27 replies to this topic

[Sable Dove]

So the fix is that they're going to match the UAC5/AC5 recycle times, forcing the player to take the risk in order to get the benefits of the UAC5. Since it wasn't mentioned, I suspect they'll leave the jam chance alone.

However, considering the fact that using a macro currently makes the weapon less effective, I suspect this 'nerf' will effectively do nothing, as no one in their right mind would use a macro with the UAC5 as it is now.

So what are the odds that this fix will be 100% ineffectual, and we'll have another two weeks of brutally overpowered UAC5s?

[Waylander40K]

The double fire rate is based off the basic fire rate
i.e. currently 1.1 second therefore double fire = a shot every 0.55 seconds.
Therefore changing The UAC5 rate to 1.5 (AC5 current rate), reduces the double fire to 0.75 seconds.

Which is a hefty nerf as the DPS is dropped by about 1/3, for both single fire and double fire.


This should be enough to make it below average choice for most players. E.g. u could take the lighter ac5(s) instead, which has more ammo per tonne, and a couple of medium lasers with perhaps a few heat sinks to give a better damage output, if the Ultra’s are nerfed in this way.

Edited by Waylander40K, 16 September 2013 - 02:57 AM.

[Sharknoms]

I think the best way to balance them is to set the cooldown to 1,5 sec when holding down the button.
So in emergency you could double tab for more burst damage.
Maybe set the ammo per ton to 30 shot like the standart AC/5.
So people can decided to save a ton for something else or go for that extra ton of the UAC/5 and gain the
ability to double tab and the risk for a jam.

[Livewyr]

Also, the macro made it "less effective" compared to a fully functioning doubletapping UAC5.. but far more effective than the AC5 because the base RoF was 30% shorter to begin with.

[MustrumRidcully]

Livewyr, on 16 September 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:

Also, the macro made it "less effective" compared to a fully functioning doubletapping UAC5.. but far more effective than the AC5 because the base RoF was 30% shorter to begin with.

Yup, exactly.

[ChallengerCC]

The problem is not the UAC5, AC20 or so. The problem is, that a mech has plenty of hardpoints, but when you only use 2 or 3 of them and build a mono mech (only 1 weapontype) its more effectiv then a full build.
And that can not be it sucks so mutch. Everywher only (last patch) 1Gaus and 2PPC, before this only Rockets, befor this patch only lasers and now only AC5, UAC5 or AC20. And that can not be.
I know its hard to balance but this mono build need to have a major disadvantage and for now there is no realy disadvantage.
Its easyer to play, its way to effectiv and fight ends in under 5 seconds. I want a nice long fight first disable parts and dont **** all of my weapons in the center torso. The center torso should have and x2 increasement at all mechs so that first limbs or arms get bustet not everytime the center torso.

For that should missles also can target parts of mechs. Center torso should be not the major option.
So that there is also a clear disadvantage of XL engines. For now it dont matter at all because center will fall even in 2 sec later. (By the way: the hitboxes of some mechs are bugged you get even damage from behind fire in the front center torso) Cicada is the best example.

And a realy nice tip from me devs: Make statistiks of used mechs and weapon, then you will see after 1 week wich build or mech seems to be a littl bit strong or underpowerd.
For now everyone is running around with jaeger and cataphract and cannons (ac5 and 20)
So a smart fox could coem to the conclusion that something might be wrong there ??
And i dont see anybody since i play MWO running around with Large Pulse Lasers.

Sooooo mhmmmmmm might be that this weapon is a littl bit ****?
But you nerfed it last patch great job thump up. Clever

And bring some maps out not every time a new mech to get more money. Bring a good game and the money will come from alone.
I have the strong feeling that the only aim is money for you and that not a good behavior to release a nice game thats worth to play. Make a good balance.

I am over and out. ^^

Edited by ChallengerCC, 16 September 2013 - 03:37 AM.

[Amsro]

I like that its mostly a minor tweak/see how it goes type balance, we might resemble a balanced meta soon! o.O

[Viral Matrix]

From what ive heard, the fix seems very reasonable, in fact the new UACs seem like they function how i thought the old ones did. Hold down for a standard, non jammable firerate, then tap during reload to fire again. But the current UAC dont work like that, its just a mash on the keyboard, with a random chance to jam. No skill, no reliability, no choice.

