99 replies to this topic

[Vermaxx]

Jason1138, on 30 November 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

making guass explode is the TT solution to it. guass has a minimum range in TT as well

making it run hotter goes against TT. its a high damage, low heat, long range weapon with non-exploding ammo. those are the perks. the negatives are size and weight and that the gun itself likes to blow up

in other words, its a sniping weapon. if you're putting it on an atlas or a cat and wading into a fight at close range, you deserve what you get. if you want to brawl mount an AC20

i see way too many guys with ER PPCs and ER LL's charging straight ahead to engage at 100 meters and its really dumb. if you mount sniper weapons, be a sniper

In the grand scheme of things, a gauss isn't really that much more fragile than anything else, ESPECIALLY not an AC20. A gauss has a smaller crit footprint, meaning it is harder to hit up front. It has lower hp, so it breaks easier. An AC20 has a huge crit footprint, so it gets hit more often. The fact that it has more hp does not save it from the increased crits. You might get one more shot out of an exposed AC20 than a gauss.

Even with x2 damage, most weapons in the game do enough to kill a 10hp item with one hit. Everything but MGs and flamers can do it with x3. Several items can do it with a x1 crit. They need to do away with all this hp stuff and go back to 'broken/not broken' like tabletop. The only two exceptions should be engine (needs 3 hits) and gyro (needs 2).

Khobai, on 30 November 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

BV is how gauss is balanced in tabletop. And its why we need BV in this game.

They've been through two Build Value systems and are supposedly working on a third. BV wasn't very great either. No system with this much customization can be truly evened out with a formula. PGI is trying, maybe not in the ways people want, but they're trying.

[Joseph Mallan]

Xeven, on 30 November 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Making Guass fragile is wrong way to balance it. I agree dual Guass is a bit OP and 3 will be even more Op. Making it fragile/unreliable will essentialy mean people wont equip it. That is a bad way to balance weapons in a game.

Just like your UAC 5 Nurf you made is so it is less fun to use by making it Jam 25% of the time so they are now just shelf items taking up memory on most of our computers. Why not just get rid of them instead?

Making sutff unreliable is a very bad idea for a game. You want people to enjoy the game so they will play it? Your taking away options when you change something to the point people no longer want to equip it.

Find another way to balance Gauss and the UAC's for that matter. YOU WANT PEOPLE to enjoy the features in the game not have them just be pixels on the screen.

You could increase Gauss firing delay or make it run hotter, or when two or more are fired at same time have them malfunction? Perhaps Group firing more than one at a time causes them to collide when fired and turns the round sinto fragments like LBX. I duno but making it so I wont want to equip it is a bad bad thing IMO>

Making it fragile, thus unreliable just means you have game content that wont be used and enjoyed.

Rethink before you ruin your own content and features.

Sorry you were saying wrong again?

Quote

Since the Gauss Rifle fires solid metal slugs, with neither propellant nor explosive, Gauss Rifle magazines are not susceptible to ammunition explosions. However, if the weapon itself is struck by enemy fire, the capacitors that power the electromagnets will release their stored energy, with an effect similar to an ammo explosion. (In game terms, a critical hit on a Gauss Rifle is equivalent to a 20-point ammo explosion.) Some 'Mechs employ CASE in the section containing the Gauss Rifle to protect internal components in the event the weapon explodes.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 30 November 2012 - 09:37 AM.

[Apnu]

They should make it like the TT game. A crit hit on the weapon has a good chance of blowing up. So instead of catastrophic damage from an ammo hit, its the rifle. And 13 slots (or whatever it is) in one location is a pretty big target for crit. seekers.

Works great on the table top.

[HardRider]

I like the weapon on my dragon and will wait to see how it chances before i start to judge something... if it does turn crap ill mount a 20 on it instead while i voice my opinion in one of the thousand of thread people like to make (instead of continuing the current one)

[Orzorn]

Aidan Malchor, on 30 November 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

But will CASE apply to the guass rifle itself? Isn't CASE just to prevent ammo explosions from tearing your mech apart?

