145 replies to this topic

[Brain Cancer]

Metus regem, on 29 June 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

Let me put it to you this way,

How would reducing the LB-20X to make it mountable in the arm actually hurt anything in TT? There are mechs that mount LB-20X's in the arm already, but with the isLB-20X being 11 crits, it makes all of those canonical builds unbuildable in MWO.

That's not because stats are changed, it's because PGI is incompetent.

Quote

That means we will never see units like:

BSW-1L Bushwacker, LB-20X in the RA, crit spilit into RT
Templar C, LB-20X in RA crit split into RT
NSR-9SS Nightstar, LB-20X in RA crit spilt into RT

That's just 3 off of the top of my head that could be included by reducing the crit space of the LB-20X so that it works in MWO, the other side effect is that an already bad weapon isn't made any worse by the force inclusion of a standard engine.

This issue doesn't just pertain to the LB-20X, even the HGR has the same issue, the Crusader 8S cannot be in MWO because it uses an isXL with a HGR in the LT that is crit split into the CT. We can't have Arrow IV because of crit splitting, we can't have mech mounted Long Tom artillery because of crit splitting....

Right. And all of that is because PGI refuses to make the effort to allow a weapon to be mounted across two locations.

And that is not an excuse to put illegal designs into TT because MWO stuff is canonical artwork already, and if they can keep the construction rules right, it'll be almost inevitable we start seeing things like the -P variants popping up in later TRO sheets for TT.

This can't happen if MWO fundamentally hoses the construction system for it's own lack of basic coding capacity. The solution is not "let's fudge the basic construction system", it's "fix the basic construction system".

What are you going to say when they can't, say, put XL or Compact gyros, small cockpits, etc. in because construction variations are toooooo hard?

Khobai, on 29 June 2017 - 03:14 PM, said:

id still pay 3 extra tons for 5 extra damage.

the issue is that 3 ton difference between light gauss and standard gauss isnt enough to make people think twice about using standard gauss instead.

its the same reason the AC10 sucks because for 2 tons more you get an AC20.

the only way to fix weapons like light gauss, and also the AC10, is to lower their tonnage.

Improve ROF. Remove chargeup.

Voila, you have a viable LGauss. Standard AC's are perpetually left behind, since PGI cannot into ammo switching- another case where a weapon gets crippled because somehow, you can't have the same gun firing two different kinds of bullets. In MWO's crit system, AP ammo AC/10s would be deadly, as each hit would be a (reduced) chance to through-armor critical and end up wrecking equipment before you'd even wrecked the armor plating. Precision is semi-guided munitions to up your chance of a shot homing in on what armor section you aimed for, even if the target moves.

Except in MWO. We can't have nice things.

[evilauthor]

Brain Cancer, on 29 June 2017 - 07:57 PM, said:

Precision is semi-guided munitions to up your chance of a shot homing in on what armor section you aimed for, even if the target moves.

I can only imagine how the LRM haters would start screaming if PGI introduced homing autocannon ammo.

[Juodas Varnas]

How 'bout we just get rid of the Charging mechanic from IS gauss of all types and just keep it for the Clans?

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 29 June 2017 - 12:22 PM, said:

again its a non issue because hardly anyone plays stock mechs.

You are fighting windmills, Khobai.

PGI has at some point very early in the development in the game decided that the builds they will make available by default are all stock mechs. They never actually create a game system where these would be remotely viable, but they haven't changed that decision in the past 4 or 5 years. They have decided that every item will use the exact same tonnage and crit slots as they do in the table top game. everything else is pretty much up for graps, heat, rate of fire, projectile speed, damage, but not tonnage and critical slots.

Why not just try to stay within the framework that PGI has picked for the game, and try to figure out a solution for that? No matter how idiotic their framework might seem to you, they aren't going to change it. You either come up with ideas within that framework, or your ideas will just boost your post count and get you some likes.


So, given that the Light Gauss Rifle is set to 12 tons and whatever crits it needed, what stats would work for it?
Mabye raise the damage to 10 or 12? Raise the rate of fire? Alter the Gauss Charge further? Give it even more range? More projectile speed?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 29 June 2017 - 10:13 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Why not just try to stay within the framework that PGI has picked for the game, and try to figure out a solution for that?

