114 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Lightfoot, on 02 August 2017 - 11:21 AM, said:

Clan Gauss nerf?

No they nerfed Clan mechs by denying them normal Mechlab. Fixed engines and fixed equipment means most Clan mechs can only carry one Gauss Rifle below the Assault class and if they do it's at the expense of ammo and armor. You don't nerf weapons based on Kodiaks, Dires, and MC mkii's. You nerf the mechs.

While I don't believe in nerfing the Clan Goose right now (I'd rather make IS Gauss explosion do less damage), I'm going to have to point out that the "nerf the mechs" approach can only go so far.

Whenever PGI releases a new mech with specific design traits, then that new mech would have to get pre-preemptively nerfed in the same way or else it would be OP in that kind of balancing paradigm.

I think one of the biggest issues is that PGI always refuses to give compensation to the average and crappy mechs whenever they nerf the tech base itself.

Edited by FupDup, 02 August 2017 - 11:29 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

I mean they could also give IS gauss a better cooldown too... there are a lot of ways they can balance the two, but some special people think that IS gauss is already good enough/too good.

[FupDup]

Gas Guzzler, on 02 August 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

I mean they could also give IS gauss a better cooldown too... there are a lot of ways they can balance the two, but some special people think that IS gauss is already good enough/too good.

Faster cooldown doesn't make sense for the role of dealing high pinpoint damage at long ranges, and it might conflict with other IS ballistic options that are supposed to be the DPS weapons of choice (ACs and UACs).

The only Gauss that needs more DPS is the Light one, either by cooldown or directly increasing the damage per slug.

[Gas Guzzler]

FupDup, on 02 August 2017 - 12:05 PM, said:

Faster cooldown doesn't make sense for the role of dealing high pinpoint damage at long ranges, and it might conflict with other IS ballistic options that are supposed to be the DPS weapons of choice (ACs and UACs).

The only Gauss that needs more DPS is the Light one, either by cooldown or directly increasing the damage per slug.

Eh, not saying a huge change, but like .5 seconds. Its still not a DPS weapon, its just a little better.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 02 August 2017 - 12:07 PM, said:

Eh, not saying a huge change, but like .5 seconds. Its still not a DPS weapon, its just a little better.

It still doesn't fix that major deficit with iGauss. Both upfront damage and fragility are major issue for it. Bumping up the damage to 18.75 per round would be a good start (you could drop the ammo per ton to 8 as well to keep the damage per ton equivalent).

Basically slightly better cooldown didn't work in MW4 in trying to balance iGauss vs cGauss, and I don't see why that would be any different for MWO.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 02 August 2017 - 12:32 PM.

[Luminis]

FupDup, on 02 August 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

I'd rather make IS Gauss explosion do less damage

I'd rather PGI just removes the weapon explosion gimmick from the IS Gauss altogether. With the added weight, it should be a hell of a lot sturdier. I know, that might make it more suitable to brawling than is the case at the moment, but I think that's somewhat in line with the tanks vs. glass cannon approach.

Alternatively, I'd like to see ammo / ton increased significantly for the IS Gauss to at least reduce the overall weight somewhat.

[FupDup]

Luminis, on 02 August 2017 - 01:14 PM, said:

I'd rather PGI just removes the weapon explosion gimmick from the IS Gauss altogether. With the added weight, it should be a hell of a lot sturdier. I know, that might make it more suitable to brawling than is the case at the moment, but I think that's somewhat in line with the tanks vs. glass cannon approach.

Alternatively, I'd like to see ammo / ton increased significantly for the IS Gauss to at least reduce the overall weight somewhat.

The problem with removing the explosion is that it gives the Gauss an unfair advantage compared to every other ballistic and missile weapon. If all other ballistics and missiles have to deal with explosions, the Gauss should suffer explosions too.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

FupDup, on 02 August 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

The problem with removing the explosion is that it gives the Gauss an unfair advantage compared to every other ballistic and missile weapon. If all other ballistics and missiles have to deal with explosions, the Gauss should suffer explosions too.

