64 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Wolfways, on 17 September 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

Okay, you explain why the AC2 which is supposed to do slightly less damage than a small laser has one of the highest dps in the game. You can't take the stats from the original game and increase the ballistic rate of fire a hell of a lot more than the energy weapons rate of fire and expect them to be balanced.

Well at least it is ok that they increased the damage of ACs - well they are ballistic weapons and should be able to deal the same ammount of damage faster as a comparable energy weapon.

But the relation between the ACs should stay the same AC 2 < AC 5 < AC 10 < AC 20 with range moving in the other direction.
next AC 2 and AC 5 and even UAC 5 are DPS weapons
so the AC 2 should have at least 50% DPS of a AC 5 but much more range while the UAC 5 should have only 25% more DPS as a AC 5 at nearly same range.

AC 10 LB10X and AC 20 are Alpha weapons
that means you can reduce AC 10 RoF for increase of damage or decrease the AC 20 damage for a better RoF

[Wolfways]

Poptimus Rhyme, on 17 September 2013 - 02:08 AM, said:

Two words; Ammo Explosions.

i love the new changes, and i barely run uacs

The risk of taking ballistics because of ammo explosions has been drastically reduced in MWO, as in TT every hit had a small chance of getting a TAC (through armour crit). You could get an ammo explosion on the first hit if you were unlucky.
In MWO you can't even get crit until all the armour on that section is removed first.

[Lord Perversor]

R Razor, on 16 September 2013 - 11:34 PM, said:

And that's exactly right, the UAC will be nerfed because tools can't use them as intended and rely on macros to make them OP. If PGI were able to find a way to keep macros out, the UAC would be a well balanced weapon system.

And that's exactly right, because tools like you like to complain about Ac/2 stagger fire macros so it got hit by Ghost heat, results?

The weapon perform exactly equal (same shake,same dmg) it just forces players to fire all 3-4x Ac/2 at once then ppl like you shut up without any real idea about how the weapon perform.

Now let me explain it clearly to you:
Ac/5 1'5 sec recharge time
Uac/5 1'1 recharge time - 1st thing wrong with the weapon, it fires faster than it should

Ac/5 single shoot
Uac/5 Dual shoot after first 0'5 sec if trigger remain pressed - 2nd thing wrong the Uac/5 triple the Ac/5 dps

Macro Ac/5 does nothing
Macro Uac/5 FORCES to fire each 1'1 to avoid jamming instead firing each 0'55 thus USING MACRO GIMPS IT (because no one bothers to safe fire since the longer the weapon fire at maximum rate the weapon can deal ******** amount of dmg)

in short UAC/5 fires for 2 sec without Jam = Ac/20, if it fires for 4 sec without Jam = 2x AC/20, now go figure why the weapon is broken when ilyas are running around with the equivalent to a 6x Ac/20 loadout plus 3x Med lasers...

Edited by Lord Perversor, 17 September 2013 - 02:22 AM.

[Wolfways]

Karl Streiger, on 17 September 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

Well at least it is ok that they increased the damage of ACs - well they are ballistic weapons and should be able to deal the same ammount of damage faster as a comparable energy weapon.

Why should ballistics deal damage faster than lasers?

Quote

But the relation between the ACs should stay the same AC 2 < AC 5 < AC 10 < AC 20 with range moving in the other direction.
next AC 2 and AC 5 and even UAC 5 are DPS weapons
so the AC 2 should have at least 50% DPS of a AC 5 but much more range while the UAC 5 should have only 25% more DPS as a AC 5 at nearly same range.

It isn't like this now. The AC2 (3.85) has a higher dps than the AC5 (3.33).

Quote

AC 10 LB10X and AC 20 are Alpha weapons
that means you can reduce AC 10 RoF for increase of damage or decrease the AC 20 damage for a better RoF

[Karl Streiger]

Wolfways, on 17 September 2013 - 02:20 AM, said:

Why should ballistics deal damage faster than lasers?

the short one: Because they have ammunition

Long story:
ammunition should be limited - somehow. Using more ammunition feed weapons should allow warriors to deal more damage at the beginning of a battle - for low heat - but pay the price later on - when there bins are empty.

for example the Legacy: 2 Ultra AC 10 - and it is forbidden for a WoB pilot to stay on the battlefield when is ammunition is gone.
So this is a mech that moves in deal as much damage as possible and move out.

Same here - but with the difference that players can load 10 or even 20 tons of ammunition if they like - so they hardly run dry. That is the crux.

