24 replies to this topic

[Botaine]

I think heavy gauss does need a minor buff. Damage per ton is pretty bad actually, it only works well up close and it has a charge up. They should probably just increase the range 100M or something. If you compare it to an AC/20 for example, there is no reason to take heavy gauss. That 5 damage increase isn't worth all the downsides.

Edited by Botaine, 04 December 2023 - 09:34 PM.

[KursedVixen]

Doesn

Botaine, on 04 December 2023 - 09:30 PM, said:

I think heavy gauss does need a minor buff. Damage per ton is pretty bad actually, it only works well up close and it has a charge up. They should probably just increase the range 100M or something. If you compare it to an AC/20 for example, there is no reason to take heavy gauss. That 5 damage increase isn't worth all the downsides.

heavy gauss does 25 damage pinpoint I think it's fine as is what needs changed are the Hags they need to be changed back to where they were when they were introduced with just a little more spread... they should not be 20 30 40 damage sniper weapons.

[JumpingHunter]

Botaine, on 04 December 2023 - 09:30 PM, said:

I think heavy gauss does need a minor buff. Damage per ton is pretty bad actually, it only works well up close and it has a charge up. They should probably just increase the range 100M or something. If you compare it to an AC/20 for example, there is no reason to take heavy gauss. That 5 damage increase isn't worth all the downsides.

To bring HGR in line with current meta - yes, for that it would probably need a minor (or not) buff. But i think it would be WAY better to bring most of other weapons in line with HGR - it was very well balanced untile recent patches, and they way how newly added weapons and mechs that bear them simply go off limits of that older weapon balance, which led to older but well made weapons like HGR feel underpowered.

Basically, my point is this: If current iteration of HGR feels too strong - some other weapons probably need some buffs to stay in line with it, or mechs need some armor buffs. If current iteration of HGR feels too weak - some other weapons probably need a nerf, or mechs need some survivability nerfs.

[nvx 116]

JumpingHunter, on 01 December 2023 - 08:53 AM, said:

At 300 meters it will deal about 22 damage, so the difference for dual HGR at 300 meters is going to be about 6 damage, 44 instead of 50. 44 pinpoint damage with 1800 velocity. Light mechs do get much more armor than they shoud, but all weapons are struggling with killing light mechs just as much as HGR, if not more. But that is a problem with light mechs' balance, not with weapon balance. HGR in right hands can be a death sentence to anyone who is facing it. The point is that these "right hands" need to be actually good, and judging by how you repeat that 220 optimal range is horrible for HGR, without considering that it stil deals more damage than AC20 on 150% of AC20 optimal range, i think its not the HGR being bad, its just you who need some practice.

I repeat again, at 351 meters it deals 20 damage. On 300 meters it will deal about 22-21.5 damage. If you say that it's worse than AC20 at killing light mechs at 300 meters range - you are objectively wrong. Folks above got some good points about actual AC20 advantages over the HGR, but in terms of damage - there is no IS ballistic weapon that would be stronger than HGR.

Now, could you please tell me which mechs do you own and use? Is it just one Fafnir with 2xHGR, or do you actually use anything else? Because if you pilot one mech and only that mech, then you can burn out very easily.

And one more thing. If you say that HGR has a very bad optimal range, then you should rephrase it like this: "most other ballistic weapons, including clan ones, should get their range adjusted to match the strengh of the weapon as much as HGR strength match it's range". I would say that HGR is one of the most balanced weapons, not overpowered, but not weak too. If you struggle to use it - either succumb to dirty meta or learn how to use it correctly.

i like the way you think thank you for explaining your reasioning instead of saying "getgood" and leaveing it at that

[JumpingHunter]

nvx 116, on 24 January 2024 - 06:21 PM, said:

i like the way you think thank you for explaining your reasioning instead of saying "getgood" and leaveing it at that

Thanks mate. Toxicity never helps anybody, the more people will learn that the better this community will get. And by reasoning with other people it's easier to see my own mistakes in arguments, so that's a nice bonus!

Edited by JumpingHunter, 31 January 2024 - 12:13 AM.