1080 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Mawai, on 10 January 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

You can always go test your hypothesis. Take an AC40 Jaeger to the testing grounds. How many shots does it take to kill the target and how many mech sections are damaged ... then do the same thing with 4xASRM6 (You can even use the same mech). How many armor sections are damaged and which kills the mech faster?

So ... since I have my own jm6-a ... here are the results .. testing grounds .. forest colony snow ... 200m from target ... center torso target from front to keep things simple ...

Commando
AC40 - one shot kill
4ASRM6 - 2 shots - one volley - 7 total ASRM6 - first volley damaged 6 separate mech sections

Cicada
AC40 - 2 shots - 3 rounds total
4ASRM6 - 3 shots - 9 total ASRM6 - 7 mech segments damaged in first shot

Catapult
AC40 - 3 shots - 5 rounds total
4ASRM6 - 4 shots - 15 volleys total

Centurion
AC40 - 2 shots - 4 rounds total
4ASRM6 - 3 shots - 10 volleys total

So ... overall the 4ASRM6 is not as effective at killing opponents as the AC40 since although the damage potential is higher that damage is distributed over more of the mech so it does not kill the opponent as efficiently.




Now to test another popular hypothesis ... are SRMs more effective fired one by one?

4ASRM6 fired at Catapult LA from 200m - damage was distributed over 5 mech segments - head,ct,lt, rt. la
4 shots - 13 total volleys required to blow off LA
Fired individually 13 volleys required to blow up RA

Atlas
4xASRM6
3x4ASRM6 volleys through LT armor - total 20 volleys to blow off arm

ASRM6
Total 20 ASRM6 individual volleys to blow off the other arm.

So .. at least in the testing grounds ... a single ASRM6 does the same damage whether fired separately or together. (as it should).

You also arent taking into the account of a moving target as well. also keep in mind the weight differential between the 2 systems and the fact that you can run more overall firepower because of that. You can also be effectively faster and run more ammo overall for higher kill potential. Lastly if you lose one of your ac (which is amazingly common since all it takes is to get to the core of the arm and they pop like a cherry) you lose half your effective firepower where as its harder to strip a machine gun (usually a heat sink) and 2 missle systems from an arm and you also have lasers in the torso.

You cant just look at a gun from a raw numbers stand point of damage but need to look at it with overall effectiveness and how it translates into a build on a mech.

[Solis Obscuri]

Sandpit, on 22 December 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

OR you leave it where it is because it's balanced now

Wait... you mean NOT breaking everything in order to make a new FotM out of lazerboats? What a strange idea...

[Khobai]

Quote

You also arent taking into the account of a moving target as well.

Or hit registration. I happen to know for a fact that sometimes as much as 50% of SRM damage will fail to register.

Quote

You are hitting double the armor with double the damage so a double AC20 is just as powerful as a single TT AC20.

Correct. Your double the armor vs double the damage statement is true.

Except you get to aim exactly where you want that 40 damage to go in MWO. Conversely, in TT, the hit locations are completely random. That makes a huge difference.

Because if you fire twice in MWO, you can do 80 damage to one location. But if you fire twice in TT, the most likely result will be 20 damage to one location and 20 damage to another location. The odds of hitting the same location twice in a row are less than 5% in tabletop.

While convergence is certainly a problem, the real gamebreaker in MWO is the precise aiming and being able to repeatedly hit the same location over and over. Its like having a clan targeting computer, only way better. Clan targeting computers at least take up tonnage/crit slots and give you a +3 penalty when aiming at specific locations (the same penalty as firing while jumpjetting).

Edited by Khobai, 10 January 2014 - 12:26 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mawai, on 10 January 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

You can always go test your hypothesis. Take an AC40 Jaeger to the testing grounds. How many shots does it take to kill the target and how many mech sections are damaged ... then do the same thing with 4xASRM6 (You can even use the same mech). How many armor sections are damaged and which kills the mech faster?

