73 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Dimento Graven, on 16 October 2015 - 06:44 AM, said:

1. It is the ONLY weapon that is limited to being able to fire a maximum 2 gauss at a time.

There's not a plethora of 'mechs out there carrying triple AC/20s either. Due to no split criticals and weight, of course, but still.

Dimento Graven, on 16 October 2015 - 06:44 AM, said:

2. It is the ONLY weapon with a 90% explosion probability, loaded or not, charged or not.

It is indeed. On the other hand, its ammo is inert and cannot explode at all, and it has 30% less crit slots than an AC/20 (which generally carry at least 3-4 tons of rather volatile ammo). Swings and roundabouts, if you ask me.

Dimento Graven, on 16 October 2015 - 06:44 AM, said:

3. It is the ONLY weapon that has issues with chain fire.

Why would anyone ever want to chain-fire Gauss rifles? What's the use-case? Where's the drawback?

Dimento Graven, on 16 October 2015 - 06:44 AM, said:

4. It is the ONLY weapon with a charge up cycle, making it more difficult to use in close in fighting.

The charge-up mechanic was implemented to do exactly this; to force the Gauss out of close-in fighting. It was simply too good at any range from knife-fighting to sniping. This is a design decision, and frankly a few other long-range direct-fire weapons could also use similar or other mechanics to stop them being used as brawling weapons.

I do agree whole-heartedly with you on the subject of the missing heat penalties, but I find your vehemence in regards to the Gauss Rifle being mistreated a bit baffling. It used to be the hands-down best weapon in the game; since the charge-up mechanic it is still one of the best weapons in the game.

[Dimento Graven]

stjobe, on 16 October 2015 - 09:22 AM, said:

There's not a plethora of 'mechs out there carrying triple AC/20s either. Due to no split criticals and weight, of course, but still.

No, the most effective AC build out there I've seen to date is a Direwhale sporting an UAC20, UAC10, UAC5 and UAC2, believe it or not.

Damn near never ending stream of death with no heat penalties at all...

Quote

It is indeed. On the other hand, its ammo is inert and cannot explode at all, and it has 30% less crit slots than an AC/20 (which generally carry at least 3-4 tons of rather volatile ammo). Swings and roundabouts, if you ask me.

Yep, another indicator that the gauss in of itself is NOT unbalanced.

Quote

Why would anyone ever want to chain-fire Gauss rifles? What's the use-case? Where's the drawback?

One example - I've done this frequently in my crab to great effect:

Terra Therma, get to the center, drop down, stand in the lava, firing gauss. Trust me, standing in the lava you quickly build up to 90% heat and if you don't think 2 extra heat every 3 seconds doesn't make a difference vs. 1 heat every 3 seconds, well, you've obviously not tried it yourself.

It's surprising how long it takes people to think of looking in the lava pit. With no lasers to give your position away people have to "THINK" to look down. Usually they spin around and around looking for the invisible sniper...

Quote

The charge-up mechanic was implemented to do exactly this; to force the Gauss out of close-in fighting. It was simply too good at any range from knife-fighting to sniping. This is a design decision, and frankly a few other long-range direct-fire weapons could also use similar or other mechanics to stop them being used as brawling weapons.

Yes, and now it's more balanced with the charge mechanic so that only people with skill can utilize them as a non-sniping/brawling weapon.

Quote

I do agree whole-heartedly with you on the subject of the missing heat penalties, but I find your vehemence in regards to the Gauss Rifle being mistreated a bit baffling. It used to be the hands-down best weapon in the game; since the charge-up mechanic it is still one of the best weapons in the game.

Yes, it "used to be" and now it is among some of the "best weapons" in the game.

My vehemence springs from the fact that it has such huge drawbacks already and for years the people crying for nerfs fall into one or more of the following categories:

1. They just don't realize it's not gauss they're mad at, it's the Clan OPness they're actually having issues with.
2. They tend to play stupidly. They WANT to be allowed to move across open field in a straight line without being shot at. They don't realize that once they eliminate gauss, the NEXT thing they'll be bitching about are long range AC's and lasers.
3. The light pilot mad that he occasionally gets hit and possibly killed with gauss. He secretly believes that his speed should make him invulnerable and that it makes perfect sense that he should be able to take his 20 to 40 ton 'mech at 150+ kph and pinball off of 100 ton 'mechs all the while firing his laser vomit, and come out the other side with only scuffed paint.
4. Haven't bothered/are incapable learning how to use it themselves and are also unreasonably mad that anyone else uses it, and think it should be removed from the game because it's "too hard for them to understand", the "I just don't get gauss so it should not exist" crowd.

[Scout Derek]

Dimento Graven, on 16 October 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

No, the most effective AC build out there I've seen to date is a Direwhale sporting an UAC20, UAC10, UAC5 and UAC2, believe it or not.

