212 replies to this topic

[VinJade]

however that isn't how it works, everything is automatically done, getting in close makes it harder to aim nothing more than that, and the weapon should reflect that not by forcing a player to charge a weapon but make the weapon have ether less damage or make it harder to hit the target.

That is how it is done, it has been written like that in the books & in the field manuals. and that is how it needs to be.

[Matthew Ace]

Personally I'm fine with the Gauss charge, though I'd do things differently.

sycocys, on 27 September 2015 - 03:53 AM, said:

Here's an actual idea, and also why weapon balance should be on the weapons not on the mechs.

Guass Rifle (equipped) -
-5% heat capacity
-7% cooling rate
-5% pitch
-5% yaw
-5% movement speed

2nd rifle equipped, accumulative changes.
-10% heat capacity
-14% cooling rate
-10% pitch
-10% yaw
-10% movement speed

They don't need to double, that's just for reference. The second/3rd/4th equipped just need to add incremental boating debuffs - attached directly to the weapon, not to the mech.

I like the gist of the idea, but not specifically all the drawbacks. Lower pitch and yaw sounds good, but I'd prefer more drawbacks towards accel/decel and turn rate nerfs.

For me, I think it would be interesting if the charge-up was done away with, but Gausses made stronger as a singular weapon, but somewhat less useful up close, as well as reduced in effectiveness when carried in multiples or when used together with most other weapons (exception being MGs/Flamers/NARC). Maybe we can throw in the movement nerfs from the above idea too.

More details in spoilers.

Spoiler

Numbers are arbitrary - but let's say...

• 20 damage
  
• 8 second cooldown
  
• Cannot be fired in multiples or together with any other weapons other than MGs/Flamers/NARC.
  
• Firing any Gauss Rifles induces a brief cooldown (let's say.... 0.75sec for IS, 1 sec for clan) to all other weapons including any other gauss rifles
  
• Firing any other weapons besides Flamers/MG/NARC induces the same cooldown to all Gausses.
  
• If lasers are fired, the brief cooldown window on Gausses will not start until the lasers finished burning.
  
• Any weapons (including other Gausses) in the midst of cooling down will have their cooldown delayed if Gauss Rifles are shot.

Edited by Matthew Ace, 27 September 2015 - 04:52 AM.

[VinJade]

Mat be ready for flames to come your way, lol.

though it is an idea....

[totgeboren]

IraqiWalker, on 27 September 2015 - 01:33 AM, said:

Gauss already has a minimum range. It's called CHARGE MECHANIC To explain this (I hope someone already did) In TT minimum range just added a difficulty penalty to aiming, and firing the weapon within that range. It didn't mean the weapon was ineffective at that range (like IS LRMs dealing 0 damage). It just meant the weapon was difficult to use. Something simulated very well by the Gauss Charge. Charge mechanic is literally the smartest balancing move PGI has ever done. I'm dead serious.

I don't follow to be honest. The charge mechanic makes it harder to twitch-shoot people who for example pop-tart, but for me at least it doesn't make it harder to use up close. It is only a nerf for using the weapon as a sniper gun, not up close.

To me the charge mechanic does the exact opposite of what the intent is (nerfing at range, while keeping it just as viable as a brawler weapon).

Edited by totgeboren, 27 September 2015 - 05:34 AM.

[Ph30nix]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 26 September 2015 - 08:35 AM, said:

Any minimum range for ballistic weapons needs to be a minimum convergence. Don't let the Gauss converge any closer than 90m and it'll be a little bit harder to use it in a knife fight. The same goes for AC2s and such.

why are you bringing AC/2's into this? leave them alone they have been abused enough already. Poor thing still hide in the corner from all the beatings. The last time they even tried to come out into the yard to play they got beat down again.

[IraqiWalker]

VinJade, on 27 September 2015 - 04:45 AM, said:

however that isn't how it works, everything is automatically done, getting in close makes it harder to aim nothing more than that, and the weapon should reflect that not by forcing a player to charge a weapon but make the weapon have ether less damage or make it harder to hit the target.

That is how it is done, it has been written like that in the books & in the field manuals. and that is how it needs to be.

The weapon doesn't do reduced damage at the minimum range area. That's a physical impossibility. It's making harder to hit the target, which is achieving the goal of simulating the minimum range gunnery penalty in TT. It's doing it's job, you just want to do it another way, and so far, none of your suggestions have been better alternatives.

