Viktor Drake, on 12 September 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:
Honestly it seems you have just proved that it is working correctly. I mean it just seems common sense that the whole point of having a double shot mode as you call it, is to increase DPS.
There is no reason that "working correctly" must equate to higher DPS, because higher DPS is not the only possible advantage of one weapon over another. For example, PPCs and Gauss rifles don't have great DPS per ton, but they have good range and deliver their damage to a single location in a short burst. With proper use of cover, these traits allow more damage to be delivered when actually exposed to return fire.
Viktor Drake, on 12 September 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:
By the figures above, you state that at the 25% jam rate, the UAC/5 actually did less DPS when used in automatic (double-shot) mode, than it would have in single shot mode. That is definately counterintuitive and makes it pretty obvious why PGI buffed the weapon. Additionally the 15% Jam rate DPS is only a 0.68 DPS increase over the single shot DPS value which isn't all that much.
With the 25% jam rate, less damage was done in the long run, but more damage was done in the short run. Looking at the third figure, you can see that about 20% more would be done over a 3-second burst, but you are no better off if you keep firing for 5 seconds and 10% behind (compared to single shot) if you keep firing for 8 seconds.
Now, with the 15% jam rate, you do 40% more damage over a 3-second burst, and this declines to 15% more damage (compared to single shot) in the long run. In other words, there is not much reason to ever avoid the risk of jamming, especially if you have three guns and can therefore hit these average results reliably.
The 15% chance of jam could be justifiable if the UAC/5 had the same base rate of fire as the AC/5. Then the weapon would be a heavier/bulkier AC/5 with higher short-term burst damage and a mild DPS boost in the long-run. However, its cooldown time is 1.1 seconds, while that of the AC/5 is 1.5 seconds. This change alone is enough to justify the added weight and bulk, without the possibility of increasing the DPS further by double-tapping.
Viktor Drake, on 12 September 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:
Lastly, I would absolutely expect a UAC/5 to have better DPS than a AC/5 because it is heavier and requires more crit slots than an AC/5. I mean what is the point of having the UAC/5 doing exactly the same damage as the AC/5? Oh I forgot, "BALANCE" where every weapon should be exactly the same, doing the same damage at the same heat for the same weight.
Seriously, lets just get rid of all weapons except the medium laser, that way we would have perfect weapon balance. Of Course then the posts would be His Jenner has 4 Energy Slots verses my Kintaro having only 2 Energy Slots...nerf Jenners.
In my experience, about 100 rounds per AC/5 or UAC/5 is adequate (less if you have more than two guns). Therefore, we can say that the AC/5 weighs 11 tons and takes up 7 slots, while the UAC/5 weights 13 tons and takes up 9 slots, so that the UAC/5 is 18% heavier and 29% bulkier in actual practice.
The two weapons fire projectiles with the same speed, damage, and heat per shot, and their ranges are virtually identical. Therefore, the sole advantage is in DPS. The AC/5 deals 5/1.5 = 3.33 DPS. The UAC/5 deals 5/1.1 = 4.55 DPS in single-shot mode and 5.23 DPS (in the long run) in double-shot mode. These are improvements of 37% and 57% for weight and bulk increases on the order of 25%. The 37% figure seems barely justifiable, but the 57% one probably isn't, especially given the large amount of damage that is "front loaded" (see the third figure) before settling down to the 57% trend.
2