I used to run one before the UAC ROF changes, it was fun.

[Dimento Graven]

Scout Derek, on 16 October 2015 - 09:42 AM, said:

I used to run one before the UAC ROF changes, it was fun.

People are STILL using it to wreck, trust me.

[stjobe]

Dimento Graven, on 16 October 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

It's surprising how long it takes people to think of looking in the lava pit. With no lasers to give your position away people have to "THINK" to look down. Usually they spin around and around looking for the invisible sniper...

One might think one look at their mini-map would reveal that there's someone in the crater, but yeah. People are bad at 3-dimensional thinking - we're not really equipped to deal with things above us, and even less with things below us.

Dimento Graven, on 16 October 2015 - 06:44 AM, said:

My vehemence springs from the fact that it has such huge drawbacks already

Well, I guess that's where our opinions diverge; I don't see the drawbacks as huge as you seem to do. Then again, I'm not actually calling for any nerfs to the Gauss either.

Anyway, thanks for answering (non-vehemently ), I was just curious where you came from on this.

[Dimento Graven]

stjobe, on 16 October 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

One might think one look at their mini-map would reveal that there's someone in the crater, but yeah. People are bad at 3-dimensional thinking - we're not really equipped to deal with things above us, and even less with things below us.

It depends on how they're facing me, whether or not I'll show up on the mini map. If they turn slowly enough they may notice me, if they whip around, typically they're looking at the actual scene, not the mini map, and while I may show up, because they aren't watching it, they miss the 'blip' that shows up...

It's fun, but it's hard on the legs, I don't recommend it with any 'mech that has weak leg armor, that's for sure.

Quote

Well, I guess that's where our opinions diverge; I don't see the drawbacks as huge as you seem to do. Then again, I'm not actually calling for any nerfs to the Gauss either.

Anyway, thanks for answering (non-vehemently ), I was just curious where you came from on this.

They are huge draw backs considering.

Think about it, at least from the IS side, I think the LARGEST alpha you could build using dual gauss is on the KGC with 2 gauss, 4xLPL's. The sacrifices you have to make to build that (even if I'm not misremembering and it being an actual maximum 3xLPL's) is that you have to sacrifice A LOT of speed, A LOT of armor, and A LOT of ammo to make it work.

So the best KGC "meta" of 2xgauss, 2xERLL is a 48 point alpha for the duration of your ammo supply... Wheeeeee...

BUT, it's a good to have those drawbacks (huge or not) as part of the gauss limitations because 48 points of FLDPP damage at, let's say 750 meters, is still pretty good.

Of course Clans throws that out the window as, yes, for clans they have a lighter, smaller version of the gauss, BUT, they have a crap ton of laser options that far exceed the 750 meter primary firing range.

Again, most of these people are just not understanding it's not the gauss that's the problem its the inherent OPness of Clans that causes issues...

[Scout Derek]

Dimento Graven, on 16 October 2015 - 09:47 AM, said:

People are STILL using it to wreck, trust me.

Oh I know, was just saying that It was fun back then. I haven't tried it since because I could do the constant stream of UAC madness since the bursts are now quick instead of slow.

[process]

It's a lot easier to balance a single weapon system than to build an entire system around a weapon. Lowering the heat capacity is the simplest way to curb high alpha/high heat builds.

As for heatscale, I think the simplest solution is to:

1. Make single heatsinks 0.1 HPS, double heatsinks 0.2 HPS. This is more consistent and intuitive than the current values.
2. Give all mechs 10 internal double heatsinks, for a stock cooling of 2.0 HPS, for the sake of balance.

This way, all stock builds become significantly more viable. Heatsinks become just another tonnage vs. crit space exchange like endo and ferro.

Mech A with 8 external double heatsinks will use 8 tons and 24 slots, for 3.6 cooling.
Mech B with 16 external single heatsinks will use 16 tons and 16 slots, for 3.6 cooling.

If these changes result in too much heat dissipation, weapon heat and uniformly be inreased.

[Dimento Graven]

process, on 16 October 2015 - 12:08 PM, said:

...

2. Give all mechs 10 internal double heatsinks, for a stock cooling of 2.0 HPS, for the sake of balance.

...

Yeah I can't remember WHY exactly PGI switched to this model of having engines below a certain weight NOT have all 10 internal heat sinks.

The stupidity of it is that at a certain point, weight savings on the engine vs. the weight requirements of adding additional heat sinks results in it being pointless to load smaller engines.

It smacks of reactionary IGP stupidity, that's for damn sure.

Anyone else remember what the supposed cause of this move was?

[stjobe]

Dimento Graven, on 16 October 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

Anyone else remember what the supposed cause of this move was?

I think it was just easier to implement. MVP and all that.

MWO and TT engine weights work out to the same, it's just that MWO engine weights include the weight of the gyro (engine rating / 100 tons) and cockpit (3 tons), and you have to pay tonnage for any heat sinks you add up to 10 and above.

