139 replies to this topic

[Trauglodyte]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 June 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...-weapon-update/

"For the time being, we have created a one off weapon type thathas the exact same characteristics as the LB-X in terms of weight and space requirements but fire slugs with the same characteristics of the Clan Ultra AutoCannon counterparts. For example, the Clan LB 2-X will fire a cluster round totalling 2 damage. The Clan AutoCannon/2 will fire a 2 round volley with each slug doing 1 damage for a total of 2 damage."

so, the Standard AC " has the exact same characteristics as the LB-X in terms of weight and space requirements" being 7 tons, and 4 critical slots. (using the LB-5X for example)

while it "fires slugs with the same characteristics of the Clan Ultra AutoCannon". Meaning a burst fire mode.


The issue?

The Clan UAC5 weighs the same 7 tons, but only takes up 3 critical slots. Both will use the same burst mechanic. But the Clan UAC is less bulky than the "placeholder" Standard AC. And the UAC has the ability to double-tap.

BTW, the breakdown by type, Clan UAC vs LBX:

UAC: 2 (5tons/2crit), 5 (7tons/3crit), 10 (10tons/4crit), 20 (12tons/8crit)
LBX: 2 (5tons/3crit), 5 (7tons/4crit), 10 (10tons/5crit), 20 (12tons/9crit)

So since you can pick or choose your ballistic anyhow, what earthly reason would ANYONE choose to mount a Clan Standard AC when they could just mount the Clan UAC, instead?

I have tweeted (the PGI preferred method of communication, dontchaknow?) Russ, Bryan and Paul, and of course have gotten the usual resounding silence one gets when somebody questions a "grand idea" of PGI..

Seriously mind boggling, unless Paul just pooched his write up and explained things totally and utterly wrong.

*edited to give correct higher crit counts to LBX

I could have read the post in the Command Center wrong but I think you're misinterpretting the point of the "one off", Bish. The whole idea is that when you equip an LB 2/5/10/20, you also end up getting a free Standard AC in the weapon group. It allows you to carry multiple ammunition types so that you can fire differently. It is a coding plan that lacks in ellegance but gets the job done.

[Mavairo]

3 years later we'll still have the "placeholder"

[Bishop Steiner]

Zerberus, on 08 June 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:

Exactly. No real warrior would be satisfied at a choice between 2 weapons that are situational (LBX scatter and UAC jam), so implementing a reliable "