490 replies to this topic

[h0wl]

Spadejack, on 14 September 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

The Gauss is dead, long live the UAC5...! Oh wait, the UAC5 is going to be nerfed also...

To be honest, i enjoyed the Gauss, it was a good weapon. If i cant put an AC20, the gauss was the popular choice.
Now, with this charge thing, it just killed the weapon.
But theres one thing that it is really annoying me, my hero mechs... i feel that my Heavy Metal and Dragon Slayer just got useless. If i could, at least fit an AC20on them, to become competitive, but no... the gauss is useless now, and along the way, it just killed these heromechs.

I also bought the phoenix project. Yesterday, i ask for a refund! Im not paying PGI ane more cent if they keep going this path! And the trash talk about skill, its just BS, the gauss has become as usefull as a knob on a chair, and the PPCs heat is just abysmal.
The ghost heat was a brilliant solution against boating, a solution that i agree 100%. Then why the recent nerfs?

I do hope that they fix the gauss to the way it was, or at least let the hero mechs carry an AC20, since you can mount an AC20 on a Raven or a cicada, not being able to put an AC20 on assault mechs is just stupid...

I agree with you, instead of messing with the weapons and neutering them and implementing ridiculous heat schemes to stop them from being used in alpha strikes they should let the game play sort itself out based on the design of the mechs and work on better maps and modes of game-play that put an emphasis on why different mechs are needed. Unfortunately I don't think they're that bright. The changes they are making are centered around single-player game-play - making no load-out over-powered with regard to alpha-strikes. But 80-100 ton mechs SHOULD have an over-powered alpha strike compared to a lighter mech. The game isn't as fun as it was initially. I've never seen a developer tweak a game and make it worse like this as it's developed. Usually you see developers adding weapons, adding different modes of game-play and the players look forward to the additions. To be honest, I dread seeing what they're going to wreck next. Can you guess how that makes me want to feel with regard to spending any more money in it...

[MustrumRidcully]

Wolfways, on 15 September 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

"First off, the Gauss Rifle. As mentioned in AtD45, I stated that the changes to the Gauss Rifle's firing mechanic were to help make it a role specific weapon. Testing has proven that while the mechanic takes a bit to get used to, it is very effective at defining the Gauss Rifle as a long range sniper weapon. The charge time is easy to get used to, due to its short (0.75 second) delay. While it is meant to be a long range weapon, the Gauss Rifle is still usable at short range. It just requires a much higher skill shot rather than a simple point and click.

This is the first of our upcoming changes that involve diversifying some of the weapon systems into more defined role types. These won't be big game changers, just small tweaks to bring some of the weapons in line with the rest. More info will be released as we put changes into the pipeline"

All i read there was "Because of the ridiculous heat system we're having problems balancing weapons, so instead we decided to ignore the problem again and screw about with the weapons, giving them overly complicated "tweaks".

You can also read:

"Also, we want to encourage people to build more boats, because boating is the best way to avoid dealing with different special snowflake weapon mechanics."

[Steel Talon]

UAC need jam mechanic changed to smth more deterministic.
Total RNG simply does not below to a game attempting to become E-sport title!

[Lon3Wo1f]

I can't accept the gauss rifle as it is now. Why must every weapon and / or mech be given a specific role? If I want to run around with a Spider and one large pulse laser that should be my choice without any silly artificial penalty coming into play. I know there is nothing stopping me using a Spider that way but if I want to put a gauss rifle on my Flame for the dual punch of gauss and ppc I now have to be a lot more forward thinking with my ppc shots and even more forward thinking with the gauss.

It packed a punch, it had no heat penalty but it was also the first thing destroyed on my mech most of the time after its health was crippled months ago. It couldn't be equipped by all mechs due to size and weight but if a non-standard mech wanted to fit it, say a Raven, they had to sacrifice a lot to equip it. That is the balance you play with in risk / reward terms for those crazy builds and now you won't see those or likely many builds using the gauss again.

Why must it be given a role at all but especially that of a long range sniper? Do you realise the charge will make it harder for sniping with? Who thought this was a smart move? This is the sort of thing you have running for a month or more on a test server so you can gauge potential changes. If you'd done that I bet you'd see what you're likely seeing now and that is likely rapidly declining use of gauss rifles in all builds.

Talk about balance means nothing when you effectively ruin the builds of a lot of people including those using your cash cow Hero mechs. I didn't buy a Flame to play long range support nor did I buy it to play guess where my shot will land if I time the charge properly. You've already lost 50% of your founders by your own estimates and now you're risking alienating those still giving you money. It's like you have a hat full of ideas where all the good ideas have been removed and thrown away to make way for more bad ideas.

