A Better Solution To The "gauss Problem"
#1
Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:18 AM
#2
Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:20 AM
#3
Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:21 AM
#4
Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:27 AM
#5
Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:28 AM
#6
Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:35 AM
FireSlade, on 25 September 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:
I believe that for ballistic weapons in TT the minimum range was an attempt to simulate that the weapons were so massive or their barrels were so long you couldn't quickly bring them to bear on close moving targets. Or something.
Though the lighter AC's have minimum ranges and PGI has never attempted to translate this into the game.
Edited by Sug, 25 September 2013 - 09:37 AM.
#7
Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:36 AM
Sug, on 25 September 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:
I believe that for ballistic weapons in TT the minimum range was an attempt to simulate that the weapons were so massive you couldn't quickly bring them to bear on close moving targets. Or something.
Its a good idea but the AC2 had a very long minimum and was the lightest ballistic.
#9
Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:42 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 25 September 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:
But the max range was much much further on AC2's, so they would have a much longer and heavier barrel. It's the difference between shooting a .22 rifle and a .22 pistol.
Edited by Sug, 25 September 2013 - 09:42 AM.
#10
Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:48 AM
Sug, on 25 September 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:
I believe that for ballistic weapons in TT the minimum range was an attempt to simulate that the weapons were so massive or their barrels were so long you couldn't quickly bring them to bear on close moving targets. Or something.
Though the lighter AC's have minimum ranges and PGI has never attempted to translate this into the game.
Makes sense and is a good way to simulate that; it is also the reason why I have always been against PGI's instant convergence. Trying to swing a 15 ton weapon around and having it always line up with the crosshairs in an instant, has created a lot of problems for the game. Then they try to fix those problems with overly complicated solutions like ghost heat.
#11
Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:57 AM
Sug, on 25 September 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:
But the max range was much much further on AC2's, so they would have a much longer and heavier barrel. It's the difference between shooting a .22 rifle and a .22 pistol.
.22 rifle can fire further and is heavier than a .22 pistol. And I am quite good with the M16 at all ranges.
FupDup, on 25 September 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:
Apologies... MGs don't really have a place at my CBT table outside of Battle Armor.
Edited by Joseph Mallan, 25 September 2013 - 09:58 AM.
#12
Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:59 AM
Just lose the weapon explosion, there really is no need for it anymore.
#13
Posted 25 September 2013 - 10:09 AM
#14
Posted 25 September 2013 - 10:17 AM
Specops12, on 25 September 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:
True, this is a game and as such the charge up works for balancing the minimum range aspect of the Gauss Rifle. In game problem, is that there is not enough info for the weapon's specs. and many, especially new, players do not know the min, optimal, and max ranges. The charging is much easier to comprehend, use, and adapt to than something hidden saying "you cannot do damage below this range." Just look at how people still will use the PPC below 90 meters or LRMs within 180 meters.
#15
Posted 25 September 2013 - 10:29 AM
#16
Posted 25 September 2013 - 10:32 AM
Sug, on 25 September 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:
I believe that for ballistic weapons in TT the minimum range was an attempt to simulate that the weapons were so massive or their barrels were so long you couldn't quickly bring them to bear on close moving targets. Or something.
Though the lighter AC's have minimum ranges and PGI has never attempted to translate this into the game.
If PGI could do this it'd be great but convergence needs to be fixed as well. Perfect example. How can the Jagermech with no horizontal arm movement shot a mech in the center torso that it's chest to chest with?
#17
Posted 25 September 2013 - 10:34 AM
The problem of people still using PPCs below 90m comes from several things:
* No clear indication other than a single stat field in the mechlab about it's minimum range
* No visible indicator that it doesn't 'work' below minimum range
* History of reduced damage within it's minimum
Charging is often just as mystical however...
* People often cannot hear or misinterpret the charge sound
* People are generally ignorant of the weapon group status indicators around the sight
* Said indicators are so small you have to focus where you are looking to see them well (not so good for intense fire fights)
* The only other indicator is the weapon group main display way out of sight
* Holding the button & releasing it is counter-intuitive to all other weapons in the game
#18
Posted 25 September 2013 - 10:51 AM
#19
Posted 25 September 2013 - 10:55 AM
Specops12, on 25 September 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:
I agree that we should not dumb the game down for those that have too much trouble. I also think that the charge up mechanic does not dumb the game down; it requires you to think differently, to put more thought in each shot than pointing and clicking, and it de-syncs the GR from the PPC. To be honest this, boating and many others, would never have been an issue if PGI used a little fore-thought and came up with a easy to understand aiming mechanic that follows physics that we all understand. Poptarts, PPCs, PPCs + GR, AC40, Twin GRs, etc. would never had been an issue if PGI had not made the convergence instantaneous, making the fixes (aka kneejerk reactions) that they implemented (JJ shake [though I admit that I like this one], ghost heat, charge up for GR, etc.) overly complicated and harder to use.
Edited by FireSlade, 25 September 2013 - 10:57 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users