Thats like saying why not accept donald trump as president and try to suggest ways he can be a good president.

You cannot fix stupid.

[evilauthor]

MustrumRidcully, on 29 June 2017 - 10:11 PM, said:

You are fighting windmills, Khobai.

PGI has at some point very early in the development in the game decided that the builds they will make available by default are all stock mechs. They never actually create a game system where these would be remotely viable,

I've seen it argued that canon stock designs weren't really all that good in TT Battletech either. They were deliberately designed to be flawed from the very beginning because that was "realistic". Custom player designed mechs were so much better than canon designs that custom designs were pretty much outright banned from any official TT tournament game.

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

I've seen it argued that canon stock designs weren't really all that good in TT Battletech either. They were deliberately designed to be flawed from the very beginning because that was "realistic". Custom player designed mechs were so much better than canon designs that custom designs were pretty much outright banned from any official TT tournament game.

Some stock mechs were bad, but some were also very good. And they are all bad in MW:O. The AWS-8Q was an impressive and dangerous Assault Battlemech in the table top game. In MW:O, it was always a joke, no way you could have a remotely viable build with 3 PPCs and 28 single heat sinks. And the Awesome is a boat,which in MW:O is generally a good starting point.

Khobai, on 29 June 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

Thats like saying why not accept donald trump as president and try to suggest ways he can be a good president.

You cannot fix stupid.

Khobai, on 29 June 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

Thats like saying why not accept donald trump as president and try to suggest ways he can be a good president.

You cannot fix stupid.

That is a nonsense comparision.

You're acting as if it is completely impssible to create a 12 ton weapon long range low heat weapon in this game.

If PGI gave the Light Gauss Rifle 12 damage for example, then it would have the exact same damage/ton as the regular Gauss Rifle, with better ammo/ton. Would you now always take the regular Gauss Rifle? Even on, say, a 60 ton Rifleman or a 55 ton Bushwacker? You could even fit a Dual Light Gauss in a single arm or side torso (with LFE then even!).

So obviously there are stat combinations where a 12 ton and 5 Crit Light Gauss Rifle would be viable.

I suspect that a 12 damage Light Gauss Rifle is out of the question, however.

Current stats:
12 Tons, 5 Crits;
8 Damage; 1 heat;
Cooldown: 5;
Max Range: 1500; Optimal Range: 750;
Projectile Speed: 2000;
Health 10; Shots per Ton 20

Alternate Stats:
12 Tons, 5 Crits;
9 Damage; 1 heat;
Cooldown: 3,5;
Max Range: 1800; Optimal Range: 900;
Projectile Speed: 2500;
Health 10; Shots per Ton 20

With the range it beats everything else in the game. At any practical distance, it is likely to deal its full damage. The speed is even faster, making it more precise.

The low cooldown doesn't help much for sniping, of course, but it means it retains considerably usefulness when you're pressed into close range combat and can't poke anymore.

The AC/10 has more damage and DPS to offer, but can't compete in range or projectile velocity.
The regular Gauss Rifle is 25 % heavier and has 2/3 more pinpoint damage to offer and 16 % DPS, but its range and projectile speed are lower.

[Khobai]

Quote

You're acting as if it is completely impssible to create a 12 ton weapon long range low heat weapon in this game.

like I said before, light gauss will always be bad at 12 tons, because it will always be better to spend the 3 extra tons for normal gauss. even if the light gauss was 10 damage, itd still better to spend 3 tons for 15 damage instead of 10.

again its the same reason the AC10 is bad, because for 2 tons more you can get an AC20.

the only real way to fix the light gauss is to make it 10 tons. a 5 ton difference is enough to consider light gauss. but a 3 ton difference isnt.

Quote

If PGI gave the Light Gauss Rifle 12 damage for example, then it would have the exact same damage/ton as the regular Gauss Rifle, with better ammo/ton. Would you now always take the regular Gauss Rifle?

the only way I wouldnt take the regular gauss is if the light gauss was flat out better. but then they wouldnt be balanced properly if that was the case. if the light gauss did 12 damage it might be flat out better than normal gauss depending on what its cooldown is set at. But again turning the light gauss into a superweapon to compete with normal gauss is just plain silly and a bad way to balance it. A better way to balance it is to make it weigh 10 tons.

