67 replies to this topic

[soarra]

Ph30nix, on 16 July 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

we have there is either a penalty or major bug

awww you needed a macro to play this game and now you cant.. more tears to fuel my atlas..

[VIPER2207]

JackAttack5, on 17 July 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

Read the rest of the thread. It effects non-macro users. Even firing TWO AC2s spikes your heat.

i know, i'm affected by this too

Quote

PGI have said macro use is fine. All it does is circumvent the incredibly slow moving in-built chain fire, which clearly wasn't programmed with AC2 use in mind.

in this case, they should change the code...

Quote

Care to tell me why macro use wouldn't be fine anyway?

because it gives you an advantage to players who don't use macros or something... i had the same discussion in eve online, where miners use macros to farm asteroids with 10 or more accounts

Quote

If you don't know what it does, it fires each AC2 after the last so that you are firing a more constant stream of rounds. That said, your overall rate of fire is lower than, or nearly equal to, simply firing the AC2s without a macro. And firing the AC2s with alphas spreads the damage over the target much less.

i know what it does

Quote

I use an AC2 macro because it's fun and sounds great.

it also is fun if you are on the other side of the gun, because constant fire of multiple AC2s will cause a constant shake of screen, so that you are not able to see anything. i'm not complaining about this, it is a game mechanic and everyone can use it, but please do it on your own, without any help... it's not realy hard to put several AC2s in different chain-fire-groups and get the same effect, so you should do this "work"

Quote

However it provides no advantage over non-macro users. More consistent screen shake on the target, yes, but I'd personally much rather take fire from a macro-using AC2 boat and deal with the shake than an AC2 boat that was using alphas and putting it's full 12DPS into my core with no spread.

see above

Quote

I didn't want to turn this into a macro arguing thread (especially after PGI's statement that they accept it) but the vehement anti-macro opinions here are incomprehensible to me when there is no statistical advantage to them.

i don't want this to go off-topic, too, so we should end this here... this issue was discussed enough at other threads

and sorry for my harsh reply earlier... was kind of pissed off at work, don't take it personal

[smurfynet]

There is no heat penalty for the ac2 (http://mwomercs.com/...96#entry2563296).

But there is data for one in the gamefiles. so my site used to display them. i added a filter yesterday, to filter them out. (gauss, ac2 and erll)

I try to be accurate with the infos i display, but i can only be so accurate as the gamefile xml's, if theyre wrong i display wrong data too, except if someone finds infos about bad data and i add an exception to my parser.

Phil

[Deathlike]

smurfynet, on 17 July 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

There is no heat penalty for the ac2 (http://mwomercs.com/...96#entry2563296).

But there is data for one in the gamefiles. so my site used to display them. i added a filter yesterday, to filter them out. (gauss, ac2 and erll)

I try to be accurate with the infos i display, but i can only be so accurate as the gamefile xml's, if theyre wrong i display wrong data too, except if someone finds infos about bad data and i add an exception to my parser.

Phil

My actual question is.. has it been tested and confirmed?

The thing is, I think the AC2 penalty is real (and technically indirectly confirmed by PGI).. the data isn't lying.

I believe it is reasonable to believe that the ERLL is also affected, because of said data. However, I don't think enough people boat ERLL to notice such a change.

The one bit of data that is confusing is Gauss... which someone needs to do a heat test on this low heat weapon. I get the feeling the heat penalty is actually being applied when just equipping one... but noone seems to have looked into the issue in greater detail (I haven't seen any posts saying there's a change to it).

[Trev Firestorm]

Deathlike, on 17 July 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

My actual question is.. has it been tested and confirmed?

The thing is, I think the AC2 penalty is real (and technically indirectly confirmed by PGI).. the data isn't lying.

I believe it is reasonable to believe that the ERLL is also affected, because of said data. However, I don't think enough people boat ERLL to notice such a change.

The one bit of data that is confusing is Gauss... which someone needs to do a heat test on this low heat weapon. I get the feeling the heat penalty is actually being applied when just equipping one... but noone seems to have looked into the issue in greater detail (I haven't seen any posts saying there's a change to it).

It'd be rather difficult to test the gauss... maybe just using a mech with 10shs on a hot map because its heat is so low anyway... and the AC/2 thing is simply too erratic to not be a bug, if it was intended it would kick in more often... however the xml means they were considering or playing around with it which is just stupid, there is absolutely no reason that weapon should be nerfed, especially not in this way.

Sidenote: smurfy, thank you for that excellent website, it is so very useful.

