29 replies to this topic

[STEF_]

RAC is been uber-nerfed, confronted to my expectations.

I see no reason why to choose RAC instead of UAC5.

1) abnormal heat
2) they need charge time
3) they spread dmg
4) RAC JAM!
4) nonsense GH (maybe a bug).

NO reason at all to take RAC.

I hope this is PTS ONLY.

Don't screw RAC

#PGIpleeeeeeez

[The6thMessenger]

They also shouldn't fill up when one hasn't been shooting yet.

[shadevarr]

they jam bar is nice but needs to fill at half its current speed and the ghost heat thresholds needs to be raised on racs2 for sure.

Also, unsure why RACs were done as damage over time instead of burst ballistics like ultras. Feels overly nerfed.

Edited by shadevarr, 28 June 2017 - 03:20 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

The GH problem is inherent in Ghost Heat's programming and applies to all weapons, not just RACs .

See here for discussion, since it's a global bug
https://mwomercs.com...c-specific-bug/

However discussing baseline values like heat, damage, and effectiveness do belong in this forum section.

[shadevarr]

I was just meaning raising RAC2 from limited to 2 weapons to like 4 and being separate from RAC5s for ghost heat calculations.

[shameless]

The6thMessenger, on 28 June 2017 - 03:08 PM, said:

They also shouldn't fill up when one hasn't been shooting yet.

This x 100

[8Ball-]

In their present state a no go for me. Too much heat, spin up, 5's are 6 slots so no having 2 in torso unless you stay with standard engine. Agree with Stefka, see no reason to use them over UAC.

[kapusta11]

They might have been good vs slow assaults, but since they spread damage... yeah, not worth it.

[JC Daxion]

I don't mind RAC's at the damage they are, Nor do i mind the spread so much.. to me it is like a heavy/heavy machine gun. I am ok with that. Or like you said, Why use an AC?


BUT the heat needs addressing. You can't have them work this way, and be such high heat. I couldn't even get one working with even a couple lasers before going from Zero to over heated in a few seconds.

[Ragedog4]

Well something has to change. Heat, Jam Chance Bar not working, Rate of Fire, etc.

If the gun is weaker than Ultras its a problem for one major reason: Time Spent Looking at Target.

The Longer you look at your target the more they can WREAK you. So really the RACs should be STRONGER than UACs because you HAVE to stare longer at your target reducing your change to torso twist and get into cover.

Balance is not just based on DPS after all.

[WhyHelloDer]

Currently the main problem with RACs is their damage output. Let's compare the stats of the weapons.

AC 2: 2 damage every 0.72 seconds, or 2.78 dps
UAC 2: (Potentially) 4 damage every 0.72 seconds, or 5.56 dps
RAC 2: 4 damage every 1 second, 4 dps

So, the RAC 2 has only 144% dps compared to the regular AC, and only 72% dps compared to the UAC. The RAC is supposed to be higher dps than the UAC, but its not? It is also heavier and takes more slots than the other two, and has less range. AND this doesnt factor in cooldown quirks and skills which give the AC and UAC even higher dps(since I'm not sure if cooldown quirks and skills currently work on RACs)

Now, the RAC/5 is in a bit better situation than the RAC/2. Let's compare stats.

AC 5: 5 damage every 1.66 seconds, or 3.01 dps
UAC 5: (Potentially) 10 damage every 1.66 seconds, or 6.02 dps
RAC 5: 9.6 damage every 1 second, or 9.6 dps

So, the RAC/5 has 318% dps compared to the regular AC, and 159% dps compared to the UAC. This puts it in a much better place than the RAC 2, but I think it should still be higher.

Values I would like to try out are 6.5-7 dps for the RAC/2 and 12~ dps for the RAC/5.

Edited by WhyHelloDer, 28 June 2017 - 06:56 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

WhyHelloDer, on 28 June 2017 - 06:55 PM, said:

Currently the main problem with RACs is their damage output. Let's compare the stats of the weapons.