Edited by Khobai, 29 June 2017 - 11:22 PM.

[Zergling]

Light Gauss can work two ways: 12 damage with slightly higher DPS/ton than regular Gauss, or 8 damage with much higher DPS/ton than regular Gauss.

With 8 damage, 5 second cooldown and 0.50 second chargeup as in PTS right now, it has much worse DPS/ton than regular Gauss, and is totally worthless as a result.


For 8 damage, it'd be a DPS weapon more comparable to the AC10 than the regular Gauss.

Light Gauss with 8 damage, 5.0 second CD, 0.50 second chargeup = 1.45 DPS, 0.121 DPS/ton
Gauss with 15 damage, 5.0 second CD, 0.75 second chargeup = 2.61 DPS, 0.174 DPS/ton
AC10 with 10 damage, 2.50 second CD = 4.00 DPS, 0.333 DPS/ton

Even with 3.00 second CD and 0.50 second chargeup, the Light Gauss would still only be 2.29 DPS, 0.190 DPS/ton; to work as a DPS weapon, it'd need more DPS than the regular Gauss, so CD would need to be even lower.
Lowering it to 2.25 second CD and 0.25 second chargeup results in 3.20 DPS and 0.267 DPS/ton... at that point, it is probably a viable alternative to the AC10 and regular Gauss.


With 12 damage, it is half-way between the alpha damage Gauss and DPS AC10... I'd probably go with 4.5 second CD and 0.50 second charge up, for 2.40 DPS and 0.200 DPS/ton if it did 12 damage.
At most, 4.75 second CD and 0.50 second charge up, for 2.29 DPS and 0.190 DPS/ton.


Oh yeah, if Light Gauss gets 8 damage, then it needs to be able to charge 3 or 4 at a time. 16 gauss alpha is pathetically low, and even 4 of them is just 32 alpha, only 2 points more than twin regular gauss.

Edited by Zergling, 29 June 2017 - 11:47 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 29 June 2017 - 11:12 PM, said:

like I said before, light gauss will always be bad at 12 tons, because it will always be better to spend the 3 extra tons for normal gauss. even if the light gauss was 10 damage, itd still better to spend 3 tons for 15 damage instead of 10.

again its the same reason the AC10 is bad, because for 2 tons more you can get an AC20.

the only real way to fix the light gauss is to make it 10 tons. a 5 ton difference is enough to consider light gauss. but a 3 ton difference isnt.



the only way I wouldnt take the regular gauss is if the light gauss was flat out better.

Does that mean at 10 tons it would be flat out batter than the Gauss Rifle?


I guess your picked a hill to die on, and PGI's has picked its hill to die on. Not much more one can do, say or suggest here.

[Khobai]

Quote

Does that mean at 10 tons it would be flat out batter than the Gauss Rifle?

nope. because it would no longer directly compete with the gauss rifle.

at 10 tons it becomes an option for mechs that cant spare 15 tons for standard gauss to have a lighter version of a gauss weapon instead.

it creates a niche for the light gauss where its useful and doesnt have to directly compete with the gauss rifle.



there is absolutely no reason to use light gauss if you can use standard gauss.

but creating a reason to use light gauss when you cant use standard gauss gives light gauss a purpose.

Quote

I guess your picked a hill to die on, and PGI's has picked its hill to die on. Not much more one can do, say or suggest here.

no my whole point just went way over your head.

Edited by Khobai, 30 June 2017 - 12:19 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 12:13 AM, said:

nope. because it would no longer directly compete with the gauss rifle.

at 10 tons it becomes an option for mechs that cant spare 15 tons for standard gauss to have a lighter version of a gauss weapon instead.

it creates a niche for the light gauss where its useful and doesnt have to directly compete with the gauss rifle.



there is absolutely no reason to use light gauss if you can use standard gauss.

but creating a reason to use light gauss when you cant use standard gauss gives light gauss a purpose.

