180 replies to this topic

[WILL WORK FOR AMMO]

I told myself I shouldn't post here but I just have to now.

Gyrok, on 03 July 2015 - 02:16 PM, said:

K2 has greater range of motion for the gauss as pitch and yaw are greater versus the TW, and the convergence is off the charts.

Base pitch range for the K2 is 16 degrees (for comparison, TBR gets 20 degrees pitch range). While it may be 4 degrees, it seems calculated, as there are a number of advantageous positions for the DG K2 that I've learned to avoid, because I am just barely unable to aim high or low enough with weapons in the STs to take advantage of them.
As for yaw, even with an XL315, the K2 turns slower (torso and whole body) than a TBR. Not much slower with the 315, but engine is something I'll get into below.
I can't speak for convergence though. I still have not bought a Timberwolf. I'll just concede that point.

Gyrok, on 03 July 2015 - 02:16 PM, said:

As for effectively...let us put some requirements forth:

The mech must be able to run a minimum of 5 tons of ammo for 2 gauss rifles while meeting the following rules:

1.) The mech must maintain 90+% of the maximum armor allowed

2.) The mech must be able to mount backup weapons in addition to meeting the ammo and armor requirements

2GR 2ML K2 under these requirements (pending sensible armor distribution)
If you use FF, you have to drop down to a STD200 and single heat sinks. At this point, you turn and move just a little bit faster than a direwolf. If you decide to go this route, you cannot fit CASE on account of slots. I will just assume the XL255 build, justifying the risk by maneuverability gained.
You could drop a ML but that feels like skirting around the requirements for backup weapons. You could switch to SLs but being in optimal range to use those SLs is suicidal as the K2, unless you have the firepower to make that tactic sensible.
After mastery it turns 44 deg/s body and 78 deg/s torso (compare to TBR: 57, 100 respectively). This difference in turning ability somewhat balances out the difference in torso turn range between the two (though by how much, I can't attest to). The TBR also moves somewhere in the realm of 19 to 20kph faster.
As for armor distribution, because a single GR explosion will nearly send you into spectate mode (and very rarely do I survive losing a gauss rifle as it is), frontloading your armor to protect yourself from enemies like 2GR 2PPC DWF snipers sounds like a good idea. But in that engine, a light or fast medium is able to quickly destroy your gauss rifle from the back.
I will testify that the number one issue I had adjusting to while playing a variant of the dual-GR K2 when clans dropped were the 2GR 2PPC DWFs, as spreading damage across the STs became far more risk and was only exacerbated with the quirkening. And taking all that damage to the CT...well, I don't think I need to say anything about that.

I have a feeling you're just trolling though, as any dual GR timberwolf build will not meet both requirements.

Edited by WILL WORK FOR AMMO, 03 July 2015 - 03:42 PM.

[Gyrok]

WILL WORK FOR AMMO, on 03 July 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

I have a feeling you're just trolling though, as any dual GR timberwolf build will not meet both requirements.

This was my point...the TW fails to meet the requirements.

In fact, all but 3 clan mechs fail to meet these reqs, and of those, the WHK can only mount 1 ERML for backup (if you want to count that as backup).

The EBJ, WHK, and DW are the only clan chassis that can effectively run DG.

Meanwhile the IS has the K2, any JM6, any of 3 CTFs, any KGC and the upcoming MAL,

Clans also have the HBK IIC and, possibly, the Orion IIC that could as well...though we need to see how that plays out. The Orion IIC may not be a good DG platform depending on how that comes out as the mounts are incredibly low.

Edited by Gyrok, 03 July 2015 - 04:19 PM.

[Aiden Skye]

This dead horse again?

[Lightfoot]

Kristov Kerensky, on 03 July 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

Engine RATING is the size of the engine, eg 200, 250, 300, and it is locked in TT for all OmniMechs, Clan OR Inner Sphere. BattleMechs can change their engines ratings, which means you swap out the current engine for either a larger or smaller engine, eg going from a 200 to a 300 or a 150.

Engine TYPE refers to Standard or Light, and that is locked in OmniMechs as well but can be changed in BattleMechs.

