Intro:
A couple of weeks ago I happily fitted my Prototype Railgun to my tank. Costs as much as ~2 tank hulls to fit. It has been worth the SP, and has been plenty of fun.

This weekend I engaged an enemy railgun tank at long range on Manus Peak, though I saw hit 'bursts' no damage was seeming to be done.

As I sparred with the tank (we both lost one that match, though he got me a second time right before match end) he and I both realized we were at exactly max range- using the same gun. He managed to best me utilizing forward and backward movement to beat the range mechanic, staying out of range just long enough poke in and whallop me.

---

Breakdown:
I was positioned at the NE corner of E6 of Manus Peak, firing at the SE corner of A3.

As this is roughly 3 diagonal block lengths away. Basic geometry says if we call the sides of a block L, the max range of a railgun tank with the best railgun in game is only [ 3 * sqrt(2) * L].

This is 4.24L or ~4.25 map blocks total range.

The majority of current SMALL maps are larger than this. How will this play out when maps and territories disputed are expanded?

This means that this amazing, expensive, futuristic, ultra-destructive railgun can only shoot 2/3 of the way across many of our maps.

---

Comments:
Linking into the projectile speed line item I mentioned in a separate tank Bug thread (which I noted was mentioned in the weekly updates as being 'looked into' - Thanks!) This really negates the value and ability of these expensive machines to act in their roles as long range sluggers.

Modern tanks can fire conventional munitions at ~3000-5000 f/s (~900-1500 m/s) at targets multiple miles (1 Mile= ~5500 feet = ~1700 meters) away utilizing discarding sabot rounds. Railguns promise faster projectiles, longer ranges.

Railguns, if you just increase these conventional numbers a mere 25% for thousands of years of technology, should have almost no perceptible delay at current ranges.

The range hard-cap seems to be less than the sniper rifle, which seems to regularly make shots beyond this range.

I do not know the dimensions of the map grid as it relates to the in game range units- but I know 4 blocks can not be significant range in Meters compared to what distances long-range tanks SHOULD be able to do combat at.

Gotta disagree with you Baal:

1) Balance: This is important- to an end. What I am concerned with is the balance ongoing. I can deal with, not be happy about, only shooting 2/3 of current map length. The problem comes in that these maps are but small subsets of maps to come. The lack of range will only be more and more evident, and make rail-guns more deficient, as maps expand.

2) Damage: I don't think damage is needed. Splash increase would make me happy sure- but quite likely would be unbalanced. I can already rock infantry at range with limited splash. Plus Railgun projectile shouldn't splash much realism-wise.

3) Realism VS Balance: The short term goal with DUST514 is a badass game, but the long-term goal of CCP is not to make a badass game, but to make the most badass, comprehensive, immersive and massive Sci-Fi simulator in existence. The realism can't be the end-all be-all. Balance and technological limitations must be taken into account, but we can't discount the realism.

4) Range VS Map Balance: Weapon ranges in general could increase for almost every weapon. Increasing Optimal & Falloff- or simply falloff range- would be viable for almost every weapon. Range shouldn't affect the game and make it unbalanced. Solid Map design negates this range. Most maps you cant have shots that long, or if you do, you only have a few degrees of view angle.

** What increased range does is allow those clever enough and skilled enough to get the drop on an unsuspecting enemy, whether we are discussing infantry weapons or tank weapons, to make incredibly difficult shots where one on-screen millimeter is the difference between a hit and missing by 50ft. We are talking about difficult and skilled shots that are not always simply point and shoot- especially with projectile speed delay meaning 1.5s-2s before shots impact.**

5) Range as OP: If me shooting you at ~1000yds (Where nothing but another tank can hurt me) isn't OP now, why is me shooting at ~1500yds or ~1700yds (where nothing but another tank can hurt me) OP if changed?

Intro:
A couple of weeks ago I happily fitted my Prototype Railgun to my tank. Costs as much as ~2 tank hulls to fit. It has been worth the SP, and has been plenty of fun.

This weekend I engaged an enemy railgun tank at long range on Manus Peak, though I saw hit 'bursts' no damage was seeming to be done.

As I sparred with the tank (we both lost one that match, though he got me a second time right before match end) he and I both realized we were at exactly max range- using the same gun. He managed to best me utilizing forward and backward movement to beat the range mechanic, staying out of range just long enough poke in and whallop me.

---

Breakdown:
I was positioned at the NE corner of E6 of Manus Peak, firing at the SE corner of A3.

As this is roughly 3 diagonal block lengths away. Basic geometry says if we call the sides of a block L, the max range of a railgun tank with the best railgun in game is only [ 3 * sqrt(2) * L].

This is 4.24L or ~4.25 map blocks total range.

The majority of current SMALL maps are larger than this. How will this play out when maps and territories disputed are expanded?

This means that this amazing, expensive, futuristic, ultra-destructive railgun can only shoot 2/3 of the way across many of our maps.