[Lon3Wo1f]

MustrumRidcully, on 16 September 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

You can also read:

"Also, we want to encourage people to build more boats, because boating is the best way to avoid dealing with different special snowflake weapon mechanics."

Yes let's build more boats so they can see what area they should nerf next! After all the changes I don't know if there will be anything left of the game if it's still going a year from now. Will we just have mechs where every build is radically different but equally pointless? Maybe it'll just be where every build can play nice and shoot fireworks at each other with the goal to be making pretty colours in the sky while dancing happily in the ruins of civilisation. Whatever it is I know that it won't be MechWarrior. At least not any MechWarrior I'm familiar with that's for sure.

[MavRCK]

The gauss is a bit unwieldily and I find that the sound effects of the gauss charging are easily drowned out by other battle sounds. Furthermore, the charge-up and delay to fire and holding of the gauss has dramatically decreased its dps.

Suggestions:

1. Increase sound / change sound of charge up to make it more obvious in the midst of battle.
2. Decrease the recycle time to account for the charge up and delay to fire time. ie. reduce recycle to 2.5 seconds.
3. I would also suggest decrease the charge up time to 0.5s and make the delay to fire 1.0 - with a recycle time of 2.5 seconds this gives the same dps as previous to the gauss changes
4. Since the gauss is more difficult to use and still explodes, give it the same health as other equipment (10 health).

[Genesis Rex]

I was thinking that you might be able to tweak the Gauss without forcing everyone to charge up.

Perhaps we can tweak it like function similar to missile tubes, where if you open them they fire faster but take more damage. In addition to taking more damage from being "open" perhaps we can also some consistent heat generation, say, adding 10 - 20% to your heat output.
So what this would look like is an "open" gauss would take more damage, and bring up your 'mech's baseline heat, but in a pinch you can fire it slightly quicker and without having to hold down the fire button.

Thoughts?

[Kosmonaut]

Dear PGI, please try this: one-click charge for the Gauss rifle, it can only explode while charging or charged, no penalty for keeping it charged for a long time.

[FireDog]

Not liking the Gauss nerf at all. At most PGI should have added a second or two to its reload time. Current firing mechanic ruins the fun for me, and many others I talk to on comms. As you might see from you game logs it is sidelining many mechs we have enjoyed piloting up to now.

I get the feeling PGI seems to nerf any weapon that may actually give light fast laggy mechs an issue. They are in love with the concept that lights should be able to brawl one-on-one with assaults and heavies. It that were the case there would be NO assaults and heavy on the battlefield as they cost much more than lights.

PGI, you are trying the interest of many of your best fans with these artificial tweaks and game mods, Starting with the most critical 1.5 tons in the game - ECM which even by Mechwarrior universe standards is plain magic, the climbing nerf which destroyed the playability of several maps, ghost heat which nerfed configs that WOULD be deployed in a Mechwarrior game world, a greatly increased cockpit/hud on Catapults to cripple them for missions YOU say they would not be doing, and finally a BS gauss firing mechanic to save the legs of your beloved light mechs. All in all you may wish to reconsider the damage you are causing your fan base.

[Tekadept]

By changing the gauss it has invalidated most of my builds, I never ran 2 PPC and a gauss, i ran simple mechs with a gauss as the primary weapon with a few backups, now they are gimped to a certain degree.. The balance has been done as if the Gauss is an OP weapon, it isnt. It is only an issue when paired with another weapon combo.

Really the idea behind it was to stop the 2 ppc & gauss fest right? Wouldnt it have just been easier to keep the gauss firing the way it is, but make it that you cant fire ppc and gauss at within .75 seconds of each other and claim its to do with too much power draw on the space time flux capacitors

[Jack Spade Ward]

Tekadept, on 19 September 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

By changing the gauss it has invalidated most of my builds, I never ran 2 PPC and a gauss, i ran simple mechs with a gauss as the primary weapon with a few backups, now they are gimped to a certain degree.. The balance has been done as if the Gauss is an OP weapon, it isnt. It is only an issue when paired with another weapon combo.

Really the idea behind it was to stop the 2 ppc & gauss fest right? Wouldnt it have just been easier to keep the gauss firing the way it is, but make it that you cant fire ppc and gauss at within .75 seconds of each other and claim its to do with too much power draw on the space time flux capacitors

I really think that is a good ideia!!!

