targets, this just makes you have to lead a bit more. For close range though, where an enemy can shift in and out of view with even a slight change in direction or throttle, well, gauss rifles would miss a huge portion of the time.

Thus, minimum range established.

I don't mind damage being reduced for energy weapons as THEIR 'minimum range' mechanic, but for ballistics, it should really be something like this.

Edited by Jacob Dieffenbach, 25 November 2012 - 01:37 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

In tabletop, minimum range isn't a damage modifier

technically it is a damage modifier, because you do 0 damage when you miss.

Also the reason why mwo has damage drop-offs after max range, is because its their way of simulating range brackets in tabletop. Except instead of lower accuracy at longer range, you do lower damage at longer range.

So the inverse of that would also apply with minimum range. firing a weapon within its minimum range does less damage, and thats currently how the PPC works. Its how the Gauss should work too.

And again realism has no relevancy, when nothing else in the battletech universe makes any sense. The very concept of battlemechs themselves is ludicrous since no sane military would ever design an upright combat vehicle with a highly exposed profile.

Edited by Khobai, 25 November 2012 - 01:50 PM.

[Onyx Rain]

Churzy, on 25 November 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

Nice catch! Not only is a great explanation/excuse for it to be less effective at shorter range (at the very least, better than the one for PPC inefficiency...); it's also realistic. In fact, it is used on a lot of existing ballistic weapon systems, to increase their range and penetrating power.

However, before the armor-piercing core detaches, a Gauss round would still be a rather large projectile hitting at a moderate speed; so the damage wouldn't be entirely nullified in close-quarters.

What you are talking about is similar to a sabot, but in gauss/railguns It is called an "armature"....the problem is this adds mass to a projectile traveling several times the speed of sound, thus likely making its impact more damaging if it hits with the armature/sabot still attached.

Projectiles only continue to accelerate very briefly after leaving the barrel so it will pretty much have reached top speed by the time it is 1 foot out of the barrel. (I got schooled on this and looked it up myself, awhile back because I thought they continued to accelerate longer)

[Joseph Mallan]

Quote

[color=#959595]The hell are you smoking? Balance != fanatical adherence to TT and never has. Balance is keeping all weapons viable by refusing to allow a small subset of them to completely overshadow the others. Gauss were never supposed to be the best ballistic weapon at all ranges; the fact that they are is a failure of balance that needs to be addressed. It would only be unbalancing to change just one ballistic weapon if all of the ballistic weapons were already balanced, which is obviously not the case.[/color]

Applying mods cause of whiners isn't balance either. All ballistic weapons are viable now. If Gauss was not supposed to be the best it would not have had the longest range, lowest heat and the 2nd lowest min range. You sir are thus mistaken. All Ballistics are balanced AC2<AC5<AC5 Ultra<LB-X10<AC10<AC20<Gauss! That is the balance that these weapons have had for 28(?) years! That is how they should remain. An AC2 should not be equal to a Gauss as an M-16 is not Equal to a 50 Cal Machine gun!

[Khobai]

Quote

If Gauss was not supposed to be the best it would not have had the longest range, lowest heat and the 2nd lowest min range.

Gauss is supposed to be the best. But its not supposed to be the best at EVERYTHING. Thats an important distinction.

[Onyx Rain]

Khobai, on 25 November 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

Nope I dont see your point. Because Gauss has a minimum range in tabletop. None of those other weapons do.

In tabletop the Gauss has a minimum range for a reason. That reason is so the AC/20 retains its place as the best close-range ballistic weapon. A direct consequence of removing the minimum range is that the Gauss replaces the AC/20 as the best close-range ballistic weapon. That is why the minimum range needs to be re-added.

AC/20 = best close range ballistic weapon
Gauss = best sniping ballistic weapon

Simple as that. Gauss should not be the best at everything.

What do you say to the arguments that any direct fire weapon like pcc/erppc, gauss having a min range basically makes them very un-fun to play for a large portion of players, if not the majority?

Why favor min range, over a longer refresh time, or more heat? Shouldn't the balancing mechanic mostly likely to ruin the gun for so many people be the last thing they try?

PPC is an example we already have...sure it has other issues but it isn't going to magically become popular until they remove that min range (if that ever happens)

Khobai, on 25 November 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

Gauss is supposed to be the best. But its not supposed to be the best at EVERYTHING. Thats an important distinction.

I'd rather get hit by a gauss point blank then an ac20....so maybe gauss isn't the best brawler weapon anymore. Problem solved

[Khobai]

Quote

What do you say to the arguments that any direct fire weapon like pcc/erppc, gauss having a min range basically makes them very un-fun to play for a large portion of players, if not the majority?

Minimum range is not why PPCs are unfun to play. The heat system is why PPCs are unfun to play. The amount of heat they generate is disproportional to their damage. Theyre simply not worth using when two medium lasers can do the same amount of damage for half the heat.

Quote

I'd rather get hit by a gauss point blank then an ac20....so maybe gauss isn't the best brawler weapon anymore.

You wont be getting hit by just a gauss though. The lower heat of the gauss means more weapons can be bundled together in the volley. For example, a gauss and medium laser fired together, generate less heat than the AC/20, and do the same 20 damage. The power of the gauss is the fact it barely generates any heat which allows more weapons to be fired simultaneously. Thats why the gauss needs a minimum range, so its not the best weapon for every situation.

Edited by Khobai, 25 November 2012 - 02:02 PM.

[Onyx Rain]

Khobai, on 25 November 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

Minimum range is not why PPCs are unfun to play. The heat system is why PPCs are unfun to play.

As I said I'm sure that is part of it, but I won't be using them even if they fix that because any weapon with a min range like that, that takes up that much space/weight is a huge handicap and despite my/team's best efforts there will be times where I'm mobbed in close quarters. It just wouldn't be fun to use, and I won't....and I have a feeling given the number of other people in all these gauss threads I've seen that hate the idea of min range many others won't either...so why nerf the gun that way when there are other ways that won't ruin it for so many people?

Edited by Onyx Rain, 25 November 2012 - 02:00 PM.