Even in the books, sift through all of them, I challenge you find one description of the effect of minimum range that says it can't be because the weapon becomes difficult to hand/distracting (which is what charge does)

totgeboren, on 27 September 2015 - 05:32 AM, said:

I don't follow to be honest. The charge mechanic makes it harder to twitch-shoot people who for example pop-tart, but for me at least it doesn't make it harder to use up close. It is only a nerf for using the weapon as a sniper gun, not up close.

To me the charge mechanic does the exact opposite of what the intent is (nerfing at range, while keeping it just as viable as a brawler weapon).

How does it nerf it at sniping? The weapon still has the best range of any weapon in the game, with near instant bullet speed, and top notch accuracy, plus it lets you save ammo if your shot isn't lined up right.

Charge prevents twitch shooting the Gauss Rifle, which is a good thing. We wanted that part removed as well, because before charge, Gauss was the only ballistic weapon you'd mount, because none of the others could out-damage it even at their effective ranges. Even the AC 20 loses to the Gauss Rifle on account of the heat generated.

Simply put, I can understand people having issues with the charge mechanic. That's your gunnery test right there. If you can overcome it, congrats, you have enough skill to nullify it, if you can't, then you don't. Pretty much just like TT.

On top of that, it prevents the weapon from being so overbearingly dominating. It dominated above all ballistics back when they ALL had triple range.

Right now, it's the one of the main weapons more because it can help the laser vomit mechs sustain damage while they are cooling off, than anything else. If it wasn't for the high heat from ghost heat, we wouldn't even see the Gauss Rifle so much, because it still has hit reg issues.

---

So far, no one has come up with a better alternative. Minimum range brings back what we used to have with the GR. Which is a step backwards. If you want to remove charge, you have to come up with a better solution.


By the way, even in lore the Gauss Rifles actually had to charge up. The only difference is that in Lore, the capacitors always had a charge ready. However, soon as the weapon fired, the capacitors had to recharge. we just made the recharge manual, instead of automatic, so even from a lore standpoint, charge mechanic is legal.

One thing that technically should be done, if we want to be faithful to the implementation, is that the Gauss Rifle's chance to explode is reduced to 0 when it is not charged up/charging, because technically, the charged capacitors explode, if they have no power, they shouldn't detonate.

TL;DR: propose a better solution that simulates minimum range, better than charge, and doesn't make the weapon into the insta gib twitch shot nightmare it used to be.

[Mystere]

fat4eyes, on 27 September 2015 - 02:58 AM, said:

The gauss rifle is suffering from the 'sniper rifle used as a shotgun' syndrome that's seen in many other shooters. The charge up mechanic was an attempt to fix it, but while it works at lower skill levels you eventually get up to the point where people have learned to get around the charge up mechanism even at short range.

I really cannot understand why people are against a weapon having a higher skill requirement and would rather have it dumbed down.

[Aethon]

If it gets rid of that insipid charge-up 'feature', I am all for a minimum range.

[Aethon]

Mystere, on 27 September 2015 - 06:02 AM, said:

I really cannot understand why people are against a weapon having a higher skill requirement and would rather have it dumbed down.

Would you be opposed to a charge-up feature for autocannons, if they were heavily buffed from where they are now? It has nothing to do with it having a higher skill requirement; it has to do with it feeling really silly, and making no sense being coupled to that type of weapon.

[IraqiWalker]

Aethon, on 27 September 2015 - 06:11 AM, said:

Would you be opposed to a charge-up feature for autocannons, if they were heavily buffed from where they are now? It has nothing to do with it having a higher skill requirement; it has to do with it feeling really silly, and making no sense being coupled to that type of weapon.

It actually makes all kinds of sense.

Have you read how the weapon works in lore? The capacitors charge, and store the charge, you fire, and then have to charge again. All we did is make the charging part manual.

Also, minimum range is idiotic on more ways than just the defiance of the fundamental laws of physics. It buffs the weapon too much.

If someone can come up with a better solution than charge, that won't make the weapon into the problem gun it was before charge, then by all means, I'll vote for them. Until then, I'll say no to anyone that wants their crutch back.


Edit: and this is coming from a heavy Gauss user.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 27 September 2015 - 06:16 AM.

