2 replies to this topic

[Gods Wrath]

[color="#000000"]It seem like more and more often weapons get nerfed and no real though about the physics of the weapon(s) is put into what they want to do to the weapon. The prime example is the gauss. The cool down time was 4 and still is 4. That “cool” down time was the time required for the weapon to reload a projectile and recharge the capacitor. Now you have to manually charge the capacitor so why is the cool down time still 4? Also, do you still sustain damage if the gauss is destroyed and you do not have a charge on it? The destruction of the capacitor in the gauss is the reason damage is done to the mech when the gauss is destroyed. Capacitors today in something like an amplifier can hold a charge for several minutes once charged, less than a second for something as advanced as the gauss? If you are going to make a change as they did to the gauss then other aspects of the gauss should have also been changed, mainly the cool down time (should be no more than 3) and no damage to the mech if the weapon is destroyed without a charge on it. Just remember, the gauss loads a much smaller shell than the AC20 (4 sec cool down) and does not have to eject the spent casing as the AC20 does. Most of the 4 sec cool down time of the gauss was for the recharge of the capacitor.[/color]
[color="#000000"]The weapon this nerf would have made MUCH better sense on would have been the PPC. Unlike the laser or cannon this weapon fires an energy projectile. Where does this projectile come from?, thin air? No, it must be “charged” or built up. Can this magical energy ball last forever once created, most likely not but we don’t have anything even close to this today. Therefore, the “charge” firing used for the gauss should have been applied to this weapon. This would have made a lot of sense. You charge up the projectile then if not fired within a certain period of time it dissipates. Maybe even make it to where it has to be fired at the max level for max damage. On either side of max (charge up or dissipation) the projectile can still be fired but does less damage? [/color]
[color="#000000"]And now with the clans they want, for example, to make an SSRM6 only fire 2 at a time, why? Is it not the same (even more advanced) than the SRM6 just better guidance? I could see MAYBE decreasing the number of shots per ton to account for the guidance in the war heads, MAYBE! Or maybe each missile does a little less (not more as now) damage due to the space required in the warhead for guidance.[/color]
[color="#000000"]My point, put some thought and physics into these nerfs, not just we have to make this weapon less powerful because the game isn’t balanced. Your thoughts?[/color]

[Cest7]

Please format

[Kaeb Odellas]

Physics? No one cares about that because nothing in the franchise makes any sense from a realism standpoint anyway. I mean seriously, giant bipedal robots as actual weapons of war? "Long-ranged" missiles effective to only 1000 meters? SRMs that self-detonate after just 270 meters? Storing ammunition for an arm-mounted weapon in the legs? None of these make sense.

Weapon balance is far more important, though to be honest PGI hasn't done a tremendous job with balance as well.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 08 January 2014 - 12:18 PM.