479 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

MWLL got UACs right. Basically they have a spin-up time so they cant snap fire. That makes them purely for DPS and not sniping. Additionally they have an overheat bar that prevents the weapon from firing for more than a certain length of time. They also fire very fast and do low damage per shot, which causes the damage to spread around.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 15 January 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

MWLL got UACs right. Basically they have a spin-up time so they cant snap fire. That makes them purely for DPS and not sniping. Additionally they have an overheat bar that prevents the weapon from firing for more than a certain length of time. They also fire very fast and do low damage per shot, which causes the damage to spread around.

Khobai, on 15 January 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

Not according to forum polls. Around 85% of players on the forums hate the current UAC mechanics.

Varent, on 15 January 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

link?

platform?

basis?

Answers good sir. Please provide them.

What you are stating right now are your personal opinions not what MWO players feel as a whole. Just because YOU dont like the way a weapon is implimented does not mean its not implimented well, is not good, or that other players dont do amazing things with it.

[Joseph Mallan]

Varent, on 15 January 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

I have the vast majority of my 1000+ damage games whie using them.

Ultra 139 hits 729 damage or 5.24 per shot
AC5 2,118 hits 10,882 damage or 5.13 per shot

A whole 0.11 more damage per round.

[Varent]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 January 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

Ultra 139 hits 729 damage or 5.24 per shot
AC5 2,118 hits 10,882 damage or 5.13 per shot

A whole 0.11 more damage per round.

dps is a horrible thing to judge a weapon by. Keep in mind the concept of uac that makes them good is the burst effect they can have in a very quick period of time. Pounding out large amounts of damage and then being able to shield yourself with an arm and take cover while the weapon jams. This damage is also increased by larger amounts the more uac you run. The ac5 is great for consistent damage but the burst damage effect that the uac can have cant be ignored. In addition keep in mind the extra shake factor you are applying to an enemy mechs {LT-MOB-25} pit at more frequent intervals.

[Solis Obscuri]

I actually find lasers just as effective as autocannons if thy are used correctly. They do require a bit more concentration, however.

[Wolfways]

I haven't read the whole thread but imo lasers are UP compared to AC's for multiple reasons, like shorter range and spreading damage, but the biggest factor is that while lasers have had their RoF increased over TT values AC's have had their RoF increased a hell of a lot more.
The DPS of AC's is ridiculous, and that's from someone who is (imo) a little better than average player but who continuously gets top match score and damage in a stock weapon JM6-S.
AC's need their RoF reduced or preferably their damage per shot reduced.

Edit: I'll also add here that i think ballistics should not have their range reduced but energy weapons should get X3 range so that shorter ranged weapons like the small laser might get used.

Edited by Wolfways, 16 January 2014 - 01:09 AM.

[Reno Blade]

I find it strange that ACs have faster RoF, are cooler AND are pin-point compared to lasers. The size and weight can be neglected with assault mechs... and we get the typical arms-race.

Imho the ACs need a change more like this:
http://mwomercs.com/...istic-tweaking/

Yes, I would take it further and have fast firing acs with less damage instead of one-shot pinpoint weapons. If possible burstfire ofc.

[Joseph Mallan]

Varent, on 15 January 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

dps is a horrible thing to judge a weapon by. Keep in mind the concept of uac that makes them good is the burst effect they can have in a very quick period of time. Pounding out large amounts of damage and then being able to shield yourself with an arm and take cover while the weapon jams. This damage is also increased by larger amounts the more uac you run. The ac5 is great for consistent damage but the burst damage effect that the uac can have cant be ignored. In addition keep in mind the extra shake factor you are applying to an enemy mechs {LT-MOB-25} pit at more frequent intervals.

AC5 is 8% more accurate for me also over an Ultra. If I want a huge amount of damage in a short amount of time I will bring an AC20 and mess up er world with a single shot over spray and prey!.

[Varent]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 January 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

AC5 is 8% more accurate for me also over an Ultra. If I want a huge amount of damage in a short amount of time I will bring an AC20 and mess up er world with a single shot over spray and prey!.

that is however just preference and how you use the weapon. I enjoy using uac5 as a pure burst damage weapon in close myself or if I have multiples they are still great at range.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 15 January 2014 - 10:36 AM, said:

This isnt TT. Stop using TT examples. It doesnt matter if its not documented in the game anywhere. The game needed a mechanic to stop the boating. It got one. A heat overall wouldnt change that. This was the effective way to do it.

My game experience has increased and gotten alot more pleasant since ghost heat. I was quite tired of seeing the 4 ppc stalkers for one and the three ppc jump snipers. This also prevents many other mechs from being able to do 4 ppc builds. If this wasnt implimented you would actually see even more jump snipers across the board and massive laser boats that were flooding these same balance channels with complaints.

So, ghost heat, which has nothing to do with jump jets, removed the jump snipers you used to complain about? Guess what, burst-fire ballistics and spread damage PPCs would remove the rest of them!

That being said, ghost heat is not what removed PPC snipers - the heat increase for those specific weapons is what made them less than ideal.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 15 January 2014 - 11:52 AM, said:

So, ghost heat, which has nothing to do with jump jets, removed the jump snipers you used to complain about? Guess what, burst-fire ballistics and spread damage PPCs would remove the rest of them!

That being said, ghost heat is not what removed PPC snipers - the heat increase for those specific weapons is what made them less than ideal.

