99 replies to this topic

[Starmage21]

Orzorn, on 30 November 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

That's what I've been saying! It isn't relevant, and anyone trying to justify the Gauss fragility nerf using the TT is wrong. That's it.


Yes.

No that is the justification as to why the table-top IS relevant.

[Vlad Ward]

Good Gaussapults use XL engines. It's really a moot point, though. The CT on the Catapult is so ridiculously easy to hit (it's impossible to hide your CT from attack. The Cat's nose allows you to hit either the Center Torso or Rear Center Torso from 360 degrees), aiming for side torsos to blow out rifles tends to be slower than just bopping them on the nose for the kill.

[Kobold]

For everyone who things the Gaussapult is "broken" because of the side torso gun locations, try playing a Gaussaphract. No one shoots your arms off, ever.

[Monky]

Kobold, on 30 November 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

For everyone who things the Gaussapult is "broken" because of the side torso gun locations, try playing a Gaussaphract. No one shoots your arms off, ever.

I, too, have experienced this. If my Phract takes critical damage at all, it's in the CT or legs. Very rarely will my side torsos lose armor, and even more rarely the arms/head.

Edited by Monky, 30 November 2012 - 01:44 PM.

[Orzorn]

Kobold, on 30 November 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

For everyone who things the Gaussapult is "broken" because of the side torso gun locations, try playing a Gaussaphract. No one shoots your arms off, ever.

The Gauss being in the torso helps a lot with convergence issues, meaning they're often more accurate.

Starmage21, on 30 November 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

No that is the justification as to why the table-top IS relevant.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Starmage21]

Orzorn, on 30 November 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

The Gauss being in the torso helps a lot with convergence issues, meaning they're often more accurate.


I'm not sure what you're getting at.

When we talk about the way things SHOULD be, we reference the table-top, because of the developers' intentions to stick to those mechanics as close as was feasible.

[Kobold]

Orzorn, on 30 November 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

The Gauss being in the torso helps a lot with convergence issues, meaning they're often more accurate.

Only of consequence against fast moving targets at close range. But in that case my CTF-4X is 5 tons heavier, with two of those tons devoted to a pair of medium lasers for that problem.

[Caleb Lee]

Skyfaller, on 30 November 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

It had been suggested since closed beta that the problem with the gauss is not its damage or range or zero heat...its the fact that it has a very short 'charge' up time before it fires. Right now: Click fire 1 second later it fires (like PPC and most autocannons) 3 second or so delay to re-fire. How it should be: Click fire 3 seconds later it fires. 1 second later its ready to refire. In essence, you are 'flipping' the re-fire delay into becoming the weapon 'charge up' sequence to fire the gauss round. That alone makes gauss highly ineffective at close range combat and requires a lot more skill for long range fire. When this happens, gauss ammo rounds per ton can be increased with no problem. There is no need to make the gauss rifle easier to pop... what it needs is its field effectiveness lowered through timing changes.

Oh heck no... I'm glad no one's been listening to you on this. Seriously... this is NO where in lore. It'd also be the complete deathknell of the Gauss Rifle which is probably what you want.

3 second delay to firing? No one could hit anything with that. You also probably have no idea how a Gauss Rifle works. It charges up and can put a drain on the power output of the mech. It can fire once the pilot pulls the trigger, but then takes a while to charge up again.

The better solution would be to add another .5-1 second delay for each gauss rifle loaded as an anti-boating mechanism. I.E. 1 gauss = equal normal delay
2 gauss = +1 second delay for charging the additional weapon
3 gauss = +2 second delay for charging an additional weapon

[00dlez]

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.

You've already lost credibility... Show me a decent build with 3 gauss... I'll be waiting.

There's nothing wrong with UAC5 jamming (or at least substantially) to the point it wont be used. I use them regularly in fast attack mechs who aren't sticking around for more than a few shots anyway.

Have gauss malfunction when 2 or more are fired? Sounds like jamming to me... Which you seem unhappy with...

I believe "fragile" simply means that it is easier to score a critical hit against, thus exploding it. It changes NOTHING about battlefield reliability or performance other than a heftier penalty when it is destroyed. This is a great way to balance it because it will limit the effectiveness of the glass cannon gauss boats, which by your own admission you consider OP.