I do think it will help balance the gauss a bit. You can hit a cat's side torso's it's just not easy unless your shooting them from the side.

CASE applies to the Gauss rifle itself, yes, at least in the TT.

[Nuck Fewton]

I think the bigger issues with gauss are as follows

1.) once again, it's the catapult that is a problem and making gauss easier to hurt won't help the K2 problem as they have impossible to hit torsos

2.) ACs still suck in comparison

[Orzorn]

Joseph Mallan, on 30 November 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

Sorry you were saying wrong again?

He said making it FRAGILE, not MAKING IT EXPLODE.

It should have exploded for a long time now. The nerf isn't making it explode, its reducing its internal HP, something that literally never existed in the TT. Your quote was rather useless.

[siLve00]

always the TT rules.. so laughable.

well.. i think it totaly sucks to balance a weapon like that.

why ? because you cant relay on it at all in any situation..
to gain is much slower now as the win... why ? because its to heavy and it uses to much ammo.

i could care less because i dont use any gauss but i think you all deserved it by your major whining about stuff.

lrm
ssrm
gauss
uac
...........

i bet you guys find other stuff soon ( besides "lights".. and lights arent the problem at all )

[Felbombling]

Orzorn, on 30 November 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

Even you have to know that is horse hockey. Opposition to an idea does not mean support of the way it currently is.

Starmage21, on 30 November 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

The problem is that pretty much all weapon systems in the game are supposed to be relatively fragile. A single crit to any multi-crit weapon puts the weapon out of commission. The weakness of the gauss rifle was that it took up a large number of crit slots and freaking explodes when one is hit.


*edit* Language DERP

Raise your hand if you would have taken Gauss Rifles months ago if, when they took critical damage, they instantly destroyed the location the Gauss Rifle was housed within? Imagine a K2 with dual Gauss Rifles and an XL engine... BOOM. Mech dead. Yeah... the K2 Gausscat problem would have lasted one afternoon. These are the table top rules that PGI ignored. There is only one chassis that can handle a Gauss Rifle explosion in the game, and that is the 100 ton chassis. It has, in TT play, 21 internal structure points in the left or right torso. Even that would be pure bad luck, too, as it would take a random floating critical hit to produce a positive result with a Gauss Rifle explosion. The only real place for a Gauss Rifle is arm mounted, or torso mounted with CASE and a standard engine.

I am not sure how much internal structure the Mechs have now, but restricting the Gauss Rifle to a 20 point explosion without making it an instant kill for the Mech lugging it around in a side torso with an XL engine is defeating the purpose of the 20 point explosion in the first place. This is what I meant when I said the other edge of the sword. Up until now the Gauss did not and probably really won't have one. I mean, are ammo explosions totally wreaking Mechs at the moment? I am not so sure.

[Orzorn]

StaggerCheck, on 30 November 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

Raise your hand if you would have taken Gauss Rifles months ago if, when they took critical damage, they instantly destroyed the location the Gauss Rifle was housed within? Imagine a K2 with dual Gauss Rifles and an XL engine... BOOM. Mech dead. Yeah... the K2 Gausscat problem would have lasted one afternoon. These are the table top rules that PGI ignored. There is only one chassis that can handle a Gauss Rifle explosion in the game, and that is the 100 ton chassis. It has, in TT play, 21 internal structure points in the left or right torso. Even that would be pure bad luck, too, as it would take a random floating critical hit to produce a positive result with a Gauss Rifle explosion. The only real place for a Gauss Rifle is arm mounted, or torso mounted with CASE and a standard engine.

I am not sure how much internal structure the Mechs have now, but restricting the Gauss Rifle to a 20 point explosion without making it an instant kill for the Mech lugging it around in a side torso with an XL engine is defeating the purpose of the 20 point explosion in the first place. This is what I meant when I said the other edge of the sword. Up until now the Gauss did not and probably really won't have one. I mean, are ammo explosions totally wreaking Mechs at the moment? I am not so sure.

I would much rather they just have had the gosh darn minimum range and this entire problem would literally cease to exist.