I understand that, but it's irrelevant. PGI is not going to change the tonnage, they have never done such a change in the entirety of the game. Not a single item's crit slot or weight differs from the table top.

That are the respective "hills to die on". PGI's adherence to TT stats, your opinion that the weapon cannot be viable (and balanced) at that weight.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 30 June 2017 - 01:20 AM.

[Morderian]

i agree on removing the charge from the Light Gauss would make the Weapon an nice side grade to the AC10 and give it a niche to be used in

as for the Heavy Gauss it only needs a bit more range on the level of an AC20 then it would be fine, bringing split crits would be a nice addition of course

[Luminis]

PGI not deviating from TT stats for crit slots and weight is the premise we have to work with, for better or worse. Whether that'sa good decision on their part or not is a very... Unpleasant topic to tackle, in my opinion, because it's essentially part of the whole "lore / TT accuracy vs. gameplay / balance" debate we all love so much around here. For every player who'd love PGI to break away from the limitations of TT stats, there's probably someone who'd hiss and fit about MWO deserving the MechWarrior / BattleTech moniker even less.

Rock and a hard place, y'know? Whatever PGI does, they'll either get flak from the esport kids or the loretards. That's the beauty of a community that's as split and torn as MWO's.

Now, with that in mind... Crit splitting between two adjacent components is something that could be done, considering that that's basically what XLs and LFEs do. Might need to be individually modelled to spill crits into the CT / Arms (but probably wouldn't be allowed to be arm mounted because the lore says that can't be done, but that at least allows LFEs to be used with them). Granted, at that point you might as well reduce the crit slots the damn thing takes and be done with it, but, well I don't see that happening.

Another option, in my opinion, is to significantly increase the time you can hold a charge for (like, double from what it is now) and increase the optimal range. 25 PPFLD damage is huge, yes, but unless the weapon gets crit splitting, the drawbacks are certainly severe enough to not restrict the weapon to sub 200 meters optimal range. Give it some 270, at least. Having to drag the damn things into brawling range is just so, so annoying, especially with PGI's efforts to ensure that Gausses will never, ever be brawling weapons.

The Light Gauss is in an even worse spot, as far as I am concerned, because it's uselessness doesn't stem from PGI failing to model something from the TT, but because it's tonnage, as defined back in the day by the guys at FASA, either makes it strictly worse than the regular Gauss or, if the damage was to be buffed, ends up invalidating the AC10. Can't really do much about that. Turning it into a long-range DPS weapon by significantly reducing the cooldown doesn't give it a very promising niche, but a niche nonetheless.

[TheArisen]

Zergling, on 29 June 2017 - 11:46 PM, said:

Light Gauss can work two ways: 12 damage with slightly higher DPS/ton than regular Gauss, or 8 damage with much higher DPS/ton than regular Gauss.

With 8 damage, 5 second cooldown and 0.50 second chargeup as in PTS right now, it has much worse DPS/ton than regular Gauss, and is totally worthless as a result.


For 8 damage, it'd be a DPS weapon more comparable to the AC10 than the regular Gauss.

Light Gauss with 8 damage, 5.0 second CD, 0.50 second chargeup = 1.45 DPS, 0.121 DPS/ton
Gauss with 15 damage, 5.0 second CD, 0.75 second chargeup = 2.61 DPS, 0.174 DPS/ton
AC10 with 10 damage, 2.50 second CD = 4.00 DPS, 0.333 DPS/ton

Even with 3.00 second CD and 0.50 second chargeup, the Light Gauss would still only be 2.29 DPS, 0.190 DPS/ton; to work as a DPS weapon, it'd need more DPS than the regular Gauss, so CD would need to be even lower.
Lowering it to 2.25 second CD and 0.25 second chargeup results in 3.20 DPS and 0.267 DPS/ton... at that point, it is probably a viable alternative to the AC10 and regular Gauss.


With 12 damage, it is half-way between the alpha damage Gauss and DPS AC10... I'd probably go with 4.5 second CD and 0.50 second charge up, for 2.40 DPS and 0.200 DPS/ton if it did 12 damage.
At most, 4.75 second CD and 0.50 second charge up, for 2.29 DPS and 0.190 DPS/ton.


