11 replies to this topic

[12Bravo]

I am pretty sure this would limit the multiple UAC5 builds considering how fast they go through ammo, especially with Macros.

Edited by 12Bravo, 15 September 2013 - 02:20 PM.

[Wintersdark]

No. They have a fix incoming to reduce OPedness already, they don't need more.

Also, macros don't make uac's consume ammo faster, they make it fire slower. In fact, using any kind of macro with a UAC5 right now nets you _less_ DPS.

Using a macro with a UAC is the sign of a player who either lacks an understanding of how they work, feels they are overpowered and deliberately wants to limit their damage, or is just plain bad at the game.

UAC5's do higher burst damage (twice as much) and higher damage over time firing in ultra mode, even accounting for jams.

[Stingray Productions]

I think the current ammo per ton is ok for now.

[Tweaks]

No. Considering they use the exact same ammo as the normal AC/5, I don't see how this would make any sense canon-wise. The UAC/5 just goes through ammo faster than a normal AC/5 does, which is part of it's drawbacks.

[Deathlike]

AC5 ammo isn't usable for the UAC5 in this game. I'm sure this is an internal game balance design decision.

I don't see that as a problem, considering that the UAC5 has generally been more desirable than the regular AC5, despite the recent changes.

[Tweaks]

Deathlike, on 16 September 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

AC5 ammo isn't usable for the UAC5 in this game. I'm sure this is an internal game balance design decision.

I don't see that as a problem, considering that the UAC5 has generally been more desirable than the regular AC5, despite the recent changes.

That's an illusion though. The canister for the UAC/5 may be slightly different to allow for the faster rate of fire, but the capacity (ammo per ton) is the same and the ammo itself is the same. That's what I mean.

Edited by Tweaks, 16 September 2013 - 04:40 PM.

[Farix]

My vote is to harmonize the ammo between the AC/5 and UAC/5. There isn't a reason why the two should have a different amount of rounds per ton when they area affectively the same size round.

[Kalimaster]

In Beta Testing they had to increase the load for ammo. They had problems when the load out was lower, and they took steps to correct it.

[Bobzilla]

Macros with UAC is so they won't jam but for sure are getting the optimal DPS out of them, better than any human can do, not a big deal, but still does squeeze a little out of em. Then you bind the double tap to a different button so you can still benifit from the possible increased dps.

Making UAC5 and AC5 ammo the same would have a big difference, if one match your UAC is constantly in situations where the double fireing is used, you'd normally run out faster than the AC5 you could also have equiped with it. Then the UAC would have a sort of 'reserve' ammo that is intended to be for the AC5.

[Dee Eight]

Clan ACs and Ultras ACs have more shots per ton because they split each individual shot into many sub-caliber rounds, to spread the damage more as a way to appease IS whiners who of course don't have UAC-10s or 20s. In actual shots per ton worth 5,10 or 20 damage, the ammo capacity is the same as it would be for an IS autocannon. An Clan AC-20 fires four rounds per shot for example, and each does 5 damage, which means if you move during the fire sequence, you can spread the damage around the target, or miss it with part of the damage completely. That's why in the ammo counter it shows 28 per ton instead of the 7 per ton the LBX-20 shows. LBX autocannons still have the correct number of shots in the ammo bins because the cluster rounds are handled differently and spread the damage already.

[Spleenslitta]

The goal of this is to put a limiter on the amount of ammo and UAC5's a mech can feasibly carry right?
Lowering the ammo count might work but there is an alternative that makes carrying large amounts of downright dangerous.
It's a 2 step process that doesn't take much programming skills to accomplish. As a bonus it's gives the Flamer a certain role.

Step 1 - Ammo explosions used to be a thing to fear. Nowadays a tonn of ammo that gets destroyed has a 10% chance of exploding.
Increase that chance drasticly. Such as 33% or even 50% chance of explosion.

Step 2 - Make the flamer have a very high such as 75% or 90% chance to detonate ammo that is not protected by armor.

This would make it extremely dangerous to carry large amounts of ammo no matter what the weapon it's for.
As a bonus this would discourage boating ammo consuming weapons. A lot of you will say that it will lead to an laser/PPC boating craze.
It will not do that if we get an energy draw system into MWO.

Everything would consume energy including using JJ's and of course firing weapons.
Even running at full speed twisting arms and torso would consume energy but not more than the mechs reactor can produce constantly.
Energy weapons would consume the most energy while firing a box of LRM's wouldn't consume much energy.
Gauss might have a demand for energy to charge up but otherwise AC's and MG's would have next to no energy consumption if any at all.

If a recoil system is added there is even more reason not to boat ballistics. Furthermore missiles would gain their advantage over energy and ballistic weapons of not drawing much energy and not having recoil.

If MWO became like this we would have a high chance of having mechs like in the lore. Mechs that had a bit of everything in their weapon loadouts.
Firestarter with flamers and medium lasers for medium to close range work and maybe an ER LL for long range work.

This would also raise TTK because of less boating, fewer alpha strikes and less pinpoint damage.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 31 July 2016 - 02:32 PM.

[Snazzy Dragon]

Uac5s op? Stop facetanking it. Do this. Suddenly, they're not so effective.