43 replies to this topic

[Admiral-Dan]

kapusta11, on 02 September 2017 - 07:27 AM, said:

People score 1K+ damage in potato queue all the time. Your point?

Then you can surly show us your 1,5k Damage videos which you have archived with bad and buff-worthy weapons.

[Admiral-Dan]

Curccu, on 03 September 2017 - 12:09 AM, said:

We will see how many teams use heavygauss in MWOWC2017 semifinals and finals.
If they are good you will see them used. My estimation would be 0 times seen.

So you want to buff each weapon with don’t get used in MWOWC2017 semifinals and finals? If that’s the criteria then LRMs and many other weapons need buffs much more then Heavy Gauss.

If we buff each Mech too which is not used in the MWOWC2017 semifinals and finals this is getting a real buff feast.

[Hit the Deck]

AlphaEtOmega, on 03 September 2017 - 03:57 AM, said:

...
If we buff each Mech too which is not used in the MWOWC2017 semifinals and finals this is getting a real buff feast.

Having been playing Diablo III, that is actually how Blizzard balance the game (all of below/non Tier S builds are jacked up in a balance pass).

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying that the same method of balancing should be applied to MWO. Especially that this is a PvP game not a PvE one like D3 where they can just keep raising the Torment (difficulty) levels.

[Admiral-Dan]

Hit the Deck, on 03 September 2017 - 04:15 AM, said:

Having been playing Diablo III, that is actually how Blizzard balance the game (all of below/non Tier S builds are jacked up in a balance pass).

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying that the same method of balancing should be applied to MWO. Especially that this is a PvP game not a PvE one like D3 where they can just keep raising the Torment (difficulty) levels.

The problem here is that we have much more weapons and mechs as there are spots to use them in MWOWC2017 semifinals and final. So only the best of the best get used. If we then always give the ones which are just a little bit worse a big buff, and 50% more Range is a big buff, we are starting a never ending buff race.

[Zookeeper Dan]

I run a Sleipnir with 2 Heavy Gauss, 300 engine, 4 ermls, and a Oh Shite RL in the CT. It's fun and does pretty well. It doesn't put up huge numbers, but if you have 1000 damage you are doing it wrong. 300 - 400 damage is good enough for several KMDD and enough mechs with open torsos that they are easy kills for teammates.

I don't think I'd run dual heavy gauss on any other mech. It's basically a brawling weapon with a high range low damage option. It works in the Sleipnir because of the high torso twist speed.

It does need a fix in how long it holds a charge. It was unusable until points were put into the gauss charge length skills.

[Formosa The God]

Rarely use the H gauss, but, on the whole as a mostly clan player I dont think I would mind the boost to 250 and 270 with range quirks (slightly more with quirks I know but you get the point).

[TheArisen]

Yes, the Hgauss needs something to better justify taking it

[Khobai]

heavy gauss needs to actually function like gauss

which means it needs long range

heavy gauss should be 22 damage, 540m/1080m range, 6s+1s cooldown

no reticle shake

maybe 10 crit slots instead of 11 but with the restriction that it cant be placed in arms

[Hit the Deck]

My opening sentence in the original post seems to have failed its purpose....

[Khobai]

Quote

My opening sentence in the original post seems to have failed its purpose....

because you cant fix heavy gauss the way youre proposing

you can only fix it by making it into what its supposed to be: a gauss

[Fleeb the Mad]

Agreed on 270m range.

The HGauss can be dangerous, but carrying it requires huge build sacrifices. The inability to carry an LFE doubles the tonnage tax on the weapon. Increasing its range won't greatly impact its direct competitor, the AC-20, since it's still got a number of advantages in its range bracket. Since it's got so many crits, internal damage generally almost always triggers an explosion.

Presently the HGauss range makes it largely inferior to carrying two standard Gauss rifles, since the few chassis that can make effective use of it have difficulty getting into the range that makes the HGauss actually deal more damage.

[Formosa The God]

Khobai, on 03 September 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

heavy gauss needs to actually function like gauss

which means it needs long range

heavy gauss should be 22 damage, 540m/1080m range, 6s+1s cooldown

no reticle shake

maybe 10 crit slots instead of 11 but with the restriction that it cant be placed in arms

Isnt the shake to represent the -1 to hit from TT ?

[El Bandito]

AlphaEtOmega, on 03 September 2017 - 03:57 AM, said:

So you want to buff each weapon with don’t get used in MWOWC2017 semifinals and finals? If that’s the criteria then LRMs and many other weapons need buffs much more then Heavy Gauss.

LRMs do need buffs. Currently they are in a sad state.

[Khobai]

Quote

Isnt the shake to represent the -1 to hit from TT ?

yes but in tabletop being able to do 25 damage to one location is unique to heavy gauss

but in MWO virtually any boated laser weapon can do 25+ damage to one location due to convergence

its simply not necessary to penalize heavy gauss in MWO

[Y E O N N E]

The shake is annoying, but truthfully I don't really care whether it stays or goes since firing the HGauss at the end of a laser burn negates it completely.

[panzer1b]

I support a increase to 270m. It has so many drawbacks and penalties (not to mention how few mechs can even run it semi well), that it would be pretty fair with 270m optional range (all other stats stay as is ofc).

Also, i think the LGR needs some sort of buff, either way better cooldown, or more damage. As it stands, that gun is beyond useless since 8 dmg is meaningless most of the time and it fires slower then ac-20...

[Xetelian]

270m range was like the gold standard in MWO with medium lasers and ac20s and it is even longer now that clans are out.

Having such a costly weapon with such a huge range disadvantage is silly.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeah that's nice. Although if it's 5 damage increment per 270m, then it would probably end up too far. I'd say 0m-270m, 405m, 540m, 675m, 810m, 945m, and have the crit slot lowered to 10, allowing use of LFE at least cause that's the biggest issue i have with the weapon.

[Hit the Deck]

The6thMessenger, on 04 September 2017 - 12:30 AM, said:

...and have the crit slot lowered to 10, allowing use of LFE at least cause that's the biggest issue i have with the weapon.

I would leave the crit slot requirement as it is.

[kesmai]

Nope. Leave it as it is.
A one trick pony. Albeit a terrifying one if it works.