94 replies to this topic

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 01 July 2017 - 06:22 PM, said:

Im not convinced the heavy gauss needs to be 10 crits on order to be good

I would like to test heavy gauss with 180m optimum range increased to 270m and 810m max range decreased to 690m

with the reticle shake removed

Tbh, no, it would still make it crap.

You have uac20 which can pump out 40 damage at 270m pretty reliably, doesnt explode and actually allows light.

compared to that heavy gauss just cant compete at these ranges.
400m is minimum that should be considered and tbh to justify 18 tons investment you would need at least 600m.

Edited by davoodoo, 01 July 2017 - 06:31 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

You have uac20 which can pump out 40 damage at 270m pretty reliably, doesnt explode and actually allows light.

except UAC20 isnt 2 heat

you arnt using heavy gauss because it has high dps. youre using heavy gauss because its very high damage for next to no heat.

Quote

400m is minimum that should be considered and tbh to make this weapon viable you would need at least 600m.

then there would be no reason to use standard gauss.

heavy gauss has super short range so standard gauss is still a viable option for longer ranges

Edited by Khobai, 01 July 2017 - 06:33 PM.

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 01 July 2017 - 06:31 PM, said:

except UAC20 isnt 2 heat

you arnt using heavy gauss because it has high dps. youre using heavy gauss because its very high damage for next to no heat.

and you dont build your brawl mech around heavy energy weapons which are heavy on heat and instead strap very heat efficient medium lasers giving you leeway to go with heavy ballistics instead of gauss and especially you dont strap 20 dmg bomb to your side which with 11 slots will explode if you sneeze at it.

Khobai, on 01 July 2017 - 06:31 PM, said:

heavy gauss has super short range so standard gauss is still a viable option for longer ranges

with 5 shots per ton and recoil preventing followup shots with ppc, believe me, it wouldnt hurt gauss viability at sniping even a tiny bit. Oh and lets not forget it can only be put in side torsos which eliminates any possibility for high mounted arms.

Heavy gauss got enough drawbacks already.

Edited by davoodoo, 01 July 2017 - 06:39 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

and you dont build your brawl mech around heavy energy weapons which are heavy on heat and especially you dont strap 20 dmg bomb to your side which with 11 slots will explode if you sneeze at it.

ok but even at 10 slots none of its issues are fixed. so clearly the biggest problem is not that it takes up 11 slots.

so what I said before is still true... that heavy gauss can probably be fixed without making it 10 slots.

Edited by Khobai, 01 July 2017 - 06:41 PM.

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 01 July 2017 - 06:40 PM, said:

ok but even at 10 slots none of its issues are fixed. so clearly the biggest problem is not that it takes up 11 slots.

so what I said before is still true... that heavy gauss can probably be fixed without making it 10 slots.

Indeed, its problem is horrible brawl range on a weapon which should be direct fire support.

Thing which your solution havent amended at all.

Edited by davoodoo, 01 July 2017 - 06:44 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Khobai, on 01 July 2017 - 06:40 PM, said:

ok but even at 10 slots none of its issues are fixed. so clearly the biggest problem is not that it takes up 11 slots.

so what I said before is still true... that heavy gauss can probably be fixed without making it 10 slots.

them being 11Crits is a huge Penalty,
being forced to take a STD engine means you have a huge Tonnage Penalty,
and that penalty is increase further by both weapons weighing so much as well,

i can take a LFE and an IS-UAC20 or a STD and a LBX20, which will i run? most defiantly the Ultra,
i can take a LFE and a Gauss(15Dam @0-600) or a STD and a HGauss(+3Ton(>15Dam @0-450), which will i run?

being 11Crits, i believe is their biggest Problem, which stops them from being mounted on most mechs,
Tonnage Loss LFE vs STD(300STD=+4.5Tons)(325STD=+5.5Tons)(350STD=+7Tons)(375STD=+9.5Tons)
for instance a 320STD engine weights the same as a 350LFE, thats Speed or tonnage your Losing going Standard,

[Kaptain]

Andi Nagasia, on 01 July 2017 - 07:02 PM, said:

them being 11Crits is a huge Penalty,
being forced to take a STD engine means you have a huge Tonnage Penalty,
and that penalty is increase further by both weapons weighing so much as well,

i can take a LFE and an IS-UAC20 or a STD and a LBX20, which will i run? most defiantly the Ultra,
i can take a LFE and a Gauss(15Dam @0-600) or a STD and a HGauss(+3Ton(>15Dam @0-450), which will i run?

being 11Crits, i believe is their biggest Problem, which stops them from being mounted on most mechs,
Tonnage Loss LFE vs STD(300STD=+4.5Tons)(325STD=+5.5Tons)(350STD=+7Tons)(375STD=+9.5Tons)
for instance a 320STD engine weights the same as a 350LFE, thats Speed or tonnage your Losing going Standard,

Completely agree. (I would still like to see a range increase to 270ish) But atleast with a LFE I would have the tonnage to add ammunition to a very ammunition starved weapons platform and carry some semblance of backup weapons.