Changing an engine in TT is a long and expensive process, but it can be done for any BattleMech, Clan or Inner Sphere.

Someone posted the ruleset from TT recently and it stated you can't change the engine type on standard Battlemechs, just the rating, among other things. Plus the time and expense of Battlemech alterations is ignored by MWO. Plus Battlemechs and Omnimechs do not have hardpoints. It's all an invented system for MWO, not Battle Tech. It all ends up allowing Battlemechs to have more mod-ability than Omnimechs and that runs counter to the core lore concepts. Just saying if you you are touting some TT balance in MWO's omnimechs vs battlemechs you don't have a valid argument.

But it's ok. I just wish MWO would move beyond the current laser-vomit and give us back competitive PPCs and LRMs, the loss of which is what caused laser-vomit.

Edited by Lightfoot, 03 July 2015 - 07:33 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lightfoot, on 03 July 2015 - 07:27 PM, said:

Someone posted the ruleset from TT recently and it stated you can't change the engine type on standard Battlemechs, just the rating, among other things. Plus the time and expense of Battlemech alterations is ignored by MWO. Plus Battlemechs and Omnimechs do not have hardpoints. It's all an invented system for MWO, not Battle Tech. It all ends up allowing Battlemechs to have more mod-ability than Omnimechs and that runs counter to the core lore concepts. Just saying if you you are touting some TT balance in MWO's omnimechs vs battlemechs you don't have a valid argument.

MWO inventing things hardpoints and ignoring time to make alterations has no bearing on the core of your argument.

You stated that in TT omnimechs could change ratings but not engine types, which is false, they can change neither. Whatever tonnage they have free in their base configuration is what they are stuck with for all configurations.

As for your other argument, that it is wrong of PGI to lock omnimechs in like that, I would agree, it has created more problems with balance than solved and only gets worse with the addition of Clan battlemechs and some of the terrible IS omnimechs. That however, isn't the point of this thread.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 03 July 2015 - 07:32 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Lightfoot, you can change the engine rating OR type on any BattleMech, not OmniMech, per TT rules, as I said it takes time and money and lots of both, and it's not something you do in the field generally. It can be done however, it is done quite often, most Solaris Mechs are customized BattleMechs built upon existing chassis types, which shows you just how much you can do with the time and money in TT. Some Solaris Mechs are truly custom creations from the ground up, THOSE cost a fortune and take a long ass time in TT, but they do exist and anyone with the money can do it in TT.

And I've complained about the neutering of OmniMechs via the hardpoint system before, it totally goes against the entire point OF the Omni in OmniMechs. As long as you have the tonnage and the space, you can fit ANY type of weapon system on an OmniMech, swap out ERPPCs for LRMs or ACs or Lasers, whatever you want, as long as they'll fit in the space and don't exceed your tonnage cap, it's all good. PGI did it their way, I don't agree with it, but there's not much I can do about it, I've pointed it out more than a few times, PGI doesn't seem inclined to change it though.

[Gas Guzzler]

Gyrok, on 03 July 2015 - 04:18 PM, said:

This was my point...the TW fails to meet the requirements.

In fact, all but 3 clan mechs fail to meet these reqs, and of those, the WHK can only mount 1 ERML for backup (if you want to count that as backup).

The EBJ, WHK, and DW are the only clan chassis that can effectively run DG.

Meanwhile the IS has the K2, any JM6, any of 3 CTFs, any KGC and the upcoming MAL,

Clans also have the HBK IIC and, possibly, the Orion IIC that could as well...though we need to see how that plays out. The Orion IIC may not be a good DG platform depending on how that comes out as the mounts are incredibly low.

Mauler can do it, but no XL engine (you could but as soon as your ST gets scratched you are pretty much done. Yay! You could go standard 300 i suppose, with 6 MLs. Pretty underwhelming compared to the Dire Wolf.

The Crab can do it with extremely low and wide arms, with 2 LPLs and 2 MLs and a couple extra DHS. Heat dissipation is poor. Once again, pretty underwhelming compared to the Dire Wolf.

