Yet another reason why gauss should remain:
Players with high lag find it difficult to hit *anything* without auto-aim. So, gauss is the only thing that lets them fly fighter craft. I should know, because I have to contend with a 800+ ms ping most of the time.

No.

I can dodge gauss, and it's the best energy weapon against rocket rammers.
Stop them first, then you might adjust the gauss, but for now, leave it as it is.

notice the people that sign the petition are really quite helpless against the gauss. Perhaps you just need more practice?

I vote no, the guass is only effective at close ranges, and 10% effective at medium ranges, and 0% effective at high ranges. Unless of course the person your fighting is a moron and doesn't dodge.

If you going backwards, it is easy to dodge. I have made quite a few rail kills against gaussers just because my weapon can overcome going backwards and their's can't.

Phoenix, how can it be only effective at close range if tachyons and gravitons have the same exact speed? Think about that. If it didn't have such a high autoaim, you wouldn't have to worry about the gauss bolts going so off-path from moderate distances. The very thing I'm trying to reduce here is what's causing its incaccuracy. Yet, the very same thing that increases its accuracy in long ranges will make it more inaccurate (read as required aiming) in closer ranges. The aimbot works in an inverse manner that way (high=close hits, low=long hits). Take the railgun and compare it to the gauss for example, in terms of aimbot presence. Which one is better suited for long ranges and which one is better suited for close ranges?

The autoaim is what makes it useless at high distances, and that's good. Tachyons have the same speed but they get much better spread so you get a lot of shots in by sending streams of fire at someone.

Tachyons have spread? I thought they fired in a straight line, as in dead on.

They have a much faster Rate of fire so you can put more bolts out there faster giving you a better chance of hitting.

Happy now?

You spelled silentsuicide wrong.

=b

Anyway, I think I've learned my lesson on making petitions. Seems I always choose the unpopular path. Nevertheless, history has sometimes proven that popular opinion isn't always right. So I don't think petitions are the best way to fix problems.

I'm willing to bet, however, that this post will eventually be buried deep down until someone else gets the same idea that the gauss is too strong and that it should be changed... at which point they'll also post about it, but this time around they'll win popular agreement for some mysterious reason. It has happened with the Valkyrie debate before, and chances are it'll happen again with this topic. It just takes time for people to come to their senses and allow for it to settle in. Yes, that's it.

=)

/me steps back and allows the thread to sink into the bottom

Muwhahaha! Fools...

PS: Look at the people FOR the petition again, Spellcast. I think you may be surprised by the results...

/me runs and hides

/me restrains urge to flame and instead politely asks FM to lock this thread to remove the temptation

/hey you forgot my name spelly :(

/me goes back to his slumber

yeah, this motion is dead. Nice try arolte.

I vote no. But it doesnt really matter anyways, because petitions never get anywhere.

I think if this was done we'd have a return to the "rocket alley" situation.

Bad, bad idea as long as sunflares still exist.

Asp

I would vote YES, only if it were linked with a reduction of the adv gat's auto aim. Both are too high, but reducing one and not the other would create a large unblance in the game.

Asp brings up a good point. I never consider rockets much cause my strongest point in this game is fighting against them. So I withdraw my yes on any conditions.

personal opinion on balancing technology available..


- all thats needed is a price change to balance most weaponry use, or an availability issue -

ideas: add a 0 to gauss price, triple it, quad it, swap em with tach prices, make them only available in s17 or 15 -
it would be along the lines of why the advanced gat cost so much too and why 'specials' are only found in s18
- (i'm not good at proposals re specifics)-

i know this doesnt 'balance' the effectiveness issues that you have with it ingame but might help lend credability (sp?) to why its so good - cos it's hard to get...

(although it still brings up the aspect of the more skilled pilots having access and means to gain all the better weapons..... thats a different point entirely)

my feeling is that there is nothing wrong with the gauss as a piece of functional technology - i vote neither way, just adding 2c

>I would vote YES, only if it were linked with a reduction of the adv gat's
>auto aim. Both are too high, but reducing one and not the other would
>create a large unblance in the game.

Negative, sir. The Advanced Gatling Turret (Class 31A) was meant to deter highly agile bogies when comandeering a medium or heavy class military vessel. If its AI tracking system was reduced, it would be completely ineffective in this line of work. The Gauss Cannon (Class 12B) is a weapon which can be equipped on all highly agile bogies. Due to the higher agility of these bogies, such a high autoaim Class 12B weapon would be unnecessarily deadly.

With all do respect, sir, we must not let this carry on. It may mark the end of the human race as we know it. However, I do believe CannonFodder's suggestion of selling different ships and weapons in different stations may help prevent pilots from acheiving uber bogie ships so quickly. Forcing pilots to buyt heir favorite ship in one sector, and then buy their weapons in another may very well prevent all the insta-spawning doom of doomery. Uber ship combos might as well take effort in assembly, in other words, sir.

Forcing pilots to buyt heir favorite ship in one sector, and then buy their weapons in another may very well prevent all the insta-spawning doom of doomery. Uber ship combos might as well take effort in assembly, in other words, sir.

In that case we need to hold of on trying to balance anything. Availibility would become the PRIMARY balancing factor. A rare, hard to get (or hard to make, if they restructure the economy so that final products are dependent on getting appropriate component materiels to a factory) would have to be significantly better than a stock weapon.

oh and Arolte take all the silly npc and flag names off your list. it's really sad that you have to invent votes for your view.

Really? I thought it was pretty funny. Chill out, man.

Speaking of padding the list, I hardly consider Celebrim's post a yes.