AC 2: 2 damage every 0.72 seconds, or 2.78 dps
UAC 2: (Potentially) 4 damage every 0.72 seconds, or 5.56 dps
RAC 2: 4 damage every 1 second, 4 dps

So, the RAC 2 has only 144% dps compared to the regular AC, and only 72% dps compared to the UAC. The RAC is supposed to be higher dps than the UAC, but its not? It is also heavier and takes more slots than the other two, and has less range. AND this doesnt factor in cooldown quirks and skills which give the AC and UAC even higher dps(since I'm not sure if cooldown quirks and skills currently work on RACs)

Now, the RAC/5 is in a bit better situation than the RAC/2. Let's compare stats.

AC 5: 5 damage every 1.66 seconds, or 3.01 dps
UAC 5: (Potentially) 10 damage every 1.66 seconds, or 6.02 dps
RAC 5: 9.6 damage every 1 second, or 9.6 dps

So, the RAC/5 has 318% dps compared to the regular AC, and 159% dps compared to the UAC. This puts it in a much better place than the RAC 2, but I think it should still be higher.

Values I would like to try out are 6.5-7 dps for the RAC/2 and 12~ dps for the RAC/5.

You should factor in the jam chance for an effective DPS.

[WhyHelloDer]

The6thMessenger, on 28 June 2017 - 07:06 PM, said:

You should factor in the jam chance for an effective DPS.

To factor that in you would also have to factor in the average burn time and the downtime on a RAC, which feels like its longer than a UAC but I'm unsure.

EDIT: And UAC Jam not withstanding, the RAC/2 just does not give enough of a damage boost over the AC/2 for the increase in weight, slots, heat and ammo consumption.

Edited by WhyHelloDer, 28 June 2017 - 07:14 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

WhyHelloDer, on 28 June 2017 - 07:11 PM, said:

To factor that in you would also have to factor in the average burn time and the downtime on a RAC, which feels like its longer than a UAC but I'm unsure.

EDIT: And UAC Jam not withstanding, the RAC/2 just does not give enough of a damage boost over the AC/2 for the increase in weight, slots, heat and ammo consumption.

But the thing is that, Jam are a thing for the weapons, so you still have to account for that. Jam is a major feature that is highy intrusive and effectively cuts down damage done over a duration.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 28 June 2017 - 07:40 PM.

[Top Leliel]

WhyHelloDer, on 28 June 2017 - 06:55 PM, said:

AC 2: 2 damage every 0.72 seconds, or 2.78 dps
UAC 2: (Potentially) 4 damage every 0.72 seconds, or 5.56 dps
RAC 2: 4 damage every 1 second, 4 dps

Embarassing, PGI. WEW LADS

[Malcolm Vordermark]

The Rotary AC 2s do about 1 more dps than their standard AC counterparts. Doesn't really seem worth it due to the weight, space, and heat increase.

Edited by Rouken, 28 June 2017 - 07:40 PM.

[MechaBattler]

They flat out need a damage increase. And they need to fix that freakin ghost heat.

[Sereglach]

The6thMessenger, on 28 June 2017 - 03:08 PM, said:

They also shouldn't fill up when one hasn't been shooting yet.

Funny you mention that. All they did was copy/paste the same mechanic over from the Flamer. If they fix it for one then they should fix both weapons at the same time (but the Flamer needs more than having that mechanic go away).

[Wattila]

If you want an idea of how crap the RAC5 real world DPS is.

4xRAC5 takes ~14 seconds to kill the training grounds Atlas.

6xUAC2 takes ~8 seconds to kill the same Atlas.

[Punk Oblivion]

I kind of like the mechanics of them. BUT:
The "spin up" should only trigger in the first 1/6th-1/4th of the bar. After that the weapon should keep spinning while firing up, then spin without firing while coming down. That way you can immediately start firing again as long as the bar has not reached under that first "spin up" section. Currently, doing ANYTHING other than firing until they jam wastes DPS time.

You can actually bring the bar up to the jamming point WITHOUT firing a single shot, then have the gun jam on it's first try to actually fire a round... That is just silly...

Otherwise RAC2 needs a damage buff

Ghost heat for un-synced RACs needs to be fixed

Edited by Punk Oblivion, 28 June 2017 - 08:55 PM.