Edited by Trev Firestorm, 17 July 2013 - 10:54 PM.

[x CRASH x]

Ran my AC2 Dakka mech for the first time today. It overheated to the point of being unusable.

Not cool to pull a Ninja, and there's no need for this penalty. Not happy.

[Cronuss]

I'm new to the game, and just spent all of my money on a JM6-DD and AC2s because I love the feel and style of it.

It was completely unplayable due to heat. I was shutting down after VERY short bursts. So I spent all night playing and buying more upgrades... it still happens.

Just found this thread now. What a shame.

What bothers me more than wasting a lot of hours and money (including USD) on this, is the fact that there has yet to be an official response.

Not cool.

I guess I will go back to the trial mechs while my shiny new JM6-DD sits in the bay.

[rdmx]

I made this video to confirm that the AC2 is currently suffering from a buggy implementation of heat scale:

2 AC/2s is enough to trigger the issue, No macros used.

[Cronuss]

People complaining about the macro, or belittling folks who use it, are morons.

You realize that using the macro actually reduces dps as well as burst damage?

You can't get any higher DPS with the guns than firing them linked, and using the macro will ALWAYS be less damage, even if you have it tuned down to the millisecond.

As for me, I use the macro for one single reason:

I am new to the game and I specifically wanted what people refer to as dakkadakka. I wanted to spam a lot of small rounds at other mechs because I love the look and feel and playstyle of it. I was really disappointed when I got my JM6-DD and loaded it with AC/2 only to find out that I only have two ways of firing them: linked burst cannon style, and the terribly implemented chain style.

[DeadlyNerd]

So I'm wasn't crazy when I thought AC/2 had a secret heat penalty.

edit: Couldn't let this slide

Cronuss, on 23 July 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

You realize that using the macro actually reduces dps as well as burst damage?

No, it doesn't reduce ANYTHING. The only DPS that is reduced is during the first 3 shots, everything else is the same.
Macros are still lame as they're a no skill way of imitating machine gun fire, which causes a lot of flak and screen shake.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 23 July 2013 - 09:54 AM.

[Trev Firestorm]

DeadlyNerd, on 23 July 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

So I'm wasn't crazy when I thought AC/2 had a secret heat penalty.

edit: Couldn't let this slide


No, it doesn't reduce ANYTHING. The only DPS that is reduced is during the first 3 shots, everything else is the same.
Macros are still lame as they're a no skill way of imitating machine gun fire, which causes a lot of flak and screen shake.

Macros are also completely unnecessary to create that effect.

[Trev Firestorm]

Haven't had time to play the new patch yet, anyone know if this has been fixed?

Edited by Trev Firestorm, 31 July 2013 - 05:05 AM.

[Pernicia]

If something off isn't happening with the heat on AC2s, then explain this:
http://youtu.be/7JIFal3MFxU

[Darkblood]

Just joining the crowd of "I have noticed the same here". If you fire all AC2s ate the same time you get far less heat than "machine-gunning" them (either using macros or two chain fire groups that start a little out of phase)

And please, discussing if macros are OP or not is beyond the point guys. This is either a bug or a system put in place by the DEVs. I think it is a bug because the DEVs went through the trouble of saying that no ghost heat was applied to AC2s. But if it is "working as intended" it should be included in patch notes and ghost heat tables, so that everyone knows the rules of the game.

[Tarby]

My own test on Forest Colony testing grounds. Jager with quad ac/2, 10 engine DHS.

Group Fire: 60 rounds fired before shut down.

Chain Fire: Heat does not rise above 1%

Macro chain fire: 17 rounds to shutdown.

http://youtu.be/AY_iF5DyTLA

Not the best video as used Windows movie maker to compress.

Edited by Tarby, 03 August 2013 - 05:01 AM.

[I C Wiener]

Darkblood, on 01 August 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

Just joining the crowd of "I have noticed the same here".

+1

And just when I started to like the AC/2...

[Trev Firestorm]

Don't forget to submit bug reports everyone, finally got to test it out this patch and yeah its still broken, completely unacceptable.

[D0GMA]

+1! Also, I just wanted to reiterate that a macro is not needed to cause the heat penalty.

[MaxStr]

Anyone bother checking if they took 2s to change a line to fix an entire weapon or did that not make it into this patch either.

[Side Step]

http://mwomercs.com/...d-heat-penalty/

Apparently a known issue, so it's likely not just a 2 second fix. I am sad it didn't get fixed this patch also.

Edited by Side Step, 07 August 2013 - 05:19 AM.