To be honest I don't even think gauss has that huge of an advantage over other ballistic weapons in the first place. Gauss puts out low DPS, has to charge up so you can't snap shot, and its the heaviest of all the ballistics on the IS side (well, equal to the UAC20 now)

If we compare IS gauss to an AC10:
AC10 has over 53% more DPS, can snap shot, is 3 tons lighter, gets 50 more damage per ton of ammo, has 50% more component health, and does much more crit damage due to gauss not having x2 and x3 crits and lower x1 crit rate, and it doesn't explode.

Gauss gets 50% more damage per shot, about 47% more range, double velocity, and 3 times less heat per shot.

I really think gauss rifles could do without the explosion mechanic entirely, or at least only have it explode when you have the thing charged. Its a sniper weapon that does that one thing better than any other weapon but pays heavily for it in DPS, versatility, weight, and fragility.

I'd say either remove charge up or remove the explosion.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Dakota1000, on 02 August 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

If we compare IS gauss to an AC10:
AC10 has over 53% more DPS, can snap shot, is 3 tons lighter, gets 50 more damage per ton of ammo, has 50% more component health, and does much more crit damage due to gauss not having x2 and x3 crits and lower x1 crit rate, and it doesn't explode.

Gauss gets 50% more damage per shot, about 47% more range, double velocity, and 3 times less heat per shot.

Those advantages with the Gauss are not to be underestimated, specifically the double velocity which despite the inability to snapshot allows the Gauss to be useful at range in spite of it. All ACs but the 2s have too slow of projectiles.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 02 August 2017 - 02:29 PM.

[Zergling]

Dakota1000, on 02 August 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

You actually have more DPS than the Clan one where you want it disregarding the splash damage. IS ERPPCs have a 0.5 second lower cooldown ontop of IS skill tree having higher cooldown nodes. Then the higher velocity lets you hit more shots than the CERPPC at longer ranges.

Here's an Awesome 8Q build, and accounting for its quirks and having a skill build with 25 points in Weapons like what I'd use (giving it another 3.75% cooldown, 3% heat gen, 8% cool run), it has 33.50% heat efficiency, 10.39 maximum DPS and 3.48 sustained DPS.

Versus a Warhawk C build, and accounting for its quirks and having the same skill tree build as above (giving it 3% cooldown, 3% heat gen and 8% cool run), it has 45.48% heat efficiency, 9.16 maximum DPS and 4.17 sustained DPS.
And that is without accounting for splash damage.

So the Awesome only gets superior maximum DPS, which is kinda useless with weapons as hot as the ER PPC.
The Warhawk gets 19.74% more sustained DPS, which becomes even larger with splash damage.

[Luminis]

FupDup, on 02 August 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

The problem with removing the explosion is that it gives the Gauss an unfair advantage compared to every other ballistic and missile weapon. If all other ballistics and missiles have to deal with explosions, the Gauss should suffer explosions too.

The explosion issue is insanely lopsided, though. Not only do you typically not carry sufficient amount of ammo to fill a similar number of crit slots and, thus, run a lover risk of suffering an ammo explosion, but it's also far easier to keep ammo in mostly safe areas, such as legs or the cockpit.

/edit:
I'll admit that my desire for durable IS Gauss Rifles stems from my experience piloting my dual Gauss WHM-6R. It's awesome, but allowing it to make full use of its structure would make it a true terror on the battlefield

Edited by Luminis, 02 August 2017 - 08:11 PM.

[InspectorG]

Requiemking, on 01 August 2017 - 10:56 PM, said:

Even then, a lot of the KDK 3's "OPness" came from potatoes trying to facetank a 100 ton mech and failing badly because of it.

I though it was a 100 ton mech with an XL400 that had 4 high dakka mounts that let it peek and drop 80(pre nerf)damage or 60(post UAC10 nerf)damage and quickly drop behind cover. Potato KDK3 pilots needlessly facetanked with all the dakka trying to play Chicken whilst getting focused by the enemy.