JM6 and EBJ is basically a wash. The EBJ is better, faster and Clan XL and all, but we will just call them equal because I know you can't accept that a Clan mech might be better than an IS mech.

K2... yeah Gauss in lightly armored STs... yippee! Worse than the JM6.

CTFs, either low mounted or the one in the XL ST, not well armored... once again underwhelming.

And of course all this arguing over something that doesn't matter. If you guys really think this is a terrible idea that's fine. I just would like more viable options on the IS side but oh well, I will live without it.

[Bloodweaver]

Gas Guzzler, on 01 July 2015 - 01:26 PM, said:

Also don't split up Cataphract variants to skew your argument, if you want to play that game you get 4 mechs for EBJ, 5 for Dire, and 4 for Warhawk so don't go down that road.

It's not skewing his argument. Battlemech variants are forced into uniqueness. They count as separate 'Mechs even when Omnimech variants don't. A Wolverine 6R is worlds apart from a Wolverine 7K; they do not count as the same 'Mech in any discussion regarding build abilities and hardpoint layouts. Their build abilities are different. Build abilities between Omnimechs are the same, apart from a few Omni CT outliers - which don't matter anyway, since you can't mount a Gauss there.

[Gas Guzzler]

Bloodweaver, on 03 July 2015 - 08:15 PM, said:

It's not skewing his argument. Battlemech variants are forced into uniqueness. They count as separate 'Mechs even when Omnimech variants don't. A Wolverine 6R is worlds apart from a Wolverine 7K; they do not count as the same 'Mech in any discussion regarding build abilities and hardpoint layouts. Their build abilities are different. Build abilities between Omnimechs are the same, apart from a few Omni CT outliers - which don't matter anyway, since you can't mount a Gauss there.

I guess I don't see why the amount of effective dual gauss mechs available matters.

[Ace Selin]

Nightmare1, on 01 July 2015 - 03:19 PM, said:

While I agree that Gauss shouldn't be so fragile, I'm in favor of a health buff for both the IS and the Clans. In my opinion, given how slim the superiority of the Clan Gauss is compared to the IS, I am against anything that may lessen that superiority. It's an indirect, round-a-bout way to nerf the Clans by narrowing the gap between them and the IS.

Making the IS Gauss more durable in no way whatsoever (not even in a roundabout way) nerfs Clan Gauss.
Secondly Clans are supposed to be different but equal to IS as far as mech competitiveness is concerned so making the IS Gauss tougher whilst leaving the Clan Gauss as is (lighter) would be a nice trade-off.

[Nightmare1]

Ace Selin, on 03 July 2015 - 09:36 PM, said:

Making the IS Gauss more durable in no way whatsoever (not even in a roundabout way) nerfs Clan Gauss.
Secondly Clans are supposed to be different but equal to IS as far as mech competitiveness is concerned so making the IS Gauss tougher whilst leaving the Clan Gauss as is (lighter) would be a nice trade-off.

Except that Clans are supposed to be unbalanced against the IS in terms of Tech. The "balancing" is supposed to be in terms of numbers fielded and single versus multi combat. PGI has shied from this and is instead goose stepping around in an effort to make the two factions "equal but different." Not only does this break the Clans but it also breaks the immersion and Lore. In fact, there is little reason to play the Clans right now considering the fact that they have practically no customization available since PGI has locked down half the features on each chassis for "balancing." Buffing the IS Gauss is could very well be considered an indirect nerf to the Clans because it closes the gap between the two weapons in terms of superiority. It simply becomes one more reason not to run Clans.

Personally, I bought into the Wave I package which proved to be a gigantic disappointment. Clans simply aren't fun to play these days and have been an awkward embarrassment from day one. Every time PGI nerfs the Clans or buffs the IS, I have less and less incentive to play as Clan. Over half my Wave I Mechs aren't Elited yet, and most of those aren't even Basic'ed.