So ... since I have my own jm6-a ... here are the results .. testing grounds .. forest colony snow ... 200m from target ... center torso target from front to keep things simple ...

Commando
AC40 - one shot kill
4ASRM6 - 2 shots - one volley - 7 total ASRM6 - first volley damaged 6 separate mech sections

Cicada
AC40 - 2 shots - 3 rounds total
4ASRM6 - 3 shots - 9 total ASRM6 - 7 mech segments damaged in first shot

Catapult
AC40 - 3 shots - 5 rounds total
4ASRM6 - 4 shots - 15 volleys total

Centurion
AC40 - 2 shots - 4 rounds total
4ASRM6 - 3 shots - 10 volleys total

So ... overall the 4ASRM6 is not as effective at killing opponents as the AC40 since although the damage potential is higher that damage is distributed over more of the mech so it does not kill the opponent as efficiently.




Now to test another popular hypothesis ... are SRMs more effective fired one by one?

4ASRM6 fired at Catapult LA from 200m - damage was distributed over 5 mech segments - head,ct,lt, rt. la
4 shots - 13 total volleys required to blow off LA
Fired individually 13 volleys required to blow up RA

Atlas
4xASRM6
3x4ASRM6 volleys through LT armor - total 20 volleys to blow off arm

ASRM6
Total 20 ASRM6 individual volleys to blow off the other arm.

So .. at least in the testing grounds ... a single ASRM6 does the same damage whether fired separately or together. (as it should).

Take your Commando to TT and see it disappear all the faster

HMPro random Dice roller. 2d6 10 rolls
6,2,6,9,8,7,9,10,7,4
Dead Commando one turn.

Cicada
7,8,6,6,4,2,3,5,9,4
Dead Cicada, fist hit! Unless full armor is Mod.

Centurion
5,3,9,8,7,10,6,8,8,9
This survived a one shot kill but took structural damage on every hit!

Catapult
9,6,7,10,5,4,7,2,4,10
4 Turns of fire to kill it 40 seconds of life!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 January 2014 - 12:17 PM.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 10 January 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

Or hit registration. I happen to know for a fact that as much as 50% of SRM damage will fail to register.



Correct. Your double the armor vs double the damage statement is true.

Except you get to aim exactly where you want that 40 damage to go in MWO. In TT, the hit location is completely random. That makes a huge difference.

Because if you fire twice in MWO, you can do 80 damage to one location.

But if you fire twice in TT, the most likely result will be 40 damage to one location and 40 damage to another location. The odds of hitting the same location twice in a row are less than 5% in tabletop.

While convergence is certainly a problem, the real gamebreaker in MWO is the precise aiming and being able to repeatedly hit the same location.

If you hit and if you can get into position.

running around at 70ish with a mech thats basically a large target is iffy as well. Keep in mind something major. With SRM you can turn, fire, and then block with an arm and a torso section. With the ac40 jager you can... fire... since running an xl engine with no ability to block means you are constantly a target of death.

[Tombstoner]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 January 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

So the GPS is good enough to miss the Target Mech by more than 7'-10'? A few Meters not a couple centimeters, which is how accurate our games targeting is. Accurate to with in 6 feet is the difference of left and right torso or left leg and right arm! Artillery is an area affect weapon so I would certainly hope a few feet left or right would be fine.

O you where seriously looking to see a comparison with real world tech? sigh.

Everything about BT evolved from the stand point that precision guided munitions stop development at the 1980's level, other wise mech design would have been drastically different.
It's why TT used a 2d6 for determining hit location.

With MWO level of accuracy and precision you would never build mechs with such a variate of shapes. arm mounted weapons would be capable of being lifted strait up and shoot over buildings and hills. the only thing that gets exposed would be the weapons.... so a very different sort of game.

Edited by Tombstoner, 10 January 2014 - 12:39 PM.

[Varent]

Tombstoner, on 10 January 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

O you where seriously looking to see a comparison with real world tech? sigh.

