145 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Mechs that lack the tonnage for normal Goose are probably going to also lack the tonnage for the Light Goose. 12 tons (plus 2-3 tons of ammo) is a lot.

Pretty much. Light Gauss is an extremely niche weapon even in battletech. Its basically designed for 40-50 ton mechs that dont want to commit the engine weight to taking a standard gauss but still have the tonnage for a light gauss.

I think its safe to say the biggest problem with light gauss is the fact it weighs 12 tons. Honestly light gauss should be a candidate for having its tonnage lowered to something approaching reasonable. 10 tons would be reasonable. But at 12 tons its always going to be super niche, because excluding those niche cases, the standard gauss is just plain better.

Edited by Khobai, 23 June 2017 - 07:53 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 23 June 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

the purpose of a light gauss isnt to compete with standard gauss. If you can use standard gauss you should always use standard gauss.

That's one opinion and, to me, a shoddy one that I will not entertain.

Quote

The purpose of light gauss is for mechs that cant use standard gauss to still have a gauss option.

Doesn't really exist.

Quote

the reality is light gauss cannot and never will compete with standard gauss. because 8 damage vs 15 damage is a no brainer. regardless of any range/velocity advantage the light gauss might have, it will never be enough to make up for the damage difference.

That ceases to be the reality if the LGauss gets significantly better DPS and range than a pair of standard Gauss. Standard Gauss has up-front damage; if you want to power-position, you take the LGauss. Standard ballistics will be the superior option up to ~500 meters, then the domain of LGauss and energy begins.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 23 June 2017 - 07:53 PM, said:

That ceases to be the reality if the LGauss gets significantly better DPS and range than a pair of standard Gauss.

Wait a second...

The standard Gauss has 2.61 DPS, so a pair of them do 5.22 together.

Are you asking for a single LGoose to deal more than 5.22? It's fine if one LG has more DPS than one SG, but one LG having more DPS than double SG is a whole 'nother kettle of fish...

[Khobai]

Quote

That's one opinion and, to me, a shoddy one that I will not entertain.

Its not really opinion. Its established fact in battletech. No one would ever use a light gauss over a standard gauss in battletech. The only reason to ever use a light gauss in battletech is if you cant use a standard gauss.

Quote

That ceases to be the reality if the LGauss gets significantly better DPS

Except a weapon that weighs less should not have significantly better DPS than a weapon that weighs more. Or there is no real incentive to take weapons that weigh more anymore.

Again it would be like if you made the AC5 do more dps than the AC10. Why would anyone ever use the AC10? especially when its easier to take multiple AC5s.

If you truly want to fix the Light Gauss the best option is to decrease its tonnage.

[TheArisen]

Khobai, on 23 June 2017 - 07:42 PM, said:

Pretty much. Light Gauss is an extremely niche weapon even in battletech. Its basically designed for 40-50 ton mechs that dont want to commit the engine weight to taking a standard gauss but still have the tonnage for a light gauss.

I think its safe to say the biggest problem with light gauss is the fact it weighs 12 tons. Honestly light gauss should be a candidate for having its tonnage lowered to something approaching reasonable. 10 tons would be reasonable. But at 12 tons its always going to be super niche, because excluding those niche cases, the standard gauss is just plain better.

Well the purpose of this thread is to help the LGauss not be only niche but generally useful

[Snowbluff]

How about giving the light gauss the same/nearly as much DPS as a a regular gauss? Since the clans get a 12 ton version with the same DPS, it's still be fair, and if you want ppfld the regular gauss is still a legitimate choice because it does twice as much damage per shot.

[Khobai]

I think id rather see the light gauss go down to 10 tons

one big advantage of the light gauss over standard gauss is you can fit two of them in the same location. so you can dual light gauss on a lot of mechs that cant dual standard gauss.

but at 24 tons dual light gauss is a pretty tough pill to swallow. 20 tons would be better.

[TheArisen]

Khobai, on 23 June 2017 - 08:20 PM, said:

I think id rather see the light gauss go down to 10 tons

one big advantage of the light gauss over standard gauss is you can fit two of them in the same location. so you can dual light gauss on a lot of mechs that cant dual standard gauss.

but at 24 tons dual light gauss is a pretty tough pill to swallow. 20 tons would be better.

I don't think modifying the weight is a realistic idea. It should be lighter but it is what it is.

[Tincan Nightmare]

The problem with the LG is that you can't compare it to other gauss weaponry. For just 3 tons more you can get a standard gauss, with almost double the damage, which is pretty much a no brainer unless your build is just completely tonnage strapped. You also can't compare it to Clan gauss, because it's the same tonnage with a 1 slot crit difference but with the clan weapon doing double damage.

The LG is actually an alternative to the AC10. Both weigh 12 tons, and are very close on crit space, with the only decision being range and high shot velocity for the LG versus slightly more damage and it doesn't explode for the AC10 (similar to the difference between the AC20 and Standard gauss). You would also actually use it in the same way as an AC10, if you have the tonnage you mount an AC20 (or standard gauss) if not you mount an AC10 (or LG).

[MustrumRidcully]

FupDup, on 23 June 2017 - 07:33 PM, said:

The weapon role of "only use it when you lack the tonnage for anything else" always fails. If something is so weak that you don't want to use it when you can go bigger, then it's still so weak that it's simply not worth mounting in the first place.