But yeah, sure I'll take the explosions as well.

Honestly, it needs both of them.

Its just that making the Gauss have 3 HP won't get rid of the issue: Gausscats have miniscule side torsos that are rarely breached in combat. Its why they don't lose those weapons during most fights, and its why they can run XL engines and not be afraid.

Its a double sided issue. Cats have too small of side torsos and Gauss lacks both of its drawbacks (explosions and minimum range). Even if Gauss exploded, the Cat does not suffer. Even if we reduce the HP of Gauss, the Cat does not suffer. If we gave the minimum range, yeah, then it would suffer. We could also increase the size of the side torso hit boxes. That would help as well.

The point is, only reducing the HP of the Gauss (While also implementing the explosion, which should have always been there anyways) will not alleviate the Gausscat issue.

Edited by Orzorn, 30 November 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[Starmage21]

StaggerCheck, on 30 November 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

Raise your hand if you would have taken Gauss Rifles months ago if, when they took critical damage, they instantly destroyed the location the Gauss Rifle was housed within? Imagine a K2 with dual Gauss Rifles and an XL engine... BOOM. Mech dead. Yeah... the K2 Gausscat problem would have lasted one afternoon. These are the table top rules that PGI ignored. There is only one chassis that can handle a Gauss Rifle explosion in the game, and that is the 100 ton chassis. It has, in TT play, 21 internal structure points in the left or right torso. Even that would be pure bad luck, too, as it would take a random floating critical hit to produce a positive result with a Gauss Rifle explosion. The only real place for a Gauss Rifle is arm mounted, or torso mounted with CASE and a standard engine.

I am not sure how much internal structure the Mechs have now, but restricting the Gauss Rifle to a 20 point explosion without making it an instant kill for the Mech lugging it around in a side torso with an XL engine is defeating the purpose of the 20 point explosion in the first place. This is what I meant when I said the other edge of the sword. Up until now the Gauss did not and probably really won't have one. I mean, are ammo explosions totally wreaking Mechs at the moment? I am not so sure.

This is exactly why you are a tard if youre driving around a mech with an XL engine and a gauss rifle in the torso. It doesnt happen on the table-top very much either, and when it does, players generally dont like those mechs.

[Vlad Ward]

Orzorn, on 30 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

He said making it FRAGILE, not MAKING IT EXPLODE.

It should have exploded for a long time now. The nerf isn't making it explode, its reducing its internal HP, something that literally never existed in the TT. Your quote was rather useless.

Er, last I checked, the Gauss is set to explode for 20 points of internal damage when it's destroyed.

Personally, I think this is about the safest way to reduce the Gauss Rifle's viability as a brawling weapon without negatively impacting its ability to snipe.

Adding a minimum range to a magnetically propelled projectile made absolutely no sense in the TT, despite whatever handwaving lorefluff they added to account for it, and would make even less sense in a real-time game.

Now, sniper Gauss users will be unaffected by the change, but Brawler Gauss users will have to deal with very nasty and very frequent weapon explosions. Brawler Gausscats in particular are apt to have their whole side torso (and thus XL engine) blown out any time their armor drops.

Re side torso hitboxes: I don't aim for the side torsos on cats anyways, since their Center torso can be struck from literally any angle of attack, so I can't really speak to this. But, between hitting a CT for a guaranteed kill and hitting a defensive-Side torso for, well, another guaranteed kill, I'm not too worried about dropping K2 cats.

[Imagine Dragons]

HardRider, on 30 November 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

I like the weapon on my dragon and will wait to see how it chances before i start to judge something... if it does turn crap ill mount a 20 on it instead while i voice my opinion in one of the thousand of thread people like to make (instead of continuing the current one)

Not enough slots for an AC/20 in the arm. Only the YenLo and the Jaggermech (which have limited arm movements) will have the extra slot needed to mount an AC/20

Also, CASE can't be mounted in arms btw... well atleast IS case anyway...

