52 replies to this topic

[Sigifrid]

Some time ago the projectile speeds were generally increased for all ballistic weapons. Ballistics did need a projectile speed increase. However, in doing so a problem has come up regarding the gauss rifle. Currently, the projectile speed of the gauss is listed at 1,200. At the same time, uac/ac5 has projectile speeds of 1,300, and the ac2 has a projectile speed of 2,000 (equal to a PPC). This means an autocannon is producing a higher projectile velocity than a Gauss rifle. This is not supposed to be the case.

A gauss rifle is essentially a kinetic strike weapon, which functions by accelerating a solid ferromagnetic slug to incredibly high speeds via electromagnetic coils. Autocannons are similar to machine guns and/or cannons in how they operate (bullet/shell is propelled by and explosive discharge). Additionally, the autocannons (in MWO) cause damage by exploding on the targets, while the gauss inflicts damage by putting a solid slug through the target. The electromagnetically accelerated slug should have to be propelled faster than an explosive shell to be able to inflict the damage it does.

In short, the Gauss Rifle is supposed to only be slower than speed of light weapons (PPCs and lasers) compared to the weapons that exist in the battletech/mechwarrior universe. As such, either the gauss needs to have its projectile speed dramatically increased, the lighter autocannons need a nerf to their projectile speeds, or some combination of the two needs to happen.

[Trev Firestorm]

THIS. Not because the Gauss needs a buff so much as the current speeds make no sense.

[Hoaggie]

While everything you say is true, the problem is that the people who ruined the gauss rifle in the first place would not like that at all, the fact is that the gauss is funished as a functional weapon in MWO

[Wolfways]

Yes, one of the most powerful weapons in the game needs a buff....

[Trev Firestorm]

Wolfways, on 27 January 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

Yes, one of the most powerful weapons in the game needs a buff....

Yes, because it makes zero sense for the gauss to be moving slower than an autocannon round.

[CrashieJ]

... this is science fantasy... battletech/mechwarrior is SCIENCE FANTASY.

which means, if they want Fast-as-light weapons going slower than snails (guess what) they'll do it.

PRACTICAL PHYSICS NEED NOT APPLY.

oh the fuc* well, deal with it.

[Wolfways]

Trev Firestorm, on 27 January 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

Yes, because it makes zero sense for the gauss to be moving slower than an autocannon round.

Actually i have no problem with the gauss having shot speed buff, but it needs a huge nerf in some other way.

[Sigifrid]

You mean aside from the huge nerfs it has already sustained?
This situation should not have happened to begin with IMHO. When they rebalanced the projectile speeds they should not have made the ac2/5 faster than the gauss.

As far as your science fantasy thing is concerned, gavilatius, there is plenty of lore and precedence within battletech for the gauss to be have the fastest ballistic projectile speed.

[Rokuzachi]

MWO: competetive match based online game.

Balance will trump canon most likely.

[Vapor Trail]

Ke = 1/2 m * v^2

AC rounds aren't purely kinetic, and the majority of their mass is not projectile (eg. casing and propellant).

Gauss rounds are purely kinetic, and nearly 100% of their mass is projectile.

Per kilo, Gauss rounds at 1,200 m/sec deliver ~85% of the energy of AC/2 rounds @ 1,300 m/sec.

However, AC/2 rounds are ~26.6% the mass of Gauss rounds... and only a fraction of the mass of the AC/2 round is a projectile. So the difference in mass outweighs the difference in velocity by a factor of about 3, at minimum.

-------------

The point is that unless Ac/2 round is much, much faster than the Gauss, the difference doesn't matter.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 27 January 2013 - 04:49 PM.

[Hoaggie]

Vapor Trail, on 27 January 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

Ke = 1/2 m * v^2

AC rounds aren't purely kinetic, and the majority of their mass is not projectile (eg. casing and propellant).

Gauss rounds are purely kinetic, and nearly 100% of their mass is projectile.

Per kilo, Gauss rounds at 1,200 m/sec deliver ~85% of the energy of AC/2 rounds @ 1,300 m/sec.

However, AC/2 rounds are ~26.6% the mass of Gauss rounds... and only a fraction of the mass of the AC/2 round is a projectile. So the difference in mass outweighs the difference in velocity by a factor of about 3, at minimum.

-------------

The point is that unless Ac/2 round is much, much faster than the Gauss, the difference doesn't matter.

Sigifrid!