One other ideia is hardpoint capacity and space. It should be diferent for every mech, and alowing / disabling certain weapons on certain mechs. For example, puting a gauss ou an AC20 on a Raven, whould simply not fit, due to size / hardpoint weight.
That could solve the gauss / PPC boating, and no need for strange gauss mechanics. The CAT-K2 could simply not fit 2 gauss, due to the size of the weapon fiting on a 65T mech. We all know that the gauss is a huge weapon, so it couldn be fit in all mechs that have a balistic hardpoint. The Cataphract 3D was the mech that mostly used 2 PPC / Gauss combo. It could simply be modified its energy hardpoints. One could fit a PPC, but the other one could only fit a medium laser, for example.

This ideia, would put each and every mech for unique, more realistic (no more spiders with ERPPC, cicadas with AC20), and it would also redefine slots in hardpoints / mech. It would also change the endo-steel and ferro-fibrous configuration. For those, ferro fibrous could simply increase a mechs armor by 20% (for example) and endo steel could also take some of the weight of a mech, all of these without taking critical slots from hardpoints. Slots in hard points, would simply be used for weapons, with weight and size limitations.

I really think this way, there would be no problems in boating huge weapons, since every single mech would be limited to its own desing. If you can fit an AC20 on a specific hardpoint, than you can fit every balistic weapon. If the biggest weapon you can fit is a Gauss, than AC10, AC5 and AC2 could also be fitted, except AC20. This way, no need for ghost heat, no need for weird gauss mechanics, and all would be well! (except for spiders that carry PPCs...)

[Frost Lord]

the changes bring more skill to the game and makes things more interesting as well as making a good start at braking up alpha strikes and encouraging players to use it the way it was intended wile still making it viable at close range.

1. the delay will still make shots hit other components a lot of the time or even miss

2 I always have used one of my mouse buttons anyway. i have 2 extra buttons on my mouse but a Guss is to good a wepon to not use with one of my main fire buttons
3 that's actually a good thing tho iv done it a few times you just need someone to have them targeted or persistent target lock and timing. its hard but then its also devastating for a light
4. it also has a lot less range it dose fit in with PPCs well but you have a lot of heat to compensate for so its an option that depends on your play style.
5. this is what the change is meant to do stop people taking it to add a heap of damage to a already powerful point blank no skill alpha strike for next to no extra heat
6. that's an option but not many mechs can do it (Cat and jager are the only two i can think of rest ever don't have two ballistic slots or there in the same component) plus with the delay they would be easy to take out with lights.
7. Im normally zoomed in so i cant see them till they get right in my way anyway people need to learn to pay attention to other teem mates. and not block shots. but it would be awful if they used that as a reason to change unrelated mechanics they should address spacing by adding tips tutorials or just linking videos on you tube.

this will just make twin guess .5 a sec slower you would still get that first alpha strike and then the delay would be an advantage as much as a disadvantage, if your second PPC strike didn't hit the right spot you could adjust to make the Gauss still count. or you could just use lasers.

[Frost Lord]

Spadejack, on 20 September 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

I really think that is a good ideia!!!

One other ideia is hardpoint capacity and space. It should be diferent for every mech, and alowing / disabling certain weapons on certain mechs. For example, puting a gauss ou an AC20 on a Raven, whould simply not fit, due to size / hardpoint weight.
That could solve the gauss / PPC boating, and no need for strange gauss mechanics. The CAT-K2 could simply not fit 2 gauss, due to the size of the weapon fiting on a 65T mech. We all know that the gauss is a huge weapon, so it couldn be fit in all mechs that have a balistic hardpoint. The Cataphract 3D was the mech that mostly used 2 PPC / Gauss combo. It could simply be modified its energy hardpoints. One could fit a PPC, but the other one could only fit a medium laser, for example.

This ideia, would put each and every mech for unique, more realistic (no more spiders with ERPPC, cicadas with AC20), and it would also redefine slots in hardpoints / mech. It would also change the endo-steel and ferro-fibrous configuration. For those, ferro fibrous could simply increase a mechs armor by 20% (for example) and endo steel could also take some of the weight of a mech, all of these without taking critical slots from hardpoints. Slots in hard points, would simply be used for weapons, with weight and size limitations.