I might like the new UAC 5 alot better, because it would atleast have some reliability. Thats why i dont use the current UACs, theyll jam after the 1st shot. Totally random. Only way around that is to have multiple UAC5 onboard so you can almost always be spitting out damage. For my playstyle, one UAC5 is not enough, i need to be able to do damage when i want. This is also an issue, in a different way, with the Gauss and its short charged time.

[ChallengerCC]

The complete AC line is totaly skilless. Press 1 button to win or hold it down.
Maybe some deviation or so, that the weapons spreads and dont hit everytime the same spot.

[Kaldor]

ChallengerCC, on 16 September 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

The complete AC line is totaly skilless. Press 1 button to win or hold it down. Maybe some deviation or so, that the weapons spreads and dont hit everytime the same spot.

Let me guess, a CoF would be your fix?

I guess travel time, bullet drop (both of which are in this game) are not enough for you?

I know, lets make everything harder! That will make it even more fun for the new players that start out, and then are instantly pushed away because this game relies on a set of very archaic and nonsensical rules.....

[Mechteric]

It basically means that the people who use a macro to avoid jamming now don't get any benefit from it they couldn't already get from regular AC/5. So the double fire becomes the sole reason to take it. Of course I think they should put the jam rate a bit higher than it is now, but less than it was before. 20% possibly? (before=25, now=15 right?)

[Lefty Lucy]

CapperDeluxe, on 16 September 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

It basically means that the people who use a macro to avoid jamming now don't get any benefit from it they couldn't already get from regular AC/5. So the double fire becomes the sole reason to take it. Of course I think they should put the jam rate a bit higher than it is now, but less than it was before. 20% possibly? (before=25, now=15 right?)

If it has the same base refire rate as an AC5, then double-tapping has to give an overall DPS increase in order to make the extra ton and lower ammo per ton (which translates into more weight in the end, as you need more ammo bins) worth taking the weapon. I think with the current jam chance and base AC5 refire rate that will be about perfect.

[Livewyr]

Capper, that's what I'm hoping for.. but PGI doesn't really listen to our suggestions. (Bryan Eckman already said that- they listen to the noise: what's being complained about, what's not being complained about, and if there is "sufficient noise," they look at it and make "appropriate" adjustments..)

If it is what we suggested, it's coincidence.

Edited by Livewyr, 16 September 2013 - 07:00 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Adhering to strict Table Top damage values for the Ultra Autocannons will never work in MWO. That is the ROOT of the problem.

[stjobe]

Lefty Lucy, on 16 September 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

If it has the same base refire rate as an AC5, then double-tapping has to give an overall DPS increase in order to make the extra ton and lower ammo per ton (which translates into more weight in the end, as you need more ammo bins) worth taking the weapon. I think with the current jam chance and base AC5 refire rate that will be about perfect.

I don't know if I misunderstand you, but the base refire rate will be the same as the AC/5 (1.5 seconds), with the possibility to shoot again after half that time (0.75) with a 15% chance to jam if doing so, right?

So this would mean that the single-tap UAC/5 is a heavier AC/5 with less ammo, but the double-tap UAC/5 is almost as good as two AC/5s - I think that qualifies as "an overall DPS increase", and I do think the jam percentage could be raised slightly to about 20% without invalidating the whole weapon.

[Livewyr]

General Taskeen, on 16 September 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

Adhering to strict Table Top damage values for the Ultra Autocannons will never work in MWO. That is the ROOT of the problem.

I disagree, Taskeen. There are plenty of balancing factors to use, but a couple of them are pretty obvious.

Risk/Reward (Double tap versus/jam) One has to find the balance of risk versus reward to make it worth taking in general, but not overpowered.

Jam chance- sliding scale I think/ Jam length (also a sliding scale)

Jut tweak those numbers. (As much as I hate RNG, any mechanic other than that will be gamed by macros.)

[General Taskeen]

Livewyr, on 16 September 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

I disagree, Taskeen. There are plenty of balancing factors to use, but a couple of them are pretty obvious.

Risk/Reward (Double tap versus/jam) One has to find the balance of risk versus reward to make it worth taking in general, but not overpowered.

Jam chance- sliding scale I think/ Jam length (also a sliding scale)

Jut tweak those numbers. (As much as I hate RNG, any mechanic other than that will be gamed by macros.)