[Wolfways]

Karl Streiger, on 17 September 2013 - 02:25 AM, said:

the short one: Because they have ammunition

Long story:
ammunition should be limited - somehow. Using more ammunition feed weapons should allow warriors to deal more damage at the beginning of a battle - for low heat - but pay the price later on - when there bins are empty.

for example the Legacy: 2 Ultra AC 10 - and it is forbidden for a WoB pilot to stay on the battlefield when is ammunition is gone.
So this is a mech that moves in deal as much damage as possible and move out.

Same here - but with the difference that players can load 10 or even 20 tons of ammunition if they like - so they hardly run dry. That is the crux.

You can't balance a weapon on the basis that it might run out of ammo. If someone doesn't take enough ammo for the battle then it's their own fault.
That's like saying lasers should do more damage because they need more heat sinks than ballistics.

Ammo was limited on stock mechs, but the mechlab screws that up. That's also why stock mechs have a mix of weaponry, if you run out of ammo you still have lasers.

[Kmieciu]

I bet UAC5 gets ghost heat as well. Paul loves to troll us like that.

[Orkhepaj]

why not just remove uac?
what is the point of that weapon

[King Picollo]

Lasers take up less critical slots though so you can save weight with the upgrades and have more heat sinks\weaponry.

That's the main difference.

I think it's close to being balanced once the UAC nerf hits today. Maybe something else will pop up but we won't know until everyone stops using UAC's

[Lord Perversor]

King Picollo, on 17 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Lasers take up less critical slots though so you can save weight with the upgrades and have more heat sinks\weaponry.

That's the main difference.

I think it's close to being balanced once the UAC nerf hits today. Maybe something else will pop up but we won't know until everyone stops using UAC's

As long PGI don't add any **upgrade** to any current weapon they should remain balanced, as much a large ammount of LL (it's been raising since the PPC heat fix) due ppl wanting to spam fire nonstop the longer possible without overheat)

The only thing that may pop up should be in coordinated groups of players like the 3x Assaults LRM plus spotter or the Dual Ac/20 Jager lance and things like that.

P.S: personally i hope PGI sneak in the limit tonnage, you know they can't have such important day like this without cause a mayor Forumrage with the patchnotes

[Wolfways]

King Picollo, on 17 September 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Lasers take up less critical slots though so you can save weight with the upgrades and have more heat sinks\weaponry.

That's the main difference.

I think it's close to being balanced once the UAC nerf hits today. Maybe something else will pop up but we won't know until everyone stops using UAC's

Not really. Lasers may take up less crit slots but they also need a hell of a lot more heat sinks than ballistics. Plus you can only fit as many lasers as the mechs hardpoints allow.
With my Jager (2xAC2's, and 2xAC5's) i can core an Atlas in 8 seconds, and i overheat in 14 seconds. Try that with any combination of lasers, DHS, and other upgrades.

[Nebuchadnezzar2]

I'd rather uac5 has 5 dps flat with 0 chance of jamming, but with increase 1 slot for size and 1 ton for tonnage

[Wolfways]

Nebuchadnezzar2, on 17 September 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

I'd rather uac5 has 5 dps flat with 0 chance of jamming, but with increase 1 slot for size and 1 ton for tonnage

You mean 5 damage? The AC20 has 5dps.
And you can't change equipment sizes or tonnage because it messes with stock mechs.

[Mcchuggernaut]

People need to come right off the B.S. about limited ammunition being the reason autocannons should do the amount of damage that they do. Anyone with a brain and trigger discipline can build a mech that isn't going to run out of ammo half way through the match right now.

If you were running autocannons this week, you were having a blast and killing everything if you are any good. They were already great before the last buff, so why the hell they were even given a buff is beyond me (and obviously the devs thought this was a mistake too, as they are supposedly fixing it today). Ammo isn't really an issue, you have great range, high DPS, a weapon that rocks the **** out of an enemy and obscures their vision with a cloud of smoke so half the time they can't shoot back effectively, and very low heat which leaves you not having to stuff in heat sinks and allows you to fire nearly continuously.

Lets be honest, they needed some limiting factor, which is why everyone and their grandmother's dog is running autocannons right now. Seriously, half the mechs I fight are Jagermechs and Cataphracts. I can't blame them either, since you would have to be mentally deficient not to use such an advantage if it was offered to you.

Edited by Mcchuggernaut, 17 September 2013 - 03:21 AM.

[Wolfways]

Mcchuggernaut, on 17 September 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

People need to come right off the B.S. about limited ammunition being the reason autocannons should do the amount of damage that they do. Anyone with a brain and trigger discipline can build a mech that isn't going to run out of ammo half way through the match right now.