[Mystere]

Aethon, on 27 September 2015 - 06:11 AM, said:

Would you be opposed to a charge-up feature for autocannons, if they were heavily buffed from where they are now? It has nothing to do with it having a higher skill requirement; it has to do with it feeling really silly, and making no sense being coupled to that type of weapon.

My reply was to a person who complained it required higher skill.

Also, autocannons are giant machine guns firing projectiles propelled via an explosive charge. What machine gun or cannon do you know of that has an explosive charge with a multi-second delay?

[Osteo2001]

Wouldn't cone-of-fire under a minimum range (with buffs / nerfs of the cone until the mechanic works itself out) be the best solution to match TT?

I'd gladly go back to auto charge after firing (but high risk of explosion when charged) and also would love to see any other energy weapon firing slow the charging cycle (as this would make sense via real world physics as our power plants have a limited amount of charging capacity).

COF would allow full damage up close if you're willing to waste the ammo and also the next charge would be slower (and therefore lower DPS) if you were firing any other energy weapons brawling, reducing the utility of the best sniper rifle in the game, the GR, for in-your-face battles.

Edited by Osteo2001, 27 September 2015 - 06:32 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Osteo2001, on 27 September 2015 - 06:31 AM, said:

Wouldn't cone-of-fire under a minimum range (with buffs / nerfs of the cone until the mechanic works itself out) be the best solution to match TT?

I'd gladly go back to auto charge after firing (but high risk of explosion when charged) and also would love to see any other energy weapon firing slow the charging cycle (as this would make sense via real world physics as our power plants have a limited amount of charging capacity).

COF would allow full damage up close if you're willing to waste the ammo and also the next charge would be slower (and therefore lower DPS) if you were firing any other energy weapons brawling, reducing the utility of the best sniper rifle in the gamee, the GR, for in-your-face battles.

Cone of fire has several issues such as "Why can't I hit where I aim?". This tends to negatively impact the player base.

reticle sway could be the better solution to convergence issues, but you should never arbitrarily punish players through RNG, it's ... problematic. (I have harsher words to describe it, but I'll abstain)

EDIT: you are somewhat correct on it simulating minimum range though, because minimum range only implies difficulty of use. The other issue with RNG is that it decides for you, that you missed, even if you shouldn't have.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 27 September 2015 - 06:35 AM.

[oldradagast]

I'm not sure why folks keep thinking the Gauss is that great in a brawl anyway. It has low DPS and is very fragile - once a brawler is close enough to aim properly, good-bye Gauss. The point of the Gauss rifle is to drill holes in a target before it gets that close.

That being said, I'm not a fan of minimum ranges where damage magically goes to 0 suddenly. It just feels goofy and slapped together. Somehow, a PPC lightning bolt magically does zero damage at 89 m but full damage at 90 m? I know this is a game about giant robots, but that still feels absurd. Even if they went through the effort of making the beam form 90m from the weapon, so it at least looked believable, it is still silly. Similar idea with LRM's, which I could have sworn had a "hot-load" option in tabletop where they acted like low-damage SRM's - again, why do my rocket-powered, explosive-filled missiles magically bounce off the target, doing nothing, until he gets to 190m, and then they work? It just feels silly, and adding it to a Gauss makes the least sense of all since, like all projectile weapons, damage is going to be highest at close range, not past a magic threshold range.

IraqiWalker, on 27 September 2015 - 06:34 AM, said:

Cone of fire has several issues such as "Why can't I hit where I aim?". This tends to negatively impact the player base.

reticle sway could be the better solution to convergence issues, but you should never arbitrarily punish players through RNG, it's ... problematic. (I have harsher words to describe it, but I'll abstain)

A tiny cone of fire is reasonable, IMHO. Nobody who wants a cone of fire is asking for something super-random like the jump-jet cone of fire being added, nor do they want World of Tanks / Warships style cone of fire (as realistic as those are for their games.) But, a small cone that makes it harder to put 60+ point alphas on a single component at 500+ m seems reasonable to me. At close range, it will rarely come into play since the cone will be smaller than nearly any component (except the head, most likely.)

Edited by oldradagast, 27 September 2015 - 06:37 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

oldradagast, on 27 September 2015 - 06:36 AM, said:

A tiny cone of fire is reasonable, IMHO. Nobody who wants a cone of fire is asking for something super-random like the jump-jet cone of fire being added, nor do they want World of Tanks / Warships style cone of fire (as realistic as those are for their games.) But, a small cone that makes it harder to put 60+ point alphas on a single component at 500+ m seems reasonable to me. At close range, it will rarely come into play since the cone will be smaller than nearly any component (except the head, most likely.)