Its also why TT used a 2d6 for determining hit location.

nggghhh....

can we just all agree to leave TT rules and numbers and real life comparisons out of this game?

Its not TT and it most certainly has very little to do with RL.

Its a video game shooter simulation.

[Khobai]

Quote

If you hit and if you can get into position.

Hitting with autocannons isnt hard at all. In fact its probably one of the easiest acquired skills in the game.

Quote

running around at 70ish with a mech thats basically a large target is iffy as well. Keep in mind something major. With SRM you can turn, fire, and then block with an arm and a torso section. With the ac40 jager you can... fire... since running an xl engine with no ability to block means you are constantly a target of death.

Yeah thats not how you play a Jagermech. Jagermechs have high mount weapons which makes them ideal for hill humping. If you play a Jagermech correctly you should always be half-obscured by terrain. Additionally when you crest hills you should always run up the hill perpendicular to the enemy, that way you can continue running forward to get back down the hill, instead of having to go in reverse, which will get you killed.

Actually you should almost always move perpendicular to the enemy. Because it forces them to lead you. This is the reason why the circle of death is so common, because you have two mechs both trying to move perpendicular to eachothers gunsights. Many players just do this intuitively, but thats the reason why. You almost never want to move directly towards or away from the enemy. And standing still or reversing are usually pretty bad too. Those are my tips for Jagermech piloting and piloting in general.

Edited by Khobai, 10 January 2014 - 12:38 PM.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 10 January 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Hitting with autocannons isnt hard at all. In fact its probably one of the easiest acquired skills in the game.



Yeah thats not how you play a Jagermech. Jagermechs have high mount weapons which makes them ideal for hill humping. If you play a Jagermech correctly you should always be half-obscured by terrain. Additionally when you crest hills you should always run up the hill perpendicular to the enemy, that way you can continue running forward to get back down the hill, instead of having to go in reverse, which will get you killed.

so your talking about an ideal situation, which is never likely to happen unless your a very smart player who knows what they are doing.

Yet the argument for much of this thread is based around the concept of being ambushed by them.

Which a smart player would not have happen since they would recognize the threat and stay at range, or engage if they have a mech that can block shots and then deliver them.

To use an example of mechs of equal weight that can and do regularly kill ac40 jager.

cataphracts, Orion, Thunderbolts(yes thunderbolts, they can block well and deliver punishment to the side torso)

To site mechs that regularly kill ac40 jager that weigh LESS..

centurion, shadowhawk, wolverine, griffin, Kintaro (depending on how they are built)

And this is just taking into account mechs that have a simiiar playstyle of being a brawler.

If you put an equally skilled pilot in a jager and an equally skilled pilot in any of the above mentioned mechs the one piloting the jager is going to lose.

[Khobai]

Any mech can kill any other mech. One time I got 1100 damage and 7 kills in a dual lb10x jager with quad machine guns. Doesnt mean that build is good though, it just means as a pilot I was able to exploit the circumstances and flow of the game to my advantage.

Id say loadout matters the least in determining who will win a match. I personally think MWO is about 50% luck, 40% skill, and 10% loadout. If matchmaker sticks a bunch of bads on your team, like it does half the time, theres really not much you can do about it no matter how skilled you are. Thats one of the biggest problems with 12v12, it makes individuals matter less. In 8v8, one or two skilled players could make a tremendous difference. I would love to see an option for doing 8v8 or even 4v4.

Quote

With MWO level of accuracy and precision you would never build mechs with such a variate of shapes

Yeah mechs probably wouldnt exist at all. Youd have low profile tanks instead that expose the least amount of surface area possible. Thats the direction most militaries are heading in.

Edited by Khobai, 10 January 2014 - 12:55 PM.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 10 January 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

Any mech can kill any other mech. One time I got 1100 damage and 7 kills in a dual lb10x jager with quad machine guns. Doesnt mean that build is good though, it just means as a pilot I was able to exploit the circumstances and flow of the game to my advantage.