[Xeven]

The brawler argument makes no sense in this game with postage stamp sized maps. Nearly ever battle becomes a forced brawl due to the very tiny size of the maps. There is no escape route for Snipers nor enough terrain to get lost in. Which gets backs to my previous issue with making it to FRAGILE. No one will equip it if it is unreliable in MWO postage stamp maps. You going to tell me "TT" had such small battle areas and no where to escape or evade for snipers? The nature of the maps force every mech to become a brawler at some point when all other things are equal.

[Joseph Mallan]

Orzorn, on 30 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

He said making it FRAGILE, not MAKING IT EXPLODE.

It should have exploded for a long time now. The nerf isn't making it explode, its reducing its internal HP, something that literally never existed in the TT. Your quote was rather useless.

And your point is? It only took one hit to blow up a Gauss Sir. That would be... (Carry the 3)... ONE hit point. What happened when you hit a AC20 with one Crit? Useless (one hit point). It existed in TT it was just called Crit spaces. Gauss Rifles Blow up if it takes a single crit and have for the entire time they have been in the TT game. One hit cause it. That my friend is the very definition of FRAGILE.

Thank you, please tip your waitress.

@Stagger... I'd have still taken two Gauss if they had always blown up in Beta. They have been exploding on TT since the 2950TRO.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 30 November 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[Mangonel TwoSix]

I love gauss. It's a fantastic tool.

However I think I like the change. In theory at least. It makes you think twice about putting guass on a mech you intend do drive into the teeth of the enemy. While it largely does not effect long range support mechs.

I say give the change a try.

[Smeghead87]

I've always seen the gauss rifle as a sniper weapon, why is everyone so upset that they are making it harder to brawl with?
If you have a sniper rifle on other games do you charge in headlong to assault the enemy with it? I don't cause it will get me killed.

[Kobold]

Khobai, on 30 November 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

BV is how gauss is balanced in tabletop. And its why we need BV in this game.

BV BV BV BV BV BV BV BV BV BV

Edited by Kobold, 30 November 2012 - 11:22 AM.

[Kobold]

Vermaxx, on 30 November 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

They've been through two Build Value systems and are supposedly working on a third. BV wasn't very great either. No system with this much customization can be truly evened out with a formula.

Having an imperfect system for quantifying the quality of a unit is better than having no system. Ultimately BV could quantify that gauss were better than AC20s, that an AWS-8Q was better than a CGR-1A1, and that fast, hard hitting, long range clan mechs were better than slower, weaker inner sphere mechs.

Having an imperfect system would still be much better than treating a machine gun HBK-4G the same as a Swayback, or treating a gimpy Dragon the same as an AC20cat.

[Orzorn]

Vlad Ward, on 30 November 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Er, last I checked, the Gauss is set to explode for 20 points of internal damage when it's destroyed.

Yeah, that's why I said "It should have exploded for a long time now." To reclarify, I was saying "Yeah, its exploded for a long time already, the nerf isn't making it explode because that already happens."

Joseph Mallan, on 30 November 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

And your point is? It only took one hit to blow up a Gauss Sir. That would be... (Carry the 3)... ONE hit point. What happened when you hit a AC20 with one Crit? Useless (one hit point). It existed in TT it was just called Crit spaces. Gauss Rifles Blow up if it takes a single crit and have for the entire time they have been in the TT game. One hit cause it. That my friend is the very definition of FRAGILE.

Thank you, please tip your waitress.

What you just said means the AC/20 is more fragile than the Gauss, due to the nature of rolling for crits.

And it is, both in TT and in current gameplay. Gauss is still better than its competition in that aspect. Besides that, you're STILL misplaced because the current HP implementation still has smaller crit weapons being harder to hit, and thus, being stronger.

The gauss was not more or less fragile than any other weapon of the same number of critical slots by any means of the word in either the TT or the current implementation of MWO. It is dangerous when destroyed, but it was actually easier to destroy its other ballistic brethren in both the TT and the current implementation.

That is why you're wrong for going off on that path of argument.

Edited by Orzorn, 30 November 2012 - 11:36 AM.