I really think this way, there would be no problems in boating huge weapons, since every single mech would be limited to its own desing. If you can fit an AC20 on a specific hardpoint, than you can fit every balistic weapon. If the biggest weapon you can fit is a Gauss, than AC10, AC5 and AC2 could also be fitted, except AC20. This way, no need for ghost heat, no need for weird gauss mechanics, and all would be well! (except for spiders that carry PPCs...)

it was more then just PPCs it was the fact it was actually best used at close range as part of an alpha strike when it is meant to be a long range weapon predominantly. I don't think it is a wearied mechanic its like the weapon needs to charge up to fire. i think they would get a lot of rage if they suddenly servilely hamstring some mechs in what they could use, by changing the number of slots in serton compartments and many wouldn't make much sense, lights ok but putting big guns on lights already has its limitations ammo mainly for ballistics and heat over lode for ppcs large lasers but if a heavy cant take a weapon because it is to big then it would be contradicting to think a medium could support the same weapon but if you applied the same limitations to them most of them would be awful mechs and would need there base setups changed.
most of what you suggested would actually contradict the battle tech law or make customization a nightmare or servilely restrict what changes a player could make. rather then go that far it would probably be better to take customization away all together.

[Jack Spade Ward]

Frost Lord, on 21 September 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

it was more then just PPCs it was the fact it was actually best used at close range as part of an alpha strike when it is meant to be a long range weapon predominantly. I don't think it is a wearied mechanic its like the weapon needs to charge up to fire. i think they would get a lot of rage if they suddenly servilely hamstring some mechs in what they could use, by changing the number of slots in serton compartments and many wouldn't make much sense, lights ok but putting big guns on lights already has its limitations ammo mainly for ballistics and heat over lode for ppcs large lasers but if a heavy cant take a weapon because it is to big then it would be contradicting to think a medium could support the same weapon but if you applied the same limitations to them most of them would be awful mechs and would need there base setups changed.
most of what you suggested would actually contradict the battle tech law or make customization a nightmare or servilely restrict what changes a player could make. rather then go that far it would probably be better to take customization away all together.

I dont agree with you. If you could limit the hardpoints, it would make every and each Mech unique. Its hard to make sense when a raven can carry an ac20 and a dragon slayer cant for example.
One thing i do agree with you, in the beggining, there would be alot of rage, but people would get there easy, because its logical and it makes sense!

[Lupus Aurelius]

Spadejack, on 21 September 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

I dont agree with you. If you could limit the hardpoints, it would make every and each Mech unique. Its hard to make sense when a raven can carry an ac20 and a dragon slayer cant for example.
One thing i do agree with you, in the beggining, there would be alot of rage, but people would get there easy, because its logical and it makes sense!

This has been suggested many times before, and has mostly been ignored.

-Each Mech has a base heat amount, unique for the most part, with bigger mechs having better heat, and possibly as well larger engines having better heat than smaller ones ( that would be an interesting mechanic, do I go for a larger engine for more speed and heat, but less firepower, or a smaller engine to save weight and add firepower, but with less heat?). Heat sinks do not add more heat level to the mech, they merely increase the heat dissipation rate, so the more heatsinks you have, the faster the heat dissipates. DHS at that point can actually be "double" single heat sinks

-Hardpoints are not open to all the crits in that location, but are limited to crit spots. So, having 3 energy on a right torso might mean there were 6 energy crits there. You could fit 3 large lasers, 2 PPCs but not 3 PPCs, or a PPC/LL/ML. Same for ballistics and missiles, 2 ballistics in an arm, but only 5 ballistic slots, so you could fir 2 AC2, an AC2 and an AC5, but not 2 AC5s. Similar to the way it was in MW4.

These 2 mechanics combined would remove alot of the boating issues. No 6 PPC stalkers or 4 AC5 cataphracts, and actually force balanced builds. It would also make each mech more unique, giving more variety for lance compositions and not just seeing the same handful of mechs all the time. Heat handled per the above would also reduce the use of alphas to a "last resort" type of maneuver, since doing more than 1, or possible 2, alphas would shut down almost any mech. Now it would be an issue of how to deliver damage over time instead of all at once, making the games longer with more variety of tactics.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 22 September 2013 - 04:12 AM.

[Yss]

I hate this gauss dalay! Smart gamers will use macros to sync it with ppc, and others will suffer or won't use. So stop inventing crutches.

[JediBear]

Okay, so I'm late to this party (Rome 2 will do that to a person,) but I feel a need to put in my two cents anyway.

Gauss charging:
I don't like it.

Sure, that's subjective, but it's also fair. Some people apparently like it, I don't.