Nope, doesn't work in real-time Mech Warrior. UAC never had random chance in past games. And strict table top damage values literally CAN NOT work in real-time Mech Warrior. Adhering to these asisine TT rules of random chance needs to be done with from this game forever.

Let's look at the UAC/20 with current illogical UAC/5 programming.

Two people are facing each other with 2xUAC/20's equipped.

One user fires both their guns and did not jam for double shot, instantly killing their opponent with an 80 Damage Alpha.

Second user fires their guns and they jam (AKA broke) when attempting to fire. They are now dead. Their Holy Sword of Smiting did 598 Damage, instead of doing a critical chance hit for 2,000 damage and broke. The other user wears a smug grin based on their chances to win. The game decided this, because random chance and PGI's adherence to TT damage values.

Literally - it can not work for Ultra's or Rotary's - Like literally, what would PGI do at that point, Qaudruple armor values because some user's are getting the short end of the random stick? And to some extent the LB-X guns which are underpowered by strictly adhering to "damage per pellet" values. Its asisine and illogical for a Mech Warrior game.

Edited by General Taskeen, 16 September 2013 - 07:30 AM.

[ChallengerCC]

General Taskeen, on 16 September 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

Nope, doesn't work in real-time Mech Warrior. UAC never had random chance in past games. And strict table top damage values literally CAN NOT work in real-time Mech Warrior. Adhering to these asisine TT rules of random chance needs to be done with from this game forever.

Let's look at the UAC/20 with current illogical UAC/5 programming.

Two people are facing each other with 2xUAC/20's equipped.

One user fires both their guns and did not jam for double shot, instantly killing their opponent with an 80 Damage Alpha.

Second user fires their guns and they jam (AKA broke) when attempting to fire. They are now dead. Their Holy Sword of Smiting did 598 Damage, instead of doing a critical chance hit for 2,000 damage and broke. The other user wears a smug grin based on their chances to win. The game decided this, because random chance and PGI's adherence to TT damage values.

Literally - it can not work for Ultra's or Rotary's - Like literally, what would PGI do at that point, Qaudruple armor values because some user's are getting the short end of the random stick? And to some extent the LB-X guns which are underpowered by strictly adhering to "damage per pellet" values. Its asisine and illogical for a Mech Warrior game.

True. Tabletop rules will only work when you get the same role "dice" chances in a simulation/shooter.
And thats simple: deviation (lower deviation more chance(role "dice") to hit)
Question is why shoot a mech so inacurate.

I would say: dont use the tabletop rules it will not properly work and its old unrealistic s.h.i.t. and historicly growen. Stay with the storry and mechs else make new.
Create something believable more realstic and logicaly correct. This will work a lot more.

Edited by ChallengerCC, 16 September 2013 - 07:46 AM.

[Earl White]

Waylander40K, on 16 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

The double fire rate is based off the basic fire rate
i.e. currently 1.1 second therefore double fire = a shot every 0.55 seconds.
Therefore changing The UAC5 rate to 1.5 (AC5 current rate), reduces the double fire to 0.75 seconds.

Which is a hefty nerf as the DPS is dropped by about 1/3, for both single fire and double fire.


This should be enough to make it below average choice for most players. E.g. u could take the lighter ac5(s) instead, which has more ammo per tonne, and a couple of medium lasers with perhaps a few heat sinks to give a better damage output, if the Ultra’s are nerfed in this way.

Yep, I think they need to change or remove the jam mechanic and put something else in it's place, It's pretty dumb to make one weapon out of a whole arsenal rely so heavily on rng to get the most benefit. I'm glad they did nerf it though, you see so much UAC5 spam in games (hell even I use them ) it will be nice to see different weapons being used till the next nerf.

[DocBach]

The jam mechanic is the risk to balance out the reward of being able to do twice the damage of a standard AC.

If you jam your UAC20s in a duel with a guy who has UAC20s that didn't jam, he got luckier than you. Sorry, luck is just as much of a factor in combat as tactics or skill - if you don't want to risk it and gamble on a malfunction, bring a standard autocannon or run in single fire mode.

I'd say lower the jam mechanic and give the UAC's a cone of fire when shot in burst, the larger the caliber, the larger the shot spread. That would be a better simulation of the board game UAC mechanic, in which after firing a burst of UAC you had to first see if both rounds landed on target, then where each one hit. Very rare for a burst to hit the same spot.

Edited by DocBach, 16 September 2013 - 07:55 AM.