Edited by Kaptain, 01 July 2017 - 07:27 PM.

[Wibbledtodeath]

IS LBX-20 is superior to an AC20- the sacrifice of pinpoint is worth it for increased velocity. That said- LBX2's and 5's (who's competition have faster velocity rounds) need to be -1 ton, and -1 crit (min 1) at least, to be viable alternatives to autocannon (or be given 1/2 the cooldown time or some other vast bonus to make up for loss of PPFLD)

IS LBX-20 should be able to fit in a ballistics arm though- and should be 10 crits if it is going to see use, but same (or more) tonnage/less ammo per ton or something to make up for this. Either that, or get crit sharing worked out. Not that it isn't good in the very few mechs that can boat 2, but that relegates it to a very infrequent use (Actually, reducing crits, but also reducing ammo/t/crit is a cheats way of effectively giving it crit sharing)

Edited by Wibbledtodeath, 01 July 2017 - 11:41 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Sacrificing pinpoint for velocity when you're already reasonably accurate is....not what one calls a valid tradeoff.

Sure, you're more likely to hit something at distance with higher velocity, but then again you're already firing a shotgun at them to begin with. The spray of damage across half the target will surely kill it faster at the ranges that your faster pellet arrival matters at for accuracy purposes.

Not.

[Scout Derek]

Voted no as we're basically making Is Mechs the same as clan Battlemechs....

Now standards become useless and xls not used at all....

I may be going against the grain, but that's only because I don't want to make Is Mechs the same as clan Mechs. then we'd have little strengths and weaknesses between the two technologies.

I may be going against the grain, but that's just me. I can use two lb 20s just fine on the mauler - they're really strong at that too.

and heavy Gauss.... weight or crits isn't the issue with it. it's the usability of the thing. needs buffing as it still feels weak.

[MustrumRidcully]

We know the extra crit makes equipping an LFE or XL Engine impossible. So we could take a benchmark mech that we think might realistically carry a Heavy Gauss or LBX-20, calculate how much extra tonnage the 11 crit weapon would cost him, and balance the weapon around costing this much tonnage.

Say, the Hunchback 4G is our smallest LBX-10/Heavy Gauss carrier. Let's say we manage a build with a STD 250 Engine (18.5 tons). How much lighter would the LFE be? About 3 tons?


So, let's treat the Heavy Gauss Rifle like a 21 ton weapon instead of an 18 ton weapon. and the LBX-20 as a 17 ton weapon, and balance from there.

I would lower the Heavy Gauss Rifle's charge up time to be identical to that of a regular Gauss Rifle, if not going even further than reducing it to that of the LIght Gauss Rifle. Then potentially lower the cooldown a bit further.

The LBX-20... Well, I think all LBX weapons should probably get a bit of extra damage per pellet, to justify their weight and size for the lack of pinpoint precision. (The IS LBX-10 might get a little smaller buff here, since it's actually lighter than the AC/10). The LBX-20 specifically could also get a better cooldown than the standard AC/20.

davoodoo, on 01 July 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

All this stuff might be a problem for student who tries to figure it out for the first time.
But pgi arent bunch of students, they are ppl who went through university and have years of experience in that industry and are expected to have knowledge to deal with it.

No, these are problems for actual, professional software engineers and developers working with an existing system that was build with certain requirements in mind. If you suddenly add new requirements that sharply differ from anything that came before, that will have a lot of repercussions and require a lot of reeingineering. It's not a trivial task. If it alters the underlying architecture of the systems involved, then it's a challenge that will requre non-trivial efforts to overcome.

And again: I ask you, how easy do you think can it be to implement ammunition changes for a weapon? The LBX10 was introduced during the Beta, the Clans introduced a bunch of new ones, and now we got new IS LBX and the Advanced Tactical Missile. There are basically a dozens of weapons in our arsenal that could benefit from an ammo switching mechanic. And yet, PGI didn't implement it so far.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 02 July 2017 - 12:42 AM.

[Kaptain]

Wibbledtodeath, on 01 July 2017 - 11:39 PM, said:

IS LBX-20 should be able to fit in a ballistics arm though

Agreed. This is common in BT and we need a fix for it here. I would pref crit splitting mechanic but if we cant have that please shrink it pgi.