Id say loadout matters the least in determining who will win a match. I personally think MWO is about 50% luck, 40% skill, and 10% loadout. If matchmaker sticks a bunch of bads on your team, like it does half the time, theres really not much you can do about it no matter how skilled you are. Thats one of the biggest problems with 12v12, it makes individuals matter less. In 8v8, one or two skilled players could make a tremendous difference.

That is why I listed the concept of equally skilled pilots. If you have equal skill then yes loadouts do matter since weapons have draw backs and strengths as do mechs.

The ac40 jager has 20 large autocannon that it can use to deal pin point damage at close to medium ranges. I can go on for days about its weaknesses however. See above.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

oh I agree with the testing whole heartedly.

And its not about the fact that I prefer those weapons. I prefer those weapons because find FLD ineffective on a brawling mech. That said I know some have found some success with it and some like it and kudos to them. However I truly find it to be a crutch and one very easy to knock out from under someone. I have never put up the same numbers on a brawler with an ac20 that I have with mechs that use smaller more effective weapon systems.

Putting up numbers isn't always a good thing. I think we discussed this a few dozen pages ago, but if you out up 1000+ damage and don't get a kill or assist, that 1000+ damage was worthless at the end of the match. Put up 500 damage and get five kills out of it, though, and you had a good match. That is where effective damage matters, and a couple people have shown how FLD is extremely more efficient damage compared to all other types. Your subjective feelings to the contrary are only that - subjective feelings.

Sandpit, on 10 January 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

I feel like Jesse James or Wild Bill sometimes. Every young gun out there wants to make a name by trying to take a shot at me when I post a snarky remark once in a while after offering several pages of constructive conversation....


Most "op" threads come about because someone got rolled by a specific weapon being fired in a coordinated effort by a decent team working together. AC20 is fearsome. Getting hit by 2, 3, or 4 at once? Your mech melts. That's why I usually argue about the whole "op" thing. If a single weapon is not "op" then it doesn't magically become "op" just because you got hit by a few of them

FLD are much more effective weapon-vs-weapon than any other type. I'm not saying they are overpowered, but they are out of balance (how's that for semantics?).

Btw, I like several of your suggestions, but still want a shot at you, lol.

WarHippy, on 10 January 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Even though I would rather see autocannons remain as a single hard hitting projectile the only real problem I have with making them burst fire to spread the damage is what it will be like getting hit by them. Can you imagine how annoying it would be to have someone chain fire 3 or 4 ac5s that fire a burst of 5 1dmg projectiles? The screen shake and noise would be enough to drive you insane. That being said...

I really like Mallen's idea of individual weapons being accurate and grouped weapons causing some form of cone of fire, which in turn could give pinpoint talent and targeting computers real value in this game.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would want burst-fire ballistics to have a reduced shake relative to the increased rate. So, instead of 100% shake at 100% power, each shell that hit would do 50% shake at 50% power twice as often, or 25% shake at 25% power four times as often, etc. it would be less of a shake more often.

Mawai, on 10 January 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

You can always go test your hypothesis. Take an AC40 Jaeger to the testing grounds. How many shots does it take to kill the target and how many mech sections are damaged ... then do the same thing with 4xASRM6 (You can even use the same mech). How many armor sections are damaged and which kills the mech faster?

So ... since I have my own jm6-a ... here are the results .. testing grounds .. forest colony snow ... 200m from target ... center torso target from front to keep things simple ...

Commando
AC40 - one shot kill
4ASRM6 - 2 shots - one volley - 7 total ASRM6 - first volley damaged 6 separate mech sections

Cicada
AC40 - 2 shots - 3 rounds total
4ASRM6 - 3 shots - 9 total ASRM6 - 7 mech segments damaged in first shot

Catapult
AC40 - 3 shots - 5 rounds total
4ASRM6 - 4 shots - 15 volleys total

Centurion
AC40 - 2 shots - 4 rounds total
4ASRM6 - 3 shots - 10 volleys total

So ... overall the 4ASRM6 is not as effective at killing opponents as the AC40 since although the damage potential is higher that damage is distributed over more of the mech so it does not kill the opponent as efficiently.