Oh yeah, if Light Gauss gets 8 damage, then it needs to be able to charge 3 or 4 at a time. 16 gauss alpha is pathetically low, and even 4 of them is just 32 alpha, only 2 points more than twin regular gauss.

Making the Lgauss an extreme range weapon is something. Firing 4 isn't a problem balance wise because that's 48 tons of weapons before ammo.

[Wildstreak]

Why do people keep putting this stuff in General when there is a dedicated PTS section that PGI might read MORE than here for thoughts on New Tech?

[evilauthor]

Promessa, on 20 June 2017 - 09:10 PM, said:

On lights, no charge would make sense, meaning you could shoot 3 at once.

...

I really shouldn't bite, but...

What light mech (which top out at 35 tons) has the tonnage for THREE Light Gauss Rifles (36 tons before you include ammo)?

[Metus regem]

Brain Cancer, on 29 June 2017 - 07:57 PM, said:

That's not because stats are changed, it's because PGI is incompetent.



Right. And all of that is because PGI refuses to make the effort to allow a weapon to be mounted across two locations.

And that is not an excuse to put illegal designs into TT because MWO stuff is canonical artwork already, and if they can keep the construction rules right, it'll be almost inevitable we start seeing things like the -P variants popping up in later TRO sheets for TT.

This can't happen if MWO fundamentally hoses the construction system for it's own lack of basic coding capacity. The solution is not "let's fudge the basic construction system", it's "fix the basic construction system".

What are you going to say when they can't, say, put XL or Compact gyros, small cockpits, etc. in because construction variations are toooooo hard?

PGI has already shown a lack of following construction rules, battlemechs are able to change engine sizes in increments of 5 rather than increments based on mech weight, let alone being able to swap engines at all. So holding to the construction rules of an archaic abstract rule system that was used to provide some understanding that has not had any real overhaul in 30 years is a brilliant idea. This is compounded by the fact that a system that is usable in TT because of the rules that go along with it, yet only half of those rules are present in this version of the game is no reason to overly punish that item because it can only do half of what it's stats are balanced around.

PGI chose the engine they did, kludged it to do what they wanted it to, now their frankincode doesn't let them do things that they'd like to, we have to let go of rules for a dice based system from 30 years ago and made it work in the environment we have now, so long as the feel is there, I am happy.

As for things like XL Gyros, Compact Engines and small cockpits, I don't really care, as I never used mechs that used them anyways... I fought them and found them easier to deal with as they traded too much away for that equipment.

No don't get me wrong, I love TT, but I feel it needs an overhaul... not to the same degree it got with Clicks or Alpha Strike, but an update that retains the feel but brings it more inline with where we are now as opposed to where we were 30 years ago.

[MustrumRidcully]

The thing with ignoring the TT engine rules is - it doesn't affect any stock loadouts. So it's something easy to break with no repercussions for adopting TT mechs.


That the TT rules could use an overhaul is something I am pretty convinced off, but out of scope for MW:O and ... maybe for everyone else, too. As I understand it, the game has basiclaly seen no fundamental rule change in its entire existence, just new stuff with optional rules. I suspect there are people that would refuse to adopt to a new ruleset and picked and stayed with Battletech over games like Warhammer 40K with regularly rule changes.

[Metus regem]

MustrumRidcully, on 30 June 2017 - 08:31 AM, said:

The thing with ignoring the TT engine rules is - it doesn't affect any stock loadouts. So it's something easy to break with no repercussions for adopting TT mechs.


That the TT rules could use an overhaul is something I am pretty convinced off, but out of scope for MW:O and ... maybe for everyone else, too. As I understand it, the game has basiclaly seen no fundamental rule change in its entire existence, just new stuff with optional rules. I suspect there are people that would refuse to adopt to a new ruleset and picked and stayed with Battletech over games like Warhammer 40K with regularly rule changes.

I suspect you are right on that last part, but I see no real reason to try and force MWO to adhere to the same rules for TT, as we do not have random shot placement, we have a much higher rate of fire and much lower cooling. That's not even going near how our engine weight includes the cockpit, sensors, life support and gyro.