MWO's system breaks for sub-100 rated engines, that's why it took them so long to give us the Urbie; its STD 60 engine weighs -2.5 tons in MWO (it weighs 1.5 tons in TT):

TT: 1.5 ton engine, 3 ton cockpit, 1 ton gyro = 5.5 tons
MWO: 8 tons heat sinks needed; 5.5 - 8 = -2.5 tons engine.

For engines rated 100 and up though, the MWO system produces exactly the same weight as TT engine + gyro + cockpit.

Edit: Oh, and not having heat sinks internally in the engine isn't a MWO idea, it's TT canon for sub-250 engines. It's just that the first 10 heat sinks only cost crit slots in TT, whereas in MWO, all heat sinks cost tonnage and crit slots. And of course, TT DHS are all 2.0.

Edited by stjobe, 16 October 2015 - 01:47 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

stjobe, on 16 October 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

I think it was just easier to implement. MVP and all that.

MWO and TT engine weights work out to the same, it's just that MWO engine weights include the weight of the gyro (engine rating / 100 tons) and cockpit (3 tons), and you have to pay tonnage for any heat sinks you add up to 10 and above.

MWO's system breaks for sub-100 rated engines, that's why it took them so long to give us the Urbie; its STD 60 engine weighs -2.5 tons in MWO (it weighs 1.5 tons in TT):

TT: 1.5 ton engine, 3 ton cockpit, 1 ton gyro = 5.5 tons
MWO: 8 tons heat sinks needed; 5.5 - 8 = -2.5 tons engine.

For engines rated 100 and up though, the MWO system produces exactly the same weight as TT engine + gyro + cockpit.

Edit: Oh, and not having heat sinks internally in the engine isn't a MWO idea, it's TT canon for sub-250 engines. It's just that the first 10 heat sinks only cost crit slots in TT, whereas in MWO, all heat sinks cost tonnage and crit slots. And of course, TT DHS are all 2.0.

But MWO made the externalized, weighted heat sinks LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG after they came out. This was a change that was made some time half-way through beta if I remember right.

While I can see setting up externalized heat sinks, I think maintaining the zero weight of them first 10 should have been maintained, again, there's a certain point where it's just makes no sense to take a fusion engine below a certain size. The cost/weight benefits disappear if you're forced to load up 4 or more heat sinks.

Beyond the urbie I can't think of a build worth a flying F that loads the smaller engines...

[stjobe]

Dimento Graven, on 16 October 2015 - 02:05 PM, said:

But MWO made the externalized, weighted heat sinks LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG after they came out. This was a change that was made some time half-way through beta if I remember right.

We joined at about the same time, and I don't remember heat sinks changing like that. I do remember that we only had SHS and that you were allowed to drop with only your in-engine heat sinks, no matter if you had 10 or just 7 (which I tended to have in my XL195 Commandos).

Are you sure you're not just remembering them introducing DHS towards the end of CB?

Dimento Graven, on 16 October 2015 - 02:05 PM, said:

While I can see setting up externalized heat sinks, I think maintaining the zero weight of them first 10 should have been maintained, again, there's a certain point where it's just makes no sense to take a fusion engine below a certain size. The cost/weight benefits disappear if you're forced to load up 4 or more heat sinks.

As I said, it works out to the same tonnage as TT for any engine rated 100 or higher; if it didn't, they couldn't have stock 'mechs (which, as you know, we did have for the longest time).

These days they have floating crits for FF and ES, so they do have the tech to have the first 10 (or even just in-engine) heat sinks be "weightless" and still take crit slots, but I seriously doubt they'll be refactoring such a core part of the code at this late stage.

[Dimento Graven]

stjobe, on 16 October 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

We joined at about the same time, and I don't remember heat sinks changing like that. I do remember that we only had SHS and that you were allowed to drop with only your in-engine heat sinks, no matter if you had 10 or just 7 (which I tended to have in my XL195 Commandos).

Are you sure you're not just remembering them introducing DHS towards the end of CB?

I grant that there's been enough time, and enough beer consumed, that my recollection could be, and probably is, flawed.

Stipulated.

Quote

As I said, it works out to the same tonnage as TT for any engine rated 100 or higher; if it didn't, they couldn't have stock 'mechs (which, as you know, we did have for the longest time).

These days they have floating crits for FF and ES, so they do have the tech to have the first 10 (or even just in-engine) heat sinks be "weightless" and still take crit slots, but I seriously doubt they'll be refactoring such a core part of the code at this late stage.

I think they should. When's the last time you ran a truly viable build with 150 standard or XL?

Beyond that, think of the IS being forced into standards, for survivability's sake, having to lose tonnage on heat sinks that should be weightless.

[1Grimbane]

i sell off all 150 and below engines...