You started a thread that now has something very near to math in it.... hate

[Trev Firestorm]

Ok, then lets look at this, we'll say that each round of gauss is 60kg (900/15 rounded the ton down but w/e both masses should probably be lower anyway for weight of the loader/feeder) at 1200^2=86400000 kg m^2/s^2
AC/2 then is (900/75) 12kg at 2000^2=48,000,000
so if 86,400,000=15 damage, then for pure kinetic 5,760,000 is one damage
and most of the ac/2's damage is supposed to come from explosive/HEAT round so its kinetic should be low compared to the gauss, but here we have it at a whopping 8.34 before considering the explosives... Even if you drag down the weight of the ac/2 its still absurdly high in comparison (say 6kg projectile still gives 4.1 damage from just the kinetic)

Now I don't mind if this sort of math isn't used, but either way having an AC that is faster than the kinetic strike weapon is just /wrong/ I don't care if they make them close and the physics isn't really used but no cannon should have a higher projectile speed than the gauss.

Edit: accidentally dropped the 1/2 but it doesn't change the ratio when comparing values to damage.

Edited by Trev Firestorm, 27 January 2013 - 05:27 PM.

[orion0117]

In video game world, science does not necessarily apply. I've only fired the gauss a few times, but hit by them many times and you can see the rounds coming. My impression of them is as you say. In real life you couldn't see a gauss round coming. Not sure what the AC would actually equate to in real firearms today, but a 5.56x45 round from the much feared and unappreciated evil black rifle(AR15)moves at about 3000 feet per second. A round of 50 BMG moves around 2800 fps. That is around 900 meters per second, a rail gun round runs 2000-3500 meters per second(wikipedia.) A comparatively very slow moving high powerered rifle bullet cannot be seen flying through the air. Not sure on the armor of Battletech but today's gauss round would go through M1 Abrams front armor, engine, rear armor then embed deep into the mountain behind.

[Wolfways]

Sigifrid, on 27 January 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

You mean aside from the huge nerfs it has already sustained?

Could you tell me what nerfs the gauss has had please? I've only started using it recently but the only nerf i know about is the HP reduction, which imo is hardly a nerf at all (especially on the K2). I rarely lose the gauss on my Cataphract before the whole arm is gone.

But, i have to say that in the TT the gauss was an OP weapon. I have no idea why it was released as is. It seems like the people who created it just threw the rulebook out of the window.

[Tarman]

Hrm, gameplay breaks the weapons down into 3 broad categories, missile, energy, and ballistics. Don't recall seeing a subsection for kinetic-strike weapons. Sounds a lot like "throw a solid chunk at someone", which falls under ballistics as far as MWO is concerned.

Gauss doesn't need a velocity change, especially based on nothing but indiscrepancies from IRL science. This is probably the last reason ever to change something in this game. Science=dead giant robots, every time.

[Heeden]

Wolfways, on 27 January 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

Could you tell me what nerfs the gauss has had please? I've only started using it recently but the only nerf i know about is the HP reduction, which imo is hardly a nerf at all (especially on the K2). I rarely lose the gauss on my Cataphract before the whole arm is gone.

Don't forget with Gauss the weapon explodes, not the ammo, because solid lumps of metal are not explosive and magnets...are? The up-shot is you won't be able to tell the difference between losing an arm and the gauss going with it, or the gauss being hit and blowing your arm off.

[orion0117]

I'm not arguing against the gauss as is, it is a very powerful weapon in the game, as it should be.

[Tennex]

this just isn't right lol. Gauss should be a very fast projectile

thought this game was being made by BT fans

Wolfways, on 27 January 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Actually i have no problem with the gauss having shot speed buff, but it needs a huge nerf in some other way.

ballistic weapons in general need a speed buff. ranged fighting is nonexistant and brawling is way too prevalent.

only reason why SRM ccats are an issue is because everybody and their mothers fight at brawling range.

Edited by Tennex, 27 January 2013 - 06:11 PM.

[Hoaggie]

Heeden, on 27 January 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Don't forget with Gauss the weapon explodes, not the ammo, because solid lumps of metal are not explosive and magnets...are? The up-shot is you won't be able to tell the difference between losing an arm and the gauss going with it, or the gauss being hit and blowing your arm off.

In theory, the gauss has powerfull capacitors, that's what is causing the explosions. Maybe it will help to think of them as electromagnatic explosions, that just render that component useless

[Tarman]

Tennex, on 27 January 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

this just isn't right lol. Gauss should be a very fast projectile

thought this game was being made by BT fans



ballistic weapons in general need a speed buff. ranged fighting is nonexistant and brawling is way too prevalent.

only reason why SRM ccats are an issue is because everybody and their mothers fight at brawling range.

That's more a map-size issue than a weapons issue. The maps aren't big enough to have a long-range game of any real significance. We'll see next month hopefully, what PGI thinks is a bigger map. I'm sure they know what the forums think of it anyway.

Edit: actually with real longer ranges then the round velocity of all ballistics (and the lazy missiles) may need updating. But for now it's still unnecessary.

Edited by Tarman, 27 January 2013 - 06:15 PM.