102 replies to this topic

[VXJaeger]

What ever. **** all.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Look, if you purchased a Hero mech to exploit an overpowered weapon system and gain an edge on the enemy than you are paying to win, and thus deserve to get burned when the weapon gets balanced. I have no sympathy for you.

Hell, even with upcoming UAC5 nerfs, the Muromets is still one of the better Hero mechs on the market.



I bought the Muromets for dual-Gauss

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 13 September 2013 - 05:28 AM.

[Amaris the Usurper]

VXJaeger, on 13 September 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

Yes, and after UAC5's next one to nerf is 4*AC5-combo, it can be installed to more mechs than 3*UAC5.

Just nerf everything so every nerfwarrior can be happy 'cause THERE IS NO SUCH BALANCE EXISTENCE THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED!!!

In the end only ones that enjoy this game are "generic player ******" who don't care to use their precious time to learn the little things in the game. Just run here and there shouting *derp derp derp* and shooting somewhere over there, 'cause there's truly no reason to spend hundreds of games on learning any weapon to it's bones.

Sad that this game is taking this kinda shitfaceturn. Had hopes.

Several UAC/5s in combination will pretty reliably put out ~8 DPS per gun for 4 seconds and then perform near the long-term average of 5.23. Even when single firing, the UAC/5 puts out 4.55. By contrast, the AC/5 deals only 3.33 DPS.

In other words, if you just stand out in the open engage one target after the next without releasing the trigger, you get 57% extra DPS with minimal risk. If you avoid the jamming mechanic altogether, you get 37% extra.

On the other hand, if you actually use cover and emerge for 4.5-second bursts (the same time it would take a conventional AC/5 to fire 4 shots), you can deal ~33 damage per gun when actually exposed to return fire. The AC/5 would deal 20.

With the 3xUAC/5 Ilya, that is enough to almost completely remove the CT armor of an Atlas or completely destroy one of its side torso sections (around 100 hit points in both cases). Quad AC/5s would deal only 80 damage, and it requires many more sacrifices to fit them.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, when propertly supplied with ammo, the UAC/5 is only about 18% heavier and 29% bulkier than an AC/5. The UAC/5 is hitting far above its weight class. With the current stats, it is difficult to see why one would ever take a conventional AC/5.

You mentioned quad AC/5 builds as the next thing to be nerfed. Why? There is nothing wrong with them. Their performance, in terms of speed/range and pinpoint damage is similar to two PPCs, but without the heat, and (with their ammo) they are comparatively heavy and bulky, even when you consider the extra heat sinks needed to actually use the PPCs. Furthermore, you have to make huge sacrifices to mount them in a Jaegermech; the CTF-4X can fit them more comfortably, but it is squishy and has to expose its whole torso to fire. These drawbacks are reasonably compensated by the higher rate of fire. These are good builds that are lethal in the correct hands, but so are lots of others. They are certainly not "easy mode" in the way the current UAC/5 builds are.

Edited by Amaris the Usurper, 13 September 2013 - 05:37 AM.

[Roland]

Amaris points out the current issue with UAC's... that there is no longer any reason to ever even TRY to single shot them.

If you have a UAC now, and you see a target, it is generally going to be the best option to just lay on the trigger until either you lose line of sight, the UAC jams, or the target is dead.

With the current jam chance, there's no reason to ever NOT fire the weapon in ultra mode. You will always do better damage by laying on the trigger.

This is the ultimate issue, from a game balance perspective.

[VXJaeger]

Amaris the Usurper, on 13 September 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

You mentioned quad AC/5 builds as the next thing to be nerfed. Why?...They are certainly not "easy mode" in the way the current UAC/5 builds are.

There was nothing wrong with 3*UAC5-builds or any OP builds before pitchfork-nitwits started screaming like buttkicked goats. Everytime something is nerfed, the next "OP" build will be found and the same whining starts over and over again.
After UACs are nerfed, even you will probably turn your table and start screaming "QUAD AC5s ARE OP, NERF NERF NERF".
In the end, theres nothing left and no reason to try learning some weaponsystem to it's bones. Everything will be same beige ****.

[Mechteric]

VXJaeger, on 13 September 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

There was nothing wrong with 3*UAC5-builds or any OP builds before pitchfork-nitwits started screaming like buttkicked goats. Everytime something is nerfed, the next "OP" build will be found and the same whining starts over and over again.
After UACs are nerfed, even you will probably turn your table and start screaming "QUAD AC5s ARE OP, NERF NERF NERF".
In the end, theres nothing left and no reason to try learning some weaponsystem to it's bones. Everything will be same beige ****.

Not true, the previous jam rate of the UAC's I think made them have a lower average DPS than the AC5...unless I'm mistaken. In which case they weren't used because PPC's.

At any rate, Russ has pretty much hit on exactly what I thought UAC's have needed for months now, well before they were in fashion by the meta masses.

Ryan: "Hi Russ, So why cooldown uac=1.1 vs AC5 @ 1.5? AC2 cooldown .5ish,ac10=2.5 ac20= 5. Why not same with doubletap?"
Russ: "exactly the fix. It should have always been an AC5 that you could double tap at a risk."

https://twitter.com/...246199259566080

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 13 September 2013 - 07:35 AM.

[Aidan McRae]

The Boz, on 11 September 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

The jam chance should be removed totally, because it will NEVER result in a reliable, non-random, unexploitable mechanic. UACs should have higher rates of fire than their AC counterparts, but at the cost of weapon spread, preventing pinpoint component damage at over 200 meters or so.

