18 replies to this topic

[Specops12]

I find the Gauss to be a useless weapon now, the charge time simply ruins it. My solution to the Gauss is return it to a point and click weapon, but give it a 90 meter minimum range like it had in table top and reduce the rate of fire by an extra second from where it used to be. Thoughts?

[FupDup]

Actually, the TT minimum range was 60 meters. Also, I'd just prefer for the charge mechanic to be changed to click-charge-click instead of the current click-charge-unclick (this would make it a lot more intuitive to use).

[Joseph Mallan]

Good idea Fup!

[Specops12]

If the charge didn't go away, I wouldn't have an issue, and thanks for the correction on the TT values.

[FireSlade]

The rate of fire has already been reduced by the charge up time. Right now the charging is not that bad; it is just that some thought and control is needed to use it but most people have trouble with doing that as shown with alphas. It could use some tweaks to the mechanic and the charge held time increased. Also I never understood the whole minimum range on a kinetic weapon; physics says that the projectile has the most energy possible at the barrel and loses it through friction, gravity, etc. So how would a projectile gain energy in mid air and all of a sudden do more damage? The charging makes more sense to limit it up close and would have been impossible in TT to simulate. I would also like to see less damage done by the Gauss Rifle exploding (5 damage or so) unless it is charged or being charged then it should be a drastic explosion (30 damage) to keep people from using a macro to always keep it charged.

[Sug]

FireSlade, on 25 September 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Also I never understood the whole minimum range on a kinetic weapon

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.

[Joseph Mallan]

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.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 September 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Its a good idea but the AC2 had a very long minimum and was the lightest ballistic.

That's what MGs were for.

[Sug]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 September 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Its a good idea but the AC2 had a very long minimum and was the lightest ballistic.

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.

[FireSlade]

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.

[Joseph Mallan]

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:

That's what MGs were for.

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.

[Screech]

I would just make them non-explody unless they are charged. I actually don't mind the mechanic now. I like being able to ditch out of bad shots if they are no longer there. When cresting a ridge I will usually prime the gauss ahead of time blind then pick the target. If there is a shot I can then take it instantly, if not I waste no ammo and can reset.

Just lose the weapon explosion, there really is no need for it anymore.

[Specops12]

Fireslade, minimum range does not make any real world sence, you would be correct, but this is a game and it's about balance.

[FireSlade]

Specops12, on 25 September 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

Fireslade, minimum range does not make any real world sence, you would be correct, but this is a game and it's about balance.

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.

[Specops12]

A lack of knowledge of the inner workings of game mechanics does not mean that we should remove or omit these things for noobs or those to ignorant to learn them. Players should strive to learn about these mechanics, we should not dumb down how the game works, with silly mechanics to avoid TT rules or to turn a weapon into a "dedicated role weapon". I would say that every time the devs bring the game closer to table top, the game becomes better for it, it becomes more complex and weeds out cheap and cheesy builds and forces people to actually think.

[Hexenhammer]

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?

[Shadey99]

My experience with the gauss charge mechanic is radically different then most it seems... I have found that a charge up time helps my 60-500m accuracy and hurts my 500m+ accuracy. It made it a better CQB weapon for me and destroyed it's snap fire sniping ability. At range it can still work, but it needs more tot (time on target) than I often have.

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

[Almond Brown]

For those weapons with minimums, why don't they just go "Grey" on the weapons List when inside the min and on a target. Sort of like weapons that are out of their max. range (when pointed at nothing) do.

[FireSlade]

Specops12, on 25 September 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

A lack of knowledge of the inner workings of game mechanics does not mean that we should remove or omit these things for noobs or those to ignorant to learn them. Players should strive to learn about these mechanics, we should not dumb down how the game works, with silly mechanics to avoid TT rules or to turn a weapon into a "dedicated role weapon". I would say that every time the devs bring the game closer to table top, the game becomes better for it, it becomes more complex and weeds out cheap and cheesy builds and forces people to actually think.

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.