Edited by 00dlez, 30 November 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I personally don't think that Gauss Explosions is a "balancing factor," but not for any reasons discussed in the Opening Post.

Gauss Rifles are dangerous at all ranges with zero applicable heat and the same recycle rate as a heavy, hot autocannon. Gauss Explosions only create a nerf-effect after you have already caused heavy damage to a Gauss-Wielding Mech... so Gauss Explosions only apply a nerf to extremely-damaged Mechs; it doesn't nerf anyone who's healthy. Gauss Snipers, then, are not experiencing any form of nerf while they are shooting at you.

What Gauss Explosions do is to "nerf" Gauss Cats by forcing them to add 1 ton of CASE to their Mech, thereby bypassing the Nerf; this nerf mostly affects people who can't put CASE on their Arm-mounted Gauss. It basically just encourages people to use the K2 Chassis more for Gauss Sniping in stead of using other chassis.

[Vlad Ward]

It's not easier to score a critical hit. It's just decreased equipment HP.

I've been considering making a "Guide to Critical Hits" thread based on all the Dev information that's been posted and lost in the sea of General Discussion, but that would probably just get ... well ... lost in the sea of General Discussion.

Prosperity Park, on 30 November 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

I personally don't think that Gauss Explosions is a "balancing factor," but not for any reasons discussed in the Opening Post.

Gauss Rifles are dangerous at all ranges with zero applicable heat and the same recycle rate as a heavy, hot autocannon. Gauss Explosions only create a nerf-effect after you have already caused heavy damage to a Gauss-Wielding Mech... so Gauss Explosions only apply a nerf to extremely-damaged Mechs; it doesn't nerf anyone who's healthy. Gauss Snipers, then, are not experiencing any form of nerf while they are shooting at you.

What Gauss Explosions do is to "nerf" Gauss Cats by forcing them to add 1 ton of CASE to their Mech, thereby bypassing the Nerf; this nerf mostly affects people who can't put CASE on their Arm-mounted Gauss. It basically just encourages people to use the K2 Chassis more for Gauss Sniping in stead of using other chassis.

CASE won't prevent the initial Gauss explosion from blowing out your side torso and insta-gibbing anyone with an XL engine (read: 99% of Gausscats).

[Caleb Lee]

Starmage21, on 30 November 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

No that is the justification as to why the table-top IS relevant.

LOL @ TT rules.

I'm no TT player, played all the games and read 3/4ths of the books. I am a big fan of the series, but it sure seems that the devs have used TT rules as a guideline and then do what they want. If you want to argue let's assess the fine balancing of a game in real time with real people aiming versus turn based dice rolling and how they've swung all over the place versus other MW games and any known differences I've picked up from other more knowledgeable players regarding TT rules:

1) Armor - Double values anyone?
2) Lasers - Damage over time to try to reduce accurate aim at long distance and amplify the armor addition.
3) Missiles - Damage per missile, clustering, targeting hit points in CT, flight path all sorts of fiasco's like the recent Artemis.
4) Heat - Double Heatsinks anyone? Even how heat is managed in general?
5) Weapon knock/knock-down - Seriously, they are going from AC2/SSRM knock around like crazy and dark cockpits to no knock except the bad boy AC20. Swinging from one extreme to the other, and even then... it's not knocking down the light mech just moving it's crosshairs around. Last I checked even an Assault felt an AC5/10/Gauss Rifle round, multiple missile impacts etc... Heck, just melting off tons of armor with lasers would cause many pilots to lose their balance and topple the mech.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Gauss_Rifle

Now when Gauss Rifles already break easily on me they want to make it even weaker, and THEN add an additional 20 damage explosion chance which while it is TT just feels foul and using the rules again to over-nerf what they feel is an imbalance.

I've never read about a Gauss Rifle exploding in any of the books so far. I can't recall ever having a Gauss Rifle explode in any other game. It may have been in TT but just like a LOT of TT rules it doesn't HAVE to be implemented.