[Sir Immortal Shadow]

A few things to bear in mind is how effectively C Gauss pairs with their lasers. The high heat, high damage, long range, and light weight all make their lasers good companions for gauss.
A pair of clan Gauss Rifles + 2 CER or Heavy large lasers is 32 tons before ammo and runs decently cool, has a decent alpha, and you can usuallu slot in extra smaller lasers, targeting computers, ammo, heat sinks.
Two IS Gauss and one ERL laser is 35 and far far weaker a build in general. In fact I don't think any but the heaviest IS mech should ever bring dual gauss because it doesn't leave enough tonnage to work with, which in my opinion is a waste of GRs tiny heat gen.
Other clan weapons have drawbacks to bring them down from vastly superior to fairly superior, whether it's spread, cool down, or heat. The CGR just plain doesn't, and that's on top of having great synergy with other clan weapons (even if clan GRs were 15 tons, they'd still be better indirectly through weapon options). As an IS player I haven't seen an IS gauss build that couldn't be done better with other weapons instead.

[Nightmare1]

Sir Immortal Shadow, on 13 December 2017 - 07:16 PM, said:

A few things to bear in mind is how effectively C Gauss pairs with their lasers. The high heat, high damage, long range, and light weight all make their lasers good companions for gauss.
A pair of clan Gauss Rifles + 2 CER or Heavy large lasers is 32 tons before ammo and runs decently cool, has a decent alpha, and you can usuallu slot in extra smaller lasers, targeting computers, ammo, heat sinks.
Two IS Gauss and one ERL laser is 35 and far far weaker a build in general. In fact I don't think any but the heaviest IS mech should ever bring dual gauss because it doesn't leave enough tonnage to work with, which in my opinion is a waste of GRs tiny heat gen.
Other clan weapons have drawbacks to bring them down from vastly superior to fairly superior, whether it's spread, cool down, or heat. The CGR just plain doesn't, and that's on top of having great synergy with other clan weapons (even if clan GRs were 15 tons, they'd still be better indirectly through weapon options). As an IS player I haven't seen an IS gauss build that couldn't be done better with other weapons instead.

Holy Necro Batman! This thread is ancient! What's wrong with you???

[Khobai]

ancient but still relevant

clan gauss was never balanced

[Y E O N N E]

Whatever happened to Quicksilver, anyway? Did he move on from MWO?

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 December 2017 - 07:32 PM, said:

Whatever happened to Quicksilver, anyway? Did he move on from MWO?

His profile says he was last active on November 22nd.

[naterist]

op, the hitpoints dont matter. when it explodes, and it will especially in the age of clan machinegun spam, then IS is dead, because only a fool wastes half a ton and a slot on case. clans however, can put it in a side torso and be fine, because every component they have is automatically case protected.

[MischiefSC]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 December 2017 - 07:32 PM, said:

Whatever happened to Quicksilver, anyway? Did he move on from MWO?

I heard he was caught putting LRMs on a Roughneck.

His remains were recovered from the charred ruin of his home after riot police dispersed the righteous crowd. Police investigated but closed the case, saying "Well, really,, what did he expect."

Edited by MischiefSC, 13 December 2017 - 08:17 PM.

[Grus]

Gas Guzzler, on 01 July 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

So as we all know aside from weighing 3 tons more the IS Gauss behaves exactly like the Clan Gauss. Otherwise, they are exactly the same. What if PGI raised IS gauss hitpoints and lowered its explosion damage a little bit? Or maybe just one or the other. Rationale is the extra 3 tons is used to aid in weapon shielding/explosion containment. Clans stripped it because their XLs aren't so fragile, and something something.

Its a slight buff that makes putting Gauss in IS XL side torsos not so suicidal, but will be far from game breaking as it literally behaves the same as the Clan Gauss otherwise.

I think its fair... doesn't involve neutering the Clan Gauss at all..

nope. Because IS has two other gauss weapons and clans dont.

[Y E O N N E]

Grus, on 13 December 2017 - 08:28 PM, said:

nope. Because IS has two other gauss weapons and clans dont.

Both of which have some fairly extreme drawbacks and don't, on the sum, allow the IS to have similar capabilities.

It's like the whole PPC thing. IS have four flavors of PPC, and none of them are as good in any niche as the cERPPC across all niches.