[The Basilisk]

No, because lore.
Game is to already too watered down as it is.
Stop claiming the cake and not wanting to pay for it.
LB-X20 can only mounted in Arms of Battlemechs that either distribute crits to two zones wich PGI is unable to do, or in Battlemech arms that are build for mounting that kind of gun aka having only shoulder activators and suffering a targeting malus for it.

Edited by The Basilisk, 02 July 2017 - 01:20 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

The Basilisk, on 02 July 2017 - 01:18 AM, said:

No, because lore.
Game is to already too watered down as it is.
Stop claiming the cake and not wanting to pay for it.
LB-X20 can only mounted in Arms of Battlemechs that either distribute crits to two zones wich PGI is unable to do, or in Battlemech arms that are build for mounting that kind of gun aka having only shoulder activators and suffering a targeting malus for it.

11 Crit Slots is not really "lore": I doubt you hear anyone in-universe talking about how a weapon has so and so many crit slots and thus will or will not fit in his mech.

11 crit slots is a game rule.

Lore will tell you mech X has a huge ballistic weapon its arm. Game mechanics will say it's an LBX-20 with split criticals to fit it into the mech. A game rule that says: Oh, wait, LBX-20 are 10 slots, actually, will fit the exact same lore.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 02 July 2017 - 02:13 AM.

[Kaptain]

The Basilisk, on 02 July 2017 - 01:18 AM, said:

No, because lore.

So you want stock lore builds that feature an LBX20 in the arm... to not be available in MWO... because of lore?

And "pay for it"?

The LBX is already kneecapped from lore in that it cant fire front loaded regular AC rounds. Anyone taking an LBX has already paid for it in lack of PPFLD. Additionally in lore its a canister round and in MWO its a shotgun. Not being able to mount it in an arm or run it in conjunction with a LFE (as you can in lore) is just too much "cost" over all we have already "paid".

Edited by Kaptain, 02 July 2017 - 02:59 AM.

[The Basilisk]

Sorry that I used your trigger word ... ("singz": lore,lore,lorelorelololololoreeeeee and whatches with glee how the guys twitch)

The problem is that the game rules of Battletech and the weapon mechanics of Battletech are not correctly translated.
As you said: NO CRIT SPREDING
That also is the reason why some mechtypes/variants with critspred weapons are and will not (sadly) implemented in MWO.

Solution:
Stop inciting PGI to continue the lazy and incompetent work they do with lackluster physics, no reverse cam, no ammo switching an all the other stuff that should be there 1/2 year after CB and start DEMANDING LOUD CONTINUED AND CLEAR to give the weapon 11 crits and implement crit spreding not reduce the necessary crits that are a balancing factor of the weapon and shall prevent the overgunning of mechs.

Also as you said...we pay.
So...no it is not ok to circumvent needed general gameupdates that have to come to accomodate the new weapons and tech. (see the hillarious implementation of Clan ATMs that are completely and utterly useless)
We are customers and have demands...start the work ladys and gentlemans.

Edited by The Basilisk, 02 July 2017 - 03:18 AM.

[Wibbledtodeath]

Still easy to reduce crits to 10- and reduce ammo by 25%/t. Similar end result- coding PGI can actually do before release. I just feel your stance is likely to result in disappointment, or delays and then disappointment.

Hypocritical I know from someone demanding removal or at least reduced use of Ghost Heat- a terrible shortcut mechanic to (not) balance the game. But in this case, its a question of allowing the weapon to be viable in the game or not. I chose viability without additional complications. I respect your viewpoint though.

[davoodoo]

I mean they introduced kgc when?? about 2 years ago if i remember right.
This thing should use crit sharing for ac20's instead they cut lower arm actuator.

So in all that time they couldnt introduce crit sharing and now you want them to again go lazy and reduce crits on more weapons.

Edited by davoodoo, 02 July 2017 - 05:45 AM.

[Metus regem]

davoodoo, on 02 July 2017 - 05:45 AM, said:

I mean they introduced kgc when?? about 2 years ago if i remember right.
This thing should use crit sharing for ac20's instead they cut lower arm actuator.

So in all that time they couldnt introduce crit sharing and now you want them to again go lazy and reduce crits on more weapons.

To be fair the LAA's on the king Crab were a typo and didn't appear on subsequent publications.

[davoodoo]

Metus regem, on 02 July 2017 - 06:12 AM, said:

To be fair the LAA's on the king Crab were a typo and didn't appear on subsequent publications.

and yet even artwork shows it having those.

But tbh i cant even blame them for changing that, laa is redundant if youre going to crit share as it still would be locked to side torso arc.

Edited by davoodoo, 02 July 2017 - 06:30 AM.