---

Comments:
Linking into the projectile speed line item I mentioned in a separate tank Bug thread (which I noted was mentioned in the weekly updates as being 'looked into' - Thanks!) This really negates the value and ability of these expensive machines to act in their roles as long range sluggers.

Modern tanks can fire conventional munitions at ~3000-5000 f/s (~900-1500 m/s) at targets multiple miles (1 Mile= ~5500 feet = ~1700 meters) away utilizing discarding sabot rounds. Railguns promise faster projectiles, longer ranges.

Railguns, if you just increase these conventional numbers a mere 25% for thousands of years of technology, should have almost no perceptible delay at current ranges.

The range hard-cap seems to be less than the sniper rifle, which seems to regularly make shots beyond this range.

I do not know the dimensions of the map grid as it relates to the in game range units- but I know 4 blocks can not be significant range in Meters compared to what distances long-range tanks SHOULD be able to do combat at.

To the first point, you don't balance a game based on what you plan to have in it down the road, you balance it based on what you have and adjust it as you add more over time.

To point 3, you are talking about realism in a world where consciousness can be transferred between cloned bodies and people pilot ships from inside a pod. This game is not only set in the future, but is based around 4 different societies that each pretty much had to rebuild their scientific knowledge from scratch after the collapse of the Eve gate that connected to the Milkyway galaxy (forgive me if my Eve lore is a little shaky, I've only read through the backstory a couple of times), meaning earth science bears no power over it. They may have limitations that we do not, and they may have advantages that we do not. The laws of physics still apply, but just as CCP created New Eden, they can create their own laws of physics for it. Sure, they tend to keep it similar to allow immersion, but in order to make a game that can be balanced they have to allow for odd physics.

If you were to argue this point, you would also have to argue that HMG's, SMG's, missiles, swarms and forge guns should all have devastatingly long ranges as well. HMG's and SMG's are both projectile weapons, which means they should be able to shoot from the snipers hill above Bravo in Manus Peak all the way over to Charlie with just a slight amount of bullet drop due to the distance. They would also shoot much more accurately under earth physics. Missiles and swarms should travel just about as far as the rail gun you want, though much more slowly, and would each deal much more damage. Forge guns would have approximately the same range and speed as the rail you want though.

However, if you did all of this the game would be completely unbalanced.

Rails need a limited range since it's OHK and can hit almost anything it can see. Just like HMG's and SMG's need a limited range since their ROF makes them far too powerful to be a mid-long range weapon. Just like missiles need limited damage and range to prevent a catastrophe like what happened this past November. Real life physics are fine and good when they work well within what you are trying to do, but balance has to be the end goal otherwise you end up with an unplayable mess.

If you were to argue this point, you would also have to argue that HMG's, SMG's, missiles, swarms and forge guns should all have devastatingly long ranges as well. HMG's and SMG's are both projectile weapons, which means they should be able to shoot from the snipers hill above Bravo in Manus Peak all the way over to Charlie with just a slight amount of bullet drop due to the distance. They would also shoot much more accurately under earth physics. Missiles and swarms should travel just about as far as the rail gun you want, though much more slowly, and would each deal much more damage. Forge guns would have approximately the same range and speed as the rail you want though.

However, if you did all of this the game would be completely unbalanced.

Rails need a limited range since it's OHK and can hit almost anything it can see. Just like HMG's and SMG's need a limited range since their ROF makes them far too powerful to be a mid-long range weapon. Just like missiles need limited damage and range to prevent a catastrophe like what happened this past November.

Adding range to all weapons so you could hit anything you could see would make sharpshooter skills redundant would break the weapon balancing system and cause CCP to have to rework every weapon in the game, and force the game to be played completely differently. This would no longer be the same game; it would be COD with huge maps and vehicles. And don't get me wrong, I don't hate COD, but if I wanted to play it I'd pop it into the ps3 and do so. Range limitations make this game what it is, makes the gameplay work the way it does, and removing them would make this game something entirely different altogether.

Apart from that, CCP has said that handling that many bullets at once over that long a distance would be impossible for their servers, let alone our hardware. I brought up the question of projectiles from projectile weapons disappearing after a distance, and this was the answer. Which means every weapon will have to have SOME range limitations. The more bullets it puts out, likely the shorter it's range will be.

EDIT: And as for the OHK comments I gave earlier, I was referring to all things none tank. A rail like that will 1 shotany drop suit, LAV, perhaps not a tanked out high level dropship, that might take two. Basically 90% of what a rail tank runs into in battle, it can OHK. It's not a false premise if you don't hone in on just the topic of tanks.

This is a pure description of how a HARD range cap is a HUGE GAMEPLAY NIGHTMARE.
this other guys killed you using a BROKEN mechaninc being on the edge of a VIRTUAL WALL that BLOCK damage as soon as you hit this invisible wall of range cap.
This is ridiculus.
they could impliment the limit with reduced damage or reduced accuracy but the current mechanic is PLAIN STUPID.