Zergling, on 02 August 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

So the Awesome only gets superior maximum DPS, which is kinda useless with weapons as hot as the ER PPC.
The Warhawk gets 19.74% more sustained DPS, which becomes even larger with splash damage.

But the Warhawk also has gorilla arms that mitigate lots of shots. But im glad my Peep Warhawks are decent again.

[A Shoddy Rental Mech]

Some clanners need to quit whining.

Uncle Russ has already stated the I.S. is going to get hit with a 15 ton Nerf Bat.

It'll be just in time for the expiring Merc contracts so the mercs swing the balance of power back in favor of the clans.

I have a feeling the people that can't compete with the I.S. at 265 tons won't be able to compete at 250 tons either.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 02 August 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

The problem with removing the explosion is that it gives the Gauss an unfair advantage compared to every other ballistic and missile weapon. If all other ballistics and missiles have to deal with explosions, the Gauss should suffer explosions too.

That is such a fringe issue and you know it. No other ballistic has to deal with putting 7 slots of explosives in one place; the explosion problem is much more pronounced with Gauss. And honestly, the chief issue is that, as long as it explodes and XLs kill you on ST loss, you can't mount the two together except with very specific hardpoint configurations. The risk is just too high, significantly diminishing the value of the weapon.

[Zergling]

InspectorG, on 02 August 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

But the Warhawk also has gorilla arms that mitigate lots of shots. But im glad my Peep Warhawks are decent again.

IIRC, Awesome hardpoints aren't much different in height than the Warhawk.

Warhawk is also faster and more agile than the Awesome 8Q... so yeah, it's the superior machine.

Edited by Zergling, 02 August 2017 - 11:16 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Zergling, on 02 August 2017 - 11:05 PM, said:

Warhawk is also faster and more agile than the Awesome 8Q... so yeah, it's the superior machine.

I wonder if anyone has tested the Warhawk vs a 6 ERLL SNV-1

[MustrumRidcully]

FupDup, on 02 August 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

The problem with removing the explosion is that it gives the Gauss an unfair advantage compared to every other ballistic and missile weapon. If all other ballistics and missiles have to deal with explosions, the Gauss should suffer explosions too.

The weird thing is that Gauss Explosions in M:WO are far more likely to happen then ammo explosions. So currently the unfairness is in favor of the autocannons and missiles.

InspectorG, on 02 August 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

I though it was a 100 ton mech with an XL400 that had 4 high dakka mounts that let it peek and drop 80(pre nerf)damage or 60(post UAC10 nerf)damage and quickly drop behind cover. Potato KDK3 pilots needlessly facetanked with all the dakka trying to play Chicken whilst getting focused by the enemy.



But the Warhawk also has gorilla arms that mitigate lots of shots. But im glad my Peep Warhawks are decent again.

I haven't played an Awesome for literally years, but I don't think they changed the mount point locations, did they? IF not, the AWS PPc locations suck probably as much as the Warhawks

[Zergling]

Gas Guzzler, on 02 August 2017 - 11:06 PM, said:

I wonder if anyone has tested the Warhawk vs a 6 ERLL SNV-1

SNV-1 should have considerably higher sustained DPS (unless the Warhawk's ER PPC splash is counted, then it is near even), but much higher face time.

[Gas Guzzler]

Zergling, on 02 August 2017 - 11:14 PM, said:

SNV-1 should have considerably higher sustained DPS (unless the Warhawk's ER PPC splash is counted, then it is near even), but much higher face time.

Yeah, i mean with 32 DHS it can handle firing 3-3 too... would be an interesting matchup.

[Zergling]

Gas Guzzler, on 02 August 2017 - 11:15 PM, said:

Yeah, i mean with 32 DHS it can handle firing 3-3 too... would be an interesting matchup.

3-3 firing would lower its sustained DPS from 5.83 to 4.70 (no skills).

Warhawk C without ER PPC splash being counted is 3.73 sustained DPS, 5.59 sustained DPS if it is counted.