If you were running autocannons this week, you were having a blast and killing everything if you are any good. They were already great before the last buff, so why the hell they were even given a buff is beyond me (and obviously the devs thought this was a mistake too, as they are supposedly fixing it today). Ammo isn't really an issue, you have great range, high DPS, a weapon that rocks the **** out of an enemy and obscures their vision with a cloud of smoke so half the time they can't shoot back effectively, and very low heat which leaves you not having to stuff in heat sinks and allows you to fire nearly continuously.

Lets be honest, they needed some limiting factor, which is why everyone and their grandmother's dog is running autocannons right now. Seriously, half the mechs I fight are Jagermechs and Cataphracts. I can't blame them either, since you would have to be mentally deficient not to use such an advantage if it was offered to you.

Exactly what i've been saying. I have never really been interested in ballistics but people on the forum were always complaining that ballistics needed a buff, so i bought a Jagermech JM6-S (and the other variants to elite it) and used 2xAC2's and 2xAC5's to see how "bad" ballistics were.
Result? I think players who can't see how OP ballistics are are either trying to keep their OP mechs from being nerfed or just don't have a clue.
I'm still using that mech now (while training up other mechs) and it continuously allows me to chew right through enemy mechs and get a huge match score and damage numbers.
I even showed my wife it and she tried one and, even though she has never played an fps before and hated the thought of leading a target, she does as well as i do.

People on the forums keep saying ballistics aren't OP yet i'm seeing more and more Cataphracts and Jagermechs in every match. I'm hoping that eventually PGI will notice and fix it...soon.

[stjobe]

Wolfways, on 17 September 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

You mean 5 damage? The AC20 has 5dps.

Funnily enough the UAC has over 5 DPS even with the 15% jam chance; if the jam chance was 0, it would have 6.66 DPS.

Yes, this is the weapon everyone is crying will be "useless" after today's adjustment; even after the "nerf" its DPS will be superior to the AC/20.

Edited by stjobe, 17 September 2013 - 03:35 AM.

[Wolfways]

stjobe, on 17 September 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

Funnily enough the UAC has over 5 DPS even with the 15% jam chance; if the jam chance was 0, it would have 6.66 DPS.

Yes, this is the weapon everyone is crying will be "useless" after today's adjustment; even after the "nerf" its DPS will be superior to the AC/20.

Oh, smurfy lists the UAC5 dps as 4.55. I thought that site was always kept up to date.

[Mcchuggernaut]

stjobe, on 17 September 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

even after the "nerf" its DPS will be superior to the AC/20.

The saving grace of the AC/20 is it's pinpoint damage. It's delivering all that damage to one spot every time, so it's great for finishing people. Granted, a good player shooting at a bad player with multiple smaller UACs is still going to pinpoint their shots pretty well...which is why either lowering the damage per sot or rate of fire of UACs is what has to be done to make the huge space requirement, slow rate of fire, and weight of an AC/20 still competitive and worthwhile. Till then I'll be taking multiple smaller autocannons every time, and ultras over those.

I'm way more afraid of a mech mounting multiple smaller autocannons than one with an AC/20. I can make him miss, have time to torso twist and put the damage somewhere I can take it, and time his shots around my attacks.

Edited by Mcchuggernaut, 17 September 2013 - 03:48 AM.

[stjobe]

Wolfways, on 17 September 2013 - 03:43 AM, said:

Oh, smurfy lists the UAC5 dps as 4.55. I thought that site was always kept up to date.

It is, but that's the single-fire rate DPS. Double-fire it has almost double that (minus a bit for the jam rate) for a few hours more.

Yes, people are crying because a weapon that had 9+ DPS gets toned down to 5+ DPS - it's still going to be the king of DPS even after the "nerf".

[Karl Streiger]

Wolfways, on 17 September 2013 - 02:31 AM, said:

You can't balance a weapon on the basis that it might run out of ammo. If someone doesn't take enough ammo for the battle then it's their own fault.

Yes you made the point that ****** me off most.
Read the novels?
Do you know why the clans were beaten on Tukkayyid afar from the fact that they are mad morrons?
They were beaten because there Mechs had mostly heavy ammunition depended weapons - although supperior in battle - inflicting damage very fast - they hadn't the supply to make the same multiple times.

While in TT most ballistic weapons and missile weapons were worser as there counterparts in the energy class..
SRM 2 -> MLAS
AC 2 - LLAS
AC 5 - PPC
UAC 5 - HPPC
so MWO did the right thing in increasing the rate of fire for ammunition weapons.

However - not to limit the ammunition is a fault - and i hope they fix it soon (for example not more ammunition as 8tons of a kind) or the make a mech lab supply meta - you don't have to pay for rearm - but you don't get more as 3tons of ammunition per Mech and battle