1) The Gauss Rifle is not supposed to be a role-specific weapon. In tabletop play it's fully effective anywhere from three hexes to 22, with the largest portion of its range being in the medium bracket. That is to say that it's a medium-range gun that functions effectively at short and extended range. It's an all-purpose gun, in other words, that pays for that capability with its tremendous weight, ammunition limitations, and tendency to explode. In trying to pigeonhole it as a "sniper gun," you've completely misread it.

2) The specific mechanic chosen doesn't align well with lore. Lore-wise, Gauss Rifles charge immediately after firing and hold their charge until fired. Unless technical limitations somehow demanded it, it's impossible to imagine why anyone would design such a weapon any other way, because

3) It actually is very difficult to use, which is anathema to military weapon design. I mean, kudos to you if you were able to adapt quickly, but I can't and I won't and I'm not the only one.

Please get rid of Gauss charging. It's a pointlessly fiddly mechanic that makes the game less fun (for humans) to play. If you're not going to get rid of it, it needs to be explained better. I went in without any clue that the change was being made and all I could figure was "My Gauss won't fire." I had no indication as to why that might be.

I may have shelled out my money as a low-grade Founder, but as much as I love Battletech, there are other games out there that are more fun for me at the moment.

[StoneMason]

Yup, at the very least extend the charge time and add better notifications to know it's charged. I was very surprised that I enjoyed using Gauss so much back in beta, I didn't think it would suit my playstyle. I thought it was a liability, heavy, vulnerable and inflexible. Eventually I learned to make up for it's weakness's through cautious play and good gunnery. I haven't played much at all since the charge was added, it's such a depressingly unintuitive mechanic (I also brought a Heavy Metal a few weeks earlier, just for sniping. That hasn't helped my morale).

I think the velocity changes have done a good job of separating it's fire from PPC alphas but the weapon itself now makes little sense. It's got terrible dps for it's weight, it explodes without charge, it's unreliable for a military weapon and it's a liability on anything under 85 tons. Worst of all, it's just not as fun to use. I don't mind losing my heat neutral 35 point alpha, I do mind losing one of my favorite weapons to my lack of dexterity.

But when I decide to use it again, I'm only a macro away from that same alpha strike...

JediBear, on 24 September 2013 - 12:50 AM, said:

Okay, so I'm late to this party (Rome 2 will do that to a person,) but I feel a need to put in my two cents anyway.

Gauss charging:
I don't like it.

Sure, that's subjective, but it's also fair. Some people apparently like it, I don't.

1) The Gauss Rifle is not supposed to be a role-specific weapon. In tabletop play it's fully effective anywhere from three hexes to 22, with the largest portion of its range being in the medium bracket. That is to say that it's a medium-range gun that functions effectively at short and extended range. It's an all-purpose gun, in other words, that pays for that capability with its tremendous weight, ammunition limitations, and tendency to explode. In trying to pigeonhole it as a "sniper gun," you've completely misread it.

2) The specific mechanic chosen doesn't align well with lore. Lore-wise, Gauss Rifles charge immediately after firing and hold their charge until fired. Unless technical limitations somehow demanded it, it's impossible to imagine why anyone would design such a weapon any other way, because

3) It actually is very difficult to use, which is anathema to military weapon design. I mean, kudos to you if you were able to adapt quickly, but I can't and I won't and I'm not the only one.

Please get rid of Gauss charging. It's a pointlessly fiddly mechanic that makes the game less fun (for humans) to play. If you're not going to get rid of it, it needs to be explained better. I went in without any clue that the change was being made and all I could figure was "My Gauss won't fire." I had no indication as to why that might be.

I may have shelled out my money as a low-grade Founder, but as much as I love Battletech, there are other games out there that are more fun for me at the moment.

[Lensman Prime]

Kosmonaut, on 19 September 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Dear PGI, please try this: one-click charge for the Gauss rifle, it can only explode while charging or charged, no penalty for keeping it charged for a long time.

I agree with MavRCK and Kosmonaut in essence, leaning a bit more toward Kosmonaut.

It doesn't make sense that a Gauss would blow unless it's energized. Before, the statistics for blowing up made sense, now they don't.

The "JJ jiggle" made jumpsniping a skill which needed to be in the game, but the charge mechanics for gauss need a bit of work guys.

[Cest7]

I haven't seen a single post from PGI regarding the Guass rifle. If they actually intended on moving forward.... why not fix the recycle time. As it stand now, the gauss was changed and the moving forward was left to the community.