I've played and completed Elite in every class mech in this game post Open Beta. From my Jenner's perspective this just makes taking out a Gausspult that much easier. As an avid fan of the K2 or X4 and Gauss Rifle in general, I cringe and will probably refuse to give them a single dime more until it's fixed.

While I agree that Gauss Rifle's are more of a sniping weapon and AC/LBX are for brawling, the problem is that most maps are so in close right now that very few fights stay outside of 500 meters except in trading shots while each team decides what to do. Combine that with lag shields on light mechs and I cry BS...

This was my biggest fear with it being an MMO... every MMO I've ever been in has been one constant nerf fest and frankly I'm getting sick of it. I do enjoy the game, but my favorite franchise keeps looking like it's going down the tubes and fast. For every positive step forward it's like they take a step or two back.

I've had more CTDs (at least 30-40) since open beta and the move to the new engine and I have premium equipment I5, Nvidia 670, 16 gbs ram, SSD etc... 60 FPS and a 22/5 cable connection that's solid. Wish they'd focus on the netcode, stability and stop focusing so much on nerfing every weapon how it suits them and quoting TT when it suits them.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Vlad Ward, on 30 November 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

CASE won't prevent the initial Gauss explosion from blowing out your side torso and insta-gibbing anyone with an XL engine (read: 99% of Gausscats).

Yeah, it will instgib an XL user when it explodes... but if you're already at the point where you have no side armor, and you have an XL engine.. and they are still shooting at your side...

Gauss explosion or not, you're probably going to die very soon.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 30 November 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[Caleb Lee]

Vlad Ward, on 30 November 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

CASE won't prevent the initial Gauss explosion from blowing out your side torso and insta-gibbing anyone with an XL engine (read: 99% of Gausscats).

+1 Which you either go way to slow to get enough ammo 6-8 tons with a standard engine or you risk insta-death which is a no go. Means a complete nerf to the K2 as a viable Gauss boat. Then to add insult to injury they're making it even weaker when I can hardly keep them from breaking in a protracted fight anyways... They already break much more easily than any other weapon I use on my other mechs.

Wait, I should shut up about that last part as the Devs will probably look at nerfing the HP of other weapons to be 'more inline with TT rules and original intentions' just to slow fights down even more.

Yes, I'm very bitter and pissed off at them right now. Too much change and it's not like we get to see the actual numbers, just arbitrary wording and guesswork because the mechlab is a complete POS right now and no dictionary/tech manual to refer to. They could easily do that and tie it in to their database and adjust on the fly but will they do that?

Hell no... people would be even more pissed off at all the changes they keep 'guessing their way through'.

[Kobold]

Caleb Lee, on 30 November 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

LOL @ TT rules.

I'm no TT player, played all the games and read 3/4ths of the books. I am a big fan of the series, but it sure seems that the devs have used TT rules as a guideline and then do what they want. If you want to argue let's assess the fine balancing of a game in real time with real people aiming versus turn based dice rolling and how they've swung all over the place versus other MW games and any known differences I've picked up from other more knowledgeable players regarding TT rules:

1) Armor - Double values anyone?
2) Lasers - Damage over time to try to reduce accurate aim at long distance and amplify the armor addition.
3) Missiles - Damage per missile, clustering, targeting hit points in CT, flight path all sorts of fiasco's like the recent Artemis.
4) Heat - Double Heatsinks anyone? Even how heat is managed in general?
5) Weapon knock/knock-down - Seriously, they are going from AC2/SSRM knock around like crazy and dark cockpits to no knock except the bad boy AC20. Swinging from one extreme to the other, and even then... it's not knocking down the light mech just moving it's crosshairs around. Last I checked even an Assault felt an AC5/10/Gauss Rifle round, multiple missile impacts etc... Heck, just melting off tons of armor with lasers would cause many pilots to lose their balance and topple the mech.

From a TT player perspective, the VAST MAJORITY of things that people complain about are problems created by diverging from the TT rules in the first place, without considering the obvious and predictable consequences. (Increased ROF benefiting low heat weapons, intentionally trying to prolong fights benefiting short range weapons, lock on missiles becoming notably more powerful than expected, increased armor hurting weapons with ammo limitations, slow projectiles hurting weapons that are supposed to be good at long range, etc)

The few remaining balance issues people complain about (Gauss are better than AC20! Machine guns suck!) are then mitigated by including Battle Value, another TT concept that MWO currently omits.

