178 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

MadCat02, on 11 September 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

Yes i bet many of you got killed by 3 UAC Jaggermech (i pilot one myself )

You must run XL235 to have 3 UACS(175 ammo) and one medium laser .

Trading speed and normal engines gives you huge dps . You didn't know that ?

If you die to 58 miles jaggermech its probably your fault for standing still .

You know how much armor Jagger has on shoulder? 50 . Thats less than my alpha strike on Misery

I can honestly say that jagger with xl engine and 58 speed can die just as quickly as he can kill .

Not to mentions that UAC5 isn't ideal weapon to defend vs light mechs .

If you run UAC5 on assault mechs you will have hard time aiming it because of their low arms . Once again don't stay still and trade with assault mech who runs a dps weapon !



What PGU really needs to do is to buff useless weapons like AC2,AC10 and LB10

Do you guys really want pgu to nerf a perfectly balanced weapon .

An Ultra 5 should have the same DpS as an AC10. Twice as fast as a AC5 should equal an AC10. with the chance of jamming around 18% (to start). That is what an Ultra 5 should be doing. If it is close to this then it is not OP.

[Alex Warden]

One Medic Army, on 11 September 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

viable without using a macro

that´s the main problem with UAC´s imho...all those cheaters who still think that using macros is okay... you can reach close to 0% jamming, tell me how that´s not cheating...

i use 2 UAC´s on different mechs currently( without macros... i don´t cheat),and yes, it´s powerful, but certainly not overpowered.

[Joseph Mallan]

Alex Warden, on 12 September 2013 - 04:12 AM, said:

that´s the main problem with UAC´s imho...all those cheaters who still think that using macros is okay... you can reach close to 0% jamming, tell me how that´s not cheating...

i use 2 UAC´s on different mechs currently( without macros... i don´t cheat),and yes, it´s powerful, but certainly not overpowered.

Do you know how often most TT players thew snake eyes? That is how often a Ultra Cannon should jam. 18/100.

[Khobai]

Quote

Do you know how often most TT players thew snake eyes? That is how often a Ultra Cannon should jam.

Yeah but lets not go there. Because if you go off TT then UACs should never unjam. Also the second shot should have to roll on the missile table to see if it hits. And both shots should hit different locations most of the time.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 12 September 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

Yeah but lets not go there. Because if you go off TT then UACs should never unjam. Also the second shot should have to roll on the missile table to see if it hits. And both shots should hit different locations most of the time.

If you go off the TT there are (advanced) rules for unjamming that can still allow the simple cool down we have now. So I can still go there. The second shot should have a chance to miss due to the first shots recoil. Higher rates of fire are usually less accurate. If you fired Machine guns you'd know this.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 September 2013 - 05:51 AM.

[Demos]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 September 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:

Do you know how often most TT players thew snake eyes? That is how often a Ultra Cannon should jam. 18/100.

Huh? In my book a snake eye with 2d6 is 1/36 = 2,7%...

[DocBach]

The way Ultra AC's were balanced in the source material is when they burst fired a weapon each burst had to roll to see if both even hit, then it was determined where each burst went - simulating a cone of fire.

Ultra AC's need to be balanced with a recoil mechanic like burst fire from assault rifles in other FPS; it fires two shots very quickly, and both go on the target, but not precisely where it was aimed due to the recoil of a 9 ton gun firing two shots in rapid succession. With the coming Clan Ultra AC's, something like this really needs to be looked at, or the Ultra AC/20's will be a gamekiller.

Make it so lighter caliber UAC's have less recoil, where the bigger UAC/10 and 20 have more and need to be compensated for; the Ultra Autocannon should have high DPS, but using three of them slaved together shouldn't let you core out a heavy 'Mech in a couple of seconds using a macro. The jam mechanic should be completely random and the unjam time should be just as random, unless they go back to a skill based unjamming mechanic so people don't cry about dice rolls and rng.

[Lorcan Lladd]

DocBach, on 12 September 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

The way Ultra AC's were balanced in the source material is when they burst fired a weapon each burst had to roll to see if both even hit, then it was determined where each burst went - simulating a cone of fire.