I do not quite agree, or maybe I do, I just phrase things differently?

A "lighter" Gauss Rifle might not be interesting on an 80 ton mech, because it can easily fit the regular gauss rifle. But a 40 ton mech might find the light gauss rifle more practical.

However, in theory, there should be a light gauss rifle build with a high tonnage mech that is just as viable as a regular Gauss rifle build.

[Reno Blade]

My suggestion for LG/HG as follows (including all other weapon balancing see also more details in my signature)

• DMG of LG increased to 10
  
• CD and charge time of LG lower and HG higher than GR.
  
• Heat increased for all Gauss Rifles

Ballistics:

[Elizander]

TheArisen, on 20 June 2017 - 08:18 PM, said:

More than a few people consider these two weapons to be traps. The obvious question then is how to make them worthwhile but not OP?

The LGauss weighs 12t (same as a CGauss) but only does 8 DMG. It has a somewhat greater range though as well as more ammo per ton. Still, 8 DMG for such a heavy & crit eating weapon isn't very appealing. Maybe no charge needed? Faster cooldown?

Heavy Gauss at first glance looks like it'll be scary but it takes so much tonnage & slots along with forcing you to use a heavier std engine it's actually just a paper tiger. It's DMG dropoff is also pretty fast so really you'd be better off using combinations other weapons.

Make Heavy Gauss not explode since it's a brawling weapon. I don't care what TT stats say. Treat it like an AC/20 with a charge time.

Light Gauss better have at least 200 damage per ton of ammo and longer range than TT stats. I don't mind if it's just the same as Gauss at 2000 m/s and it's so inferior to Gauss and even the AC/10 that I don't mind if this one doesn't have charge time and lower CD.

Edited by Elizander, 24 June 2017 - 03:20 AM.

[LT. HARDCASE]

LG absolutely should not have a charge.

[TheArisen]

It looks like the initial implementation was weak for both of these weapons. Plz go to the civil war weapons feedback section and help make these and others worth taking.
https://mwomercs.com...gy-public-test/

[Metus regem]

Looks like I called it being put into the do not use bin... Sadly this bin is filling with the bulk of the Civil War weapons for both sides....

[TheArisen]

Metus regem, on 28 June 2017 - 05:41 PM, said:

Looks like I called it being put into the do not use bin... Sadly this bin is filling with the bulk of the Civil War weapons for both sides....

Yeah it seems they were too worried about making sure they weren't OP they forgot to make them worthwhile. Of course it's still in pts but here's hoping.

[Metus regem]

TheArisen, on 28 June 2017 - 06:37 PM, said:

Yeah it seems they were too worried about making sure they weren't OP they forgot to make them worthwhile. Of course it's still in pts but here's hoping.

It's only on the PTS, they still have time to pull their heads out of their backsides on this....

It's funny I called the LGR's stats right after they announced it.... I'm sad that I was right, I would've very much liked to have been wrong.

[TheArisen]

Metus regem, on 28 June 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

It's only on the PTS, they still have time to pull their heads out of their backsides on this....

It's funny I called the LGR's stats right after they announced it.... I'm sad that I was right, I would've very much liked to have been wrong.

Yeah that's one of the purposes of this thread, to help the LGauss & HGauss be good

[Metus regem]

TheArisen, on 28 June 2017 - 09:54 PM, said:

Yeah that's one of the purposes of this thread, to help the LGauss & HGauss be good

That is going to be complex to pull off...

To make the LGR good, and worth taking it should be nearly snap fire, I mean it is still a 12t 5 crit weapon that only does 8 damage, when compared to the GR that is 15t 7 crit that does 15 damage.

The damage to tonnage ratios for all the IS GR's

HGR: 1.388/1.11111/.5555 as the damage drops off to 10 @ 600m
isGR: 1
LGR: 0.66

Now for Damage to critical slots ratio:

HGR: 2.272/1.8181/.909 as the damage drops off to 10 @ 600m
isGR: 2.14
LGR: 1.6

As we can see no matter what we do the LGR is not inline with either the HGR or isGR and is really so far out of wack with the cGR I left the cGR off the list.


If it were up to me, I'd have the LGR with the following:

DMG:8
Tons: 12
Crits:5
Heat: 0
Cool down: 3
Charge Up: .1-.25 (so nearly instant)
Optimal Range 750
Max range: 2250
M/S: 2250
Ammo /ton: 20
Health: 10


The HGR, well the big thing I would do for it, is just reduce the crit slot requirement to 10, and require it to be mounted in a ST, perhaps make a new hard point type just for it. As it is, it forces a standard engine making it effectively even heavier and more resource intensive to take.

Reducing crit slot requirements doesn't actually break any stock builds, what breaks stock builds is when you mess with weight.

Edited by Metus regem, 29 June 2017 - 07:02 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Metus regem, on 29 June 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

Reducing crit slot requirements doesn't actually break any stock builds, what breaks stock builds is when you mess with weight.

Only increases to weight and size breaks stock builds, though. But yeah.

I actually lije your LGR changes, though I still think range to 810 would be appropriate.

Metus regem, on 29 June 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

Reducing crit slot requirements doesn't actually break any stock builds, what breaks stock builds is when you mess with weight.

Only increases to weight and size breaks stock builds, though. But yeah.

I actually lije your LGR changes, though I still think range to 810 would be appropriate.