Now to test another popular hypothesis ... are SRMs more effective fired one by one?

4ASRM6 fired at Catapult LA from 200m - damage was distributed over 5 mech segments - head,ct,lt, rt. la
4 shots - 13 total volleys required to blow off LA
Fired individually 13 volleys required to blow up RA

Atlas
4xASRM6
3x4ASRM6 volleys through LT armor - total 20 volleys to blow off arm

ASRM6
Total 20 ASRM6 individual volleys to blow off the other arm.

So .. at least in the testing grounds ... a single ASRM6 does the same damage whether fired separately or together. (as it should).

Great examples. I'm sure they will be disregarded by the opposition for some silly reason, but still great testing examples.

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

You also arent taking into the account of a moving target as well. also keep in mind the weight differential between the 2 systems and the fact that you can run more overall firepower because of that. You can also be effectively faster and run more ammo overall for higher kill potential. Lastly if you lose one of your ac (which is amazingly common since all it takes is to get to the core of the arm and they pop like a cherry) you lose half your effective firepower where as its harder to strip a machine gun (usually a heat sink) and 2 missle systems from an arm and you also have lasers in the torso.

You cant just look at a gun from a raw numbers stand point of damage but need to look at it with overall effectiveness and how it translates into a build on a mech.

And as I predicted...

Varent, the optimum conditions for SRM spread are two stationary mechs at an exact distance - it doesn't get any better for them! The more you and your target move, the more unbalanced the disparity is between FLD and other weapon types. In combat, you are almost never in that good of a situation, because even if the target is shutdown for a few seconds, you are still moving and/or have other enemies pressing you and making you take less than perfect shots.

I am not disputing the raw potential of SRM boating vs AC boating - they may have the exact same possible damage - but their effective damage is going to be widely different even without HR and other combat conditions involved. This was an ideal situation for SRM, and yet they were still out classed. You are just being silly at this point, lol. Tons of respect to you, but you have to see that...

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 10 January 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

Putting up numbers isn't always a good thing. I think we discussed this a few dozen pages ago, but if you out up 1000+ damage and don't get a kill or assist, that 1000+ damage was worthless at the end of the match. Put up 500 damage and get five kills out of it, though, and you had a good match. That is where effective damage matters, and a couple people have shown how FLD is extremely more efficient damage compared to all other types. Your subjective feelings to the contrary are only that - subjective feelings.


FLD are much more effective weapon-vs-weapon than any other type. I'm not saying they are overpowered, but they are out of balance (how's that for semantics?).

Btw, I like several of your suggestions, but still want a shot at you, lol.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I would want burst-fire ballistics to have a reduced shake relative to the increased rate. So, instead of 100% shake at 100% power, each shell that hit would do 50% shake at 50% power twice as often, or 25% shake at 25% power four times as often, etc. it would be less of a shake more often.


Great examples. I'm sure they will be disregarded by the opposition for some silly reason, but still great testing examples.


And as I predicted...

Varent, the optimum conditions for SRM spread are two stationary mechs at an exact distance - it doesn't get any better for them! The more you and your target move, the more unbalanced the disparity is between FLD and other weapon types. In combat, you are almost never in that good of a situation, because even if the target is shutdown for a few seconds, you are still moving and/or have other enemies pressing you and making you take less than perfect shots.

I am not disputing the raw potential of SRM boating vs AC boating - they may have the exact same possible damage - but their effective damage is going to be widely different even without HR and other combat conditions involved. This was an ideal situation for SRM, and yet they were still out classed. You are just being silly at this point, lol. Tons of respect to you, but you have to see that...