Wouldn't that nerf it at long range, but have little to no impact at short range? The 60+ alphas aren't coming from the GRs, that's 30 points top. It's the lasers.

In that case, it's not really the GR that you should be arguing against, but rather instant magical 100% down to the pixel convergence.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

VinJade, on 27 September 2015 - 03:33 AM, said:

@Mechwarrior Buddah
well as they say can't beat 'em join 'em.

we will never win Buddah and fighting against it will lead to nothing but frustration & headaches.

and I figured if people think it is such a good weapon that one must practice over and over again because it takes 'skill' to use it then why not make it even more for the skillful?

believe me I would love to get rid of the charging and return it to how it should be but it will never happen.

That attitude is bad and you should feel bad lol

Lightfoot, on 27 September 2015 - 03:41 AM, said:

Originally MWO set the PPC up to have reducing damage within 90 meters until it did zero damage at 1 meter. Then because of all the player whining they added the zero damage within 90 meters, but the whining didn't stop. Whining is like, "PPC Meta is OP and I Quit!!!", etc. So then they slowed them from 1500 to 950 mps which is when no one would use PPCs anymore so they buffed the speed a bit back to 1100 mps. Just pointing out that maybe it's time to reverse the zero damage within 90 meters nerf. Battle Tech says the PPC has a Field Inhibitor that the pilot can disengage with risk of damage to negate the 90 meter minimum. That would also be fine.

Because PGI falls apart in the face of QQ that they agree with so fast that mechs are destroyed within 1000m by the shrapnel

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

VinJade, on 27 September 2015 - 03:58 AM, said:

@Buddah
Don't be mad at me I'm not the one who actually against the removal of the manual charge, just that we both know it will never change no matter how much we 'whine' about bringing it to par with the very game MWO is claiming to be.

yah, pgi would have to admit failure

[IraqiWalker]

Buddah, you do know there is a "multiquote" button, right? Use that.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

If we are at this. AC5 needs min range as well, for sake of unused AC10, as AC5 took its place.

Charge up mechanics was not implemented to mimic min range, but to desperate attend to desync GR with PPC, with was nonsense, as it is no problem to sync them still.

While this is true that in TT min range means just to hit penalty, by all means not damage reduction, same goes for LRM, its somehow hard to translate that correctly to FPS system.
So I was always lobbing for scaled down damage, as this was appearing while not perfect, but good enough solution.

But someone here mentioned about other way; making minimum convergence. That could work as well.

Having hard understandings min range on ballistic? Its even in some to days tanks. So that should not be an argue at all.

[Aethon]

Mystere, on 27 September 2015 - 06:19 AM, said:

My reply was to a person who complained it required higher skill.

Also, autocannons are giant machine guns firing projectiles propelled via an explosive charge. What machine gun or cannon do you know of that has an explosive charge with a multi-second delay?

None. The Gauss Rifle does not need time to charge, either; it finishes charging while the round is being loaded. THIS is why it makes no sense. It is also stupid from a common-sense point of view: if you were designing such a weapon, why would you complicate the trigger mechanism unnecessarily? Why would you design capacitors that explode even when they are not charged? Why would you not have it automatically charge while the slug is being loaded, so a mere press of the firing stud is all that is required?

It is silly, flavourless, and completely pointless. It does not stop anyone from brawling with Gauss Rifles; it serves only to annoy people who want it to feel like a Gauss Rifle.

IraqiWalker, on 27 September 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

It actually makes all kinds of sense.

Have you read how the weapon works in lore? The capacitors charge, and store the charge, you fire, and then have to charge again. All we did is make the charging part manual.

Also, minimum range is idiotic on more ways than just the defiance of the fundamental laws of physics. It buffs the weapon too much.

If someone can come up with a better solution than charge, that won't make the weapon into the problem gun it was before charge, then by all means, I'll vote for them. Until then, I'll say no to anyone that wants their crutch back.


Edit: and this is coming from a heavy Gauss user.

See above. Also, minimum range does not have to be a 'reduce damage linearly' sort of thing like the PPC weaponry in MWO; it could be something that adds a sort of 'bloom' effect if firing under its minimum range, to simulate the idea that it is harder to bring this weapon to bear at closer ranges, due to the target's higher transverse velocity.