Ultra AC's need to be balanced with a recoil mechanic like burst fire from assault rifles in other FPS; it fires two shots very quickly, and both go on the target, but not precisely where it was aimed due to the recoil of a 9 ton gun firing two shots in rapid succession. With the coming Clan Ultra AC's, something like this really needs to be looked at, or the Ultra AC/20's will be a gamekiller.

Make it so lighter caliber UAC's have less recoil, where the bigger UAC/10 and 20 have more and need to be compensated for; the Ultra Autocannon should have high DPS, but using three of them slaved together shouldn't let you core out a heavy 'Mech in a couple of seconds using a macro. The jam mechanic should be completely random and the unjam time should be just as random, unless they go back to a skill based unjamming mechanic so people don't cry about dice rolls and rng.

I like the idea, but it is possible to automatically compensate for weapon recoil with mouse macros - it's used a lot in other FPS titles and it would probably also be used here if such a mechanic was implemented; it would just make macros more obnoxious and powerful than they already are.

I think the only way to balance UACs with the current firing mechanic is to considerably increase the cooldown (in line with the standard versions of each respective UAC), jam times and jam chances, preferably in accord to heat generation and RoF; i.e. the chance of a jam increases quickly as a UAC is double-fired in a short period of time and the total heat of the 'Mech firing it increases also.

The developers could also get rid of the RnG altogether and enforce a very strict jam mechanic based only on the RoF of a UAC to forcefully bring its overall DPS down to the same level of an equivalent AC, or even below, though maintaining their burst damage potential

With this mechanic, a UAC/20 could be double-fired once without the risk of a jam, automatically jamming midway during its second double shot in a period of sixteen seconds or so, with similar numbers and restrictions for other UACs.

UACs need to be worth using over a standard AC, though they should not be objectively more powerful in all instances, as they are now.

Edited by Lorcan Lladd, 12 September 2013 - 05:58 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Demos, on 12 September 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

Huh? In my book a snake eye with 2d6 is 1/36 = 2,7%...

I just divide 11/2 11 possibilities on 2 die. Your percentages are better!

I woul never have used a SAW if I Jammed as often as as Ultra ACs do. It wouldn't be serviceable!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 September 2013 - 05:55 AM.

[MadCat02]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 September 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

An Ultra 5 should have the same DpS as an AC10. Twice as fast as a AC5 should equal an AC10. with the chance of jamming around 18% (to start). That is what an Ultra 5 should be doing. If it is close to this then it is not OP.

You shouden't compare uac5 to AC10 cuz AC10 is broken piece of trash and not effective on battlefield . Like i said if ac10 and ac2 weren't so weak uac wouden't stand out so much .

[Ngamok]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 11 September 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

this reminds me of the "2 AC/20" isnt OP threads a few months back.

In the old snipe Gauss + PPC meta it wasn't. Unless you snuck up to anyone using terrain, you'd get out sniped if you tried it. When you got in range of anything, it was devastating. Same with Splat Cats when they were around.

[The Boz]

Lorcan Lladd, on 12 September 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

I like the idea, but it is possible to automatically compensate for weapon recoil with mouse macros - it's used a lot in other FPS titles and it would probably also be used here if such a mechanic was implemented; it would just make macros more obnoxious and powerful than they already are.

I think the only way to balance UACs with the current firing mechanic is to considerably increase the cooldown (in line with the standard versions of each respective UAC), jam times and jam chances, preferably in accord to heat generation and RoF; i.e. the chance of a jam increases quickly as a UAC is double-fired in a short period of time and the total heat of the 'Mech firing it increases also.

The developers could also get rid of the RnG altogether and enforce a very strict jam mechanic based only on the RoF of a UAC to forcefully bring its overall DPS down to the same level of an equivalent AC, or even below, though maintaining their burst damage potential

With this mechanic, a UAC/20 could be double-fired once without the risk of a jam, automatically jamming midway during its second double shot in a period of sixteen seconds or so, with similar numbers and restrictions for other UACs.

UACs need to be worth using over a standard AC, though they should not be objectively more powerful in all instances, as they are now.

Mouse macros only work with predictible recoil patterns, and client-side generated recoil. A completely random, radial, server-side recoil is immune to that.