1) showing and proving are two very different things. And in all of my matches I get more kills with srm then I do with ac40. You will find as your elo increases its just not viable. See above for vast amounts of reasons why its bad. The biggest one however is its inability to block a shot while being placed into a 'brawling' sub group for its role. That role REQUIRES you heavily to torso twist to absorb damage wich the ac40 jager is incapable of doing.

2) I continue to disagree. SRM are much greater weapons in close for there weight, damage, heat and size as well as ammo efficiency. AC2 are much greater at maximum ranges. So are erlarge laser. Its very subjective.

3) I think the shake needs to remain the same if for no other reason then they have the anti shake module now, which works really well btw, I strongly suggest trying it.

4) testing outside of combat situations is always a bad idea, sorry but thats the basis for the vast majority of my arguments since numbers in a static environment are pretty but dont usually equate well to how they will perform in a field test.

5) I have alot of respect for you as well cimarb but you wont test anything with me so I dont see how we can actually really come to an agreement on this... wich is just going to continue with us both on opposite sides of the fence, sadly.

o7 though.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 10 January 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

Btw, I like several of your suggestions, but still want a shot at you, lol.

I'm just awaiting the bounty implementation. I hope I get to collect a portion of every failed bounty put on my head though

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 10 January 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

I'm just awaiting the bounty implementation. I hope I get to collect a portion of every failed bounty put on my head though

I have over 100million c-bills that says I will have some massive bounties out for a few folk....

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

If you hit and if you can get into position.

running around at 70ish with a mech thats basically a large target is iffy as well. Keep in mind something major. With SRM you can turn, fire, and then block with an arm and a torso section. With the ac40 jager you can... fire... since running an xl engine with no ability to block means you are constantly a target of death.

You just went against your earlier statement that Khobai would have had better results with the SRMs if he had been moving...

Also, it isn't SRMs that allow you to do that, it is the mech you have them equipped on. If you equip a Jäger with SRMs, you will have the same issue as one with ACs - they are all arms. Let's not get mech chassis issues confused with weapon issues.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 10 January 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

You just went against your earlier statement that Khobai would have had better results with the SRMs if he had been moving...

Also, it isn't SRMs that allow you to do that, it is the mech you have them equipped on. If you equip a Jäger with SRMs, you will have the same issue as one with ACs - they are all arms. Let's not get mech chassis issues confused with weapon issues.

on the srm version you can run a standard and have less kill zones :3.

You have to get through my center torso to kill me. I have to get through your side torso.

(advantage)

Also the chasis (as I said) is easily defeated by other chasis yes. But that does little to show that the ac40 is simply bad on that mech compared to other comparative builds.

Keep in mind you have to use the mech as a quasi flanker since you have no defensive abilities. So if your using it in that role why would you not instead use high dps low heat high efficency weapons and rely on working with a team rather then being on your lonesome. On your lonesome your asking to die regardless.

People use the ac40 jagers at low elo because they can get a few lucky shot kills and it makes there e-peens feel big. People get killed by them because they dont pay attention or play poorly. There are a dozen and one better builds for that jager that I can attest to and use since the jager is one of my favorite mechs. Know wich one ive played the least and dont like? The ac40.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

1) showing and proving are two very different things. And in all of my matches I get more kills with srm then I do with ac40. You will find as your elo increases its just not viable. See above for vast amounts of reasons why its bad. The biggest one however is its inability to block a shot while being placed into a 'brawling' sub group for its role. That role REQUIRES you heavily to torso twist to absorb damage wich the ac40 jager is incapable of doing.

You may be better at SRMs than ACs, and that is great for you. I'm pretty sure Sandpit is a snap shot with lasers, too. Neither of those mean that FLD isn't better as a damage system, though. You keep using the Jagers weaknesses as reasons why FLD isn't an issue, when the chassis has nothing to do with it - the Jäger has the same weaknesses regardless of build, and it would be willing to bet there aren't many SRM boating Jagers out there right now... That should tell you which system is better with that particular mech.