Actually no. Even with the increased heat they would still be viable. Its shown by people who instead choose to fire ppc and wait then fire another. Add it all up and you dont overheat. Emply ghost heat and you do. It very very much changed those builds. It also changed 6LL builds as well.

Go look through the forums and slide back a few pages and you will find the rage there over those builds over and over again. That was what was changed. And my gaming experience has indeed improved because of this personally.

Changing JJ would do the same thing while keeping accuracy as a prime commodity.

[Joseph Mallan]

Varent, on 15 January 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

that is however just preference and how you use the weapon. I enjoy using uac5 as a pure burst damage weapon in close myself or if I have multiples they are still great at range.

You are right it is preference... I prefer having 0.11 less damage per shot and 8% more accuracy for my damage.

[wanderer]

Khobai, on 15 January 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

Theyre not all in one basket, theres one UAC in each torso and one UAC in each arm. So it would have some weird convergence, but its basically like fusing two UAC/5 Ilyas into a single mech, then doping it with steroids, and having it smoke crystal meth.

The point is, if pinpoint damage is too strong now, imagine how its going to be when clan tech is added. PGI is going to have to completely nerf clan tech into the ground unless they come up with a way to fix their poor convergence mechanics.

That's basically the plan. Nerf Clantech into slight variants of IS weapons, performance-wise. Even then, you're still talking the ability to strap on extra firepower and HS with the lower weight/critical space requirements they -can't- change without hosing the construction up to begin with.

Pinpoint, frontloaded damage basically has to go bye-bye or you can watch Clan 'Mechs, even nerfed rip apart opponents left and right in a numerically even scenario.

[Varent]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 January 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

You are right it is preference... I prefer having 0.11 less damage per shot and 8% more accuracy for my damage.

the accuracy of you with the weapon has nothing to do with the accuracy of the weapon itself.

[Joseph Mallan]

Varent, on 15 January 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

the accuracy of you with the weapon has nothing to do with the accuracy of the weapon itself.

As I said I am 8% more accurate with an AC5 ha with an Ultra. Does it matter if it's cause of the Gun or cause of me? I get 8% more hits.

[Varent]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 January 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

As I said I am 8% more accurate with an AC5 ha with an Ultra. Does it matter if it's cause of the Gun or cause of me? I get 8% more hits.

long as you recognize it as a non weapon oriented quirk.

[Joseph Mallan]

Varent, on 15 January 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

long as you recognize it as a non weapon oriented quirk.

Prove that. AC5s an UA5s are the least accurate of the AC family for me. I am 12-17% more accurate with 2s 10s and 20s!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 15 January 2014 - 12:12 PM.

[Lykaon]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 January 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:

BUT the AC20 is an all or nothing weapon. I might miss 2 outta 6 shots. That will lower the DpS considerably! Where the lasers may lose some damage but can still put the beam on the target for SOME damage. 80% accuracy with lasers and 67% with the AC20 here. Lasers fr putting damage on target more consistently v heavy hammer that is less sure.

Just looked up my own accuracy with AC20s it's 86%. so a 14% chance of a miss for me and I know pilots that are better shots than I.

The real issue is what happens when you hit.All weapons are equal when they miss.

6 medium lasers hit dealing initial damage at the termination point of the beam that is then altered as either the target or firing unit moves resulting in dispersal of damage.

6 medium lasers 5 damage each = 30 damage likely to be dispersed over three body locations as this is a simple matter of a quick torso twist to shift damage from CT to a side torso and then an arm. assuming at no point the beam is not on target (not always going to happen) we get a likely event were 10 damage is on CT 10 (initial target) 5-10 on a side torso (based on speed of rotation/pilot reaction time) and 10-15 on the arm (also based on pilot reaction time)

Meanwhile the AC20 just did 20 to the CT.

Honestly most of the time the 6 medium lasers lose around 20-25% of total damage from target reaction to initial hit and evading part of the beam duration resulting around 22 damage dispursed across 2+ body loactions.And with that the lasers have lower DPS and poorer cooling efficency than the AC with it's concentrated damage mechanics it becomes a clearly inferior means of dealing damage to use the lasers.

[Lykaon]

Solis Obscuri, on 15 January 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

I actually find lasers just as effective as autocannons if thy are used correctly. They do require a bit more concentration, however.

So if more concentration is required to aim less concentration can be spent elsewhere.Like say,spacial awareness of other enemy mechs locations,friendly mech locations and evading damage?

Is your data based on damage per match?
Number of solo kills?
Assists + kills?
XP per match?
C-Bills paid?
A gut feeling?

[Lykaon]

Sandpit, on 14 January 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

Ok so since the title suggests lasers are not "competitive"

I played for a few hours yesterday evening and night.

I played a few dozen matches
I was averaging over 500 damage easy in most games with multiple kills and assists in a 5LL Stalker
This was hot maps, cold map, maps with cover, maps with less cover, maps with hills, maps with thrills
This was against ballistics, meta humpers, poptarters, AC40s, and everything in between.

I've actually had a few "doubters" able to drop with me over the past few days. They see my end of round score and stop doubting.

Lasers are in a good spot. ACs could use range reduced a bit and that's about all I can see that really needs to be adjusted between the two now.

Your performance is not a weapon's performance.

Kindly post how you do with an AC based build as comparative analysis.

Isolating lasers and making statements about how lasers alone function is a flawed means of collecting data.

Do me a favor and google "scientific method"