[Joseph Mallan]

MadCat02, on 12 September 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

You shouden't compare uac5 to AC10 cuz AC10 is broken piece of trash and not effective on battlefield . Like i said if ac10 and ac2 weren't so weak uac wouden't stand out so much .

Funny I seem to have quite the success with the AC10. Maybe the problem isn't the AC10... AC2 was a mosquito bit weapon and laughed at... Unless you scored a TAC! It was a waste of 6 tons!

[Charons Little Helper]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 September 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:

Do you know how often most TT players thew snake eyes? That is how often a Ultra Cannon should jam. 18/100.

Never played TT - but the accountant in me must correct your maths. (that's how you can tell I'm fun & exciting) The chance of throwing snake-eyes is 1/36, or just under 3%. (easy to figure out - 1/6 chance of throwing a 1 with the first die - 1/6 with the second die) 18/100 is more than the chance of throwing a 1 on a single die (16.67%).

[Lorcan Lladd]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 September 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

Funny I seem to have quite the success with the AC10. Maybe the problem isn't the AC10... AC2 was a mosquito bit weapon and laughed at... Unless you scored a TAC! It was a waste of 6 tons!

In TT? Oh, yes, it had a DPS of 0.2, if I'm not mistaken.
In MWO it can theoretically deal about 4.0 DPS, which isn't too shabby for a light ballistic weapon, especially since the Pepsi nerf.

It could probably hold its own against the likes of the UAC/5 if it didn't generate so much heat - I wish the developers would look into it.

Edited by Lorcan Lladd, 12 September 2013 - 06:17 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Lorcan Lladd, on 12 September 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

In TT? Oh, yes, it had a DPS of 0.2, if I'm not mistaken.
In MWO it can theoretically deal about 4.0 DPS, which isn't too shabby for a light ballistic weapon, especially since the Pepsi nerf.

It could probably hold its own against the likes of the UAC/5 if it didn't generate so much heat - I wish the developers would look into it.

My AC10 success is in MWO, Why use a 12 on gun when a 7 ton one can do the same on TT PPC was a better choice than the AC. I am on the fence on the AC2. It does way to much damage per 10 seconds, but it does spread it out so it is not tat bad...

[Ngamok]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 September 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

My AC10 success is in MWO, Why use a 12 on gun when a 7 ton one can do the same on TT PPC was a better choice than the AC. I am on the fence on the AC2. It does way to much damage per 10 seconds, but it does spread it out so it is not tat bad...

My JM6-S has 2xAC/10 and 4xML. I run with an XL in it and do pretty good. Nothing wrong with AC/10s as you said and I agree.

[Joseph Mallan]

I did very good with the same build!

[Mister Blastman]

MadCat02, on 12 September 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

You shouden't compare uac5 to AC10 cuz AC10 is broken piece of trash and not effective on battlefield . Like i said if ac10 and ac2 weren't so weak uac wouden't stand out so much .

Maybe you need to work on your piloting ability. This is from a PUG drop that I was alone in.



Taken last week. 2x AC 10 on that CTF.

What was that? AC 10s suck? What?

:-|

[Trauglodyte]

MadCat02, on 11 September 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

Yes i bet many of you got killed by 3 UAC Jaggermech (i pilot one myself )

You must run XL235 to have 3 UACS(175 ammo) and one medium laser .

Trading speed and normal engines gives you huge dps . You didn't know that ?

If you die to 58 miles jaggermech its probably your fault for standing still .

You know how much armor Jagger has on shoulder? 50 . Thats less than my alpha strike on Misery

I can honestly say that jagger with xl engine and 58 speed can die just as quickly as he can kill .

Not to mentions that UAC5 isn't ideal weapon to defend vs light mechs .

If you run UAC5 on assault mechs you will have hard time aiming it because of their low arms . Once again don't stay still and trade with assault mech who runs a dps weapon !



What PGU really needs to do is to buff useless weapons like AC2,AC10 and LB10

Do you guys really want pgu to nerf a perfectly balanced weapon .

More senseless rambling by MadCat02. The sad part is that people actually "liked" this post.