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

2) I continue to disagree. SRM are much greater weapons in close for there weight, damage, heat and size as well as ammo efficiency. AC2 are much greater at maximum ranges. So are erlarge laser. Its very subjective.

I agree, it is very subjective to the situation at hand.

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

3) I think the shake needs to remain the same if for no other reason then they have the anti shake module now, which works really well btw, I strongly suggest trying it.

If they increase the rate of fire and decrease the damage per hit, shake should be reduced relative to those. I'm not complaining about the current shake, just responding to what would be needed IF the ACs had a firing rate change.

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

4) testing outside of combat situations is always a bad idea, sorry but thats the basis for the vast majority of my arguments since numbers in a static environment are pretty but dont usually equate well to how they will perform in a field test.

Testing in a controlled environment is important for certain situations, and this was one of them. In OPTIMAL conditions, the SRM takes much longer to kill a target than an AC. In less than optimal conditions, the difference is even more significant, because the AC delivers 100% of its damage to the targeted hitbox, while the SRM is going to have a much higher chance of spreading the damage due to how it is delivered.

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

5) I have alot of respect for you as well cimarb but you wont test anything with me so I dont see how we can actually really come to an agreement on this... wich is just going to continue with us both on opposite sides of the fence, sadly.

o7 though.

No, it's that I won't duel you - that's two different things. If we ever meet in a match, I would be happy to see who wins, but going into a testing grounds match will only show who is the better dueler (which I will admit likely wouldn't be me).

Sandpit, on 10 January 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

I'm just awaiting the bounty implementation. I hope I get to collect a portion of every failed bounty put on my head though

Lol, that would be awesome - some people could probably make good money putting bounties on their own heads if that was the case!

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

People use the ac40 jagers at low elo because they can get a few lucky shot kills and it makes there e-peens feel big. People get killed by them because they dont pay attention or play poorly. There are a dozen and one better builds for that jager that I can attest to and use since the jager is one of my favorite mechs. Know wich one ive played the least and dont like? The ac40.

I agree - it is a cheesy build, and one I use just for the fun of it to see how many kills I can rack up before dying. I'm one of those horrible pilots, lol!

I'm not going to get into an argument about jäger builds, though - that was the opposite of what I wanted. You can use the HGN/Victor as better examples, if you want, since they are the reason for the Gauss nerf, AC20 velocity nerf, etc.

Regardless of chassis, FLD is a significantly better system for applying damage than spread or duration - that is the issue. It is complicated by convergence, jump sniping, hitboxes, and many other factors, but FLD is the root issue of all of them.

[Mawai]

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

You also arent taking into the account of a moving target as well. also keep in mind the weight differential between the 2 systems and the fact that you can run more overall firepower because of that. You can also be effectively faster and run more ammo overall for higher kill potential. Lastly if you lose one of your ac (which is amazingly common since all it takes is to get to the core of the arm and they pop like a cherry) you lose half your effective firepower where as its harder to strip a machine gun (usually a heat sink) and 2 missle systems from an arm and you also have lasers in the torso.

You cant just look at a gun from a raw numbers stand point of damage but need to look at it with overall effectiveness and how it translates into a build on a mech.

Well - I took the JM6-A with 4ASRM6 and 2 LL out for a spin ... it was a fun build and I will try it again. It is not as effective as the 4xAC5 JM6-S ... but I haven't found anything as effective as that yet ... even the vaunted AC40.

Also, I have to admit that out of at least a couple of hundred games in various Jaegermechs ... the number of times I have lost an arm rather than the side torso is very small ... most folks hold their fire when you torso twist until you start to twist back and then hit the side torso in the hopes that you have an XL engine.

The advantage of the AC40 over the 2 LL + 4ASRM6 is pinpoint damage. I think that is all anyone has really said. The AC40 will do 40 points of damage to one specific mech segment while the other combination (which can be very effective as well) will spread the damage (both over time with the lasers and through spread from the SRMs).