^ This. Because unless people think creating macros = skill, then 'jamming percentages' are just as random and 'non-skill' as CoF. Which should have been in this game since it's inception. Cone bigger for repeated firing. Cone smaller for reduced % top engine speed. Cone pinpoint at zero motion. Simple solution to all needs for this game. Skill AND balance.

[Itsalrightwithme]

Praise be MATLAB!

[Joseph Mallan]

The Boz, on 11 September 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

The jam chance should be removed totally, because it will NEVER result in a reliable, non-random, unexploitable mechanic. UACs should have higher rates of fire than their AC counterparts, but at the cost of weapon spread, preventing pinpoint component damage at over 200 meters or so.

Sorry am I misunderstanding you here. You want to know exactly when your weapon will jam??? I wish they could do that with the weapons I used to use in training! It would be awesome if my weapons Never jammed or if I knew when it would happen!

If that is what you are meaning by Non-Random mechanics then I think you miss the point of random mechanical failure. If not can you define what you meant by it?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 13 September 2013 - 08:54 AM.

[Itsalrightwithme]

Amaris the Usurper, on 11 September 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

Another interesting phenomenon is visible when looking at the expected total damage over time. Rather than tediously working out the theory, I wrote a MATLAB program that simulates (using a random number generator) the UAC/5 behavior described above and records the total damage dealt over time. Each of the curves below is the average of 10,000 separate runs with a single gun.

Amaris, great work and use of MATLAB! Kudos to you.

Can I suggest to add also the 10%-90% curves (or 1-sigma, 2-sigma bar plots), and max-likelihood performance curve? I think to most people what is of interest is not only the average value but also the spread. The built-in "errorbar" is an easy way to plot this.

Thanks!

[Kin3ticX]

heres my uac5 damage analysis.

They are intentionally broken

[Amaris the Usurper]

Itsalrightwithme, on 13 September 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

[/size]

Amaris, great work and use of MATLAB! Kudos to you.

Can I suggest to add also the 10%-90% curves (or 1-sigma, 2-sigma bar plots), and max-likelihood performance curve? I think to most people what is of interest is not only the average value but also the spread. The built-in "errorbar" is an easy way to plot this.

Thanks!

Yes, I will do that. I will even show how the spread changes when multiple guns are used.

[Karenai]

Deathlike, on 12 September 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Just wait for the Ilya sale that's coming soon™.

http://mwomercs.com/...pt-13th-to-19th
And here it is, just one day later. Are you a psychic?

Cataphract, Ilya Muromets

30% off, reg. 5250 , NOW 3675

JagerMech, Firebrand

30% off, reg. 4875 , NOW 3412

[Kin3ticX]

ohh look the tripple uac ilya is on sale. but they never had the time to bump the jam rate back to 25 percent. Very bizarre.

[VXJaeger]

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2745505

Deathlike, on 12 September 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Just wait for the Ilya sale that's coming soon™.

I told you

Edited by VXJaeger, 13 September 2013 - 09:56 AM.

[Bacl]

The Boz, on 11 September 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

The jam chance should be removed totally, because it will NEVER result in a reliable, non-random, unexploitable mechanic. UACs should have higher rates of fire than their AC counterparts, but at the cost of weapon spread, preventing pinpoint component damage at over 200 meters or so.

Problem is ALL weapons in the game except the lasers should have spread not just the UAC5. Doing so would fix pretty much everything and maybe remove the ghost heat system since its supposed to prevent boating, babies dont like boating bacuse they alpha all damage on 1 spot. No more pinpoint on the go=> no more focused alpha damage=> boating becomes less effective but not completly useless=> not need to have that damn ghost heat weapon linkage in the first place.

I 100% agree with you about the spread cone, but on all non lasers weapons, since they do their damage over time it would balance things between the direct damage but slightly innacurate vs the pinpoint but overtime.

[Roland]

Kin3ticX, on 13 September 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

ohh look the tripple uac ilya is on sale. but they never had the time to bump the jam rate back to 25 percent. Very bizarre.

Apparently, the plan is this:
1) Inexplicably buff a weapon which is already considered very good.
2) Allow that buff to result in a ton of certain hero mechs to appear on the field, making new players say, "That mech is good!"
3) Put that mech on sale, and get all those player to buy it.
4) Nerf the weapon back to a reasonable state, reducing the utility of those mechs those people bought
5) Profit and laugh

[Deathlike]

Roland, on 13 September 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

Apparently, the plan is this:
1) Inexplicably buff a weapon which is already considered very good.
2) Allow that buff to result in a ton of certain hero mechs to appear on the field, making new players say, "That mech is good!"
3) Put that mech on sale, and get all those player to buy it.
4) Nerf the weapon back to a reasonable state, reducing the utility of those mechs those people bought
5) Profit and laugh

I remember the post-HM "nerf" with JJs. You know... it's working as intended™.

[VXJaeger]

Deathlike, on 13 September 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

I remember the post-HM "nerf" with JJs. You know... it's working as intended™.

LOL Codemonkeys need money for bananas, but this is getting ridiculous

[Deathlike]

VXJaeger, on 13 September 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

LOL Codemonkeys need money for bananas, but this is getting ridiculous

I suggest you read this:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2747031

It's not a coincidence.