Edited by Kobold, 30 November 2012 - 02:42 PM.

[Death Knell]

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

The problem with the gauss isn't so much that it's used by a lot of people, while it is over powered as a weapon because of that. The build that gets the most complaints from it is the k2, which mounts a gauss rifle in each cheek. With the catapult already having tiny side torsos, making gauss fragile does not help at all with this. It mostly hurts other builds that might use it.

[Orzorn]

Starmage21, on 30 November 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

When we talk about the way things SHOULD be, we reference the table-top, because of the developers' intentions to stick to those mechanics as close as was feasible.

I'm fine with that, but as I said, referencing the TT for facts that do not exist in the TT (namely, that Gauss is more fragile than similarly sized weapons) is erroneous.

[FrostPaw]

Gauss is a sniper weapon, at the sort of range you should be using it you should have a reasonable chance of getting plenty of shots off. If you attempt to brawl up close with it, i.e. the AC20 territory, you'll quickly find you lose it and thus should consider takiing an AC20 instead.

Will have to wait and see how often and how quickly it is destroyed and if as with lrms the devs bothered to balance repair/rearm costs based on the changes. Replacing a Gauss isn't cheap, if it's going to get destroyed more often the repair cost should be reduced to reflect it's added vulnerability. Nobody needs screwing in the match and the mechlab.

[Varaxus]

Caleb Lee, on 30 November 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

+1 Which you either go way to slow to get enough ammo 6-8 tons with a standard engine or you risk insta-death which is a no go. Means a complete nerf to the K2 as a viable Gauss boat. Then to add insult to injury they're making it even weaker when I can hardly keep them from breaking in a protracted fight anyways... They already break much more easily than any other weapon I use on my other mechs.

Wait, I should shut up about that last part as the Devs will probably look at nerfing the HP of other weapons to be 'more inline with TT rules and original intentions' just to slow fights down even more.

Yes, I'm very bitter and pissed off at them right now. Too much change and it's not like we get to see the actual numbers, just arbitrary wording and guesswork because the mechlab is a complete POS right now and no dictionary/tech manual to refer to. They could easily do that and tie it in to their database and adjust on the fly but will they do that?

Hell no... people would be even more pissed off at all the changes they keep 'guessing their way through'.

K2 Gauss boating should be put to death! Your putting a damn Gauss Rifle in an MG slot for christs sake!

[Caleb Lee]

Kobold, on 30 November 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

From a TT player perspective, the VAST MAJORITY of things that people complain about are problems created by diverging from the TT rules in the first place, without considering the obvious and predictable consequences. (Increased ROF benefiting low heat weapons, intentionally trying to prolong fights benefiting short range weapons, lock on missiles becoming notably more powerful than expected, increased armor hurting weapons with ammo limitations, slow projectiles hurting weapons that are supposed to be good at long range, etc)

The few remaining balance issues people complain about (Gauss are better than AC20! Machine guns suck!) are then mitigated by including Battle Value, another TT concept that MWO currently omits.

I agree, my point is that they pick and choose what suits them and then implement what they want without thinking through all the consequences of their decisions. I realize it's not an easy job translating a static/turn based board game to a video game and they have to walk a fine balance

I have no idea regarding Battle Value, but I do know that the upcoming matchmaking and no system in place to 'even pre-made teams' like setting tonnage or class limits as in other former MW Leagues is going to be a recipe for disaster. I thought we'd moved past the 8 man Atlas teams of closed beta.

Frankly, I'm seriously thinking of checking out for a couple of months, check back in and see, then move on like many others have done. I SOOO want this franchise to succeed and I just think I set my expectations way TOO high.

Heck, I can't even get any of my friends to give it a shot. Some have tried, but then the trial mech grind is just horrible. I also can't look them in the eye and tell them the money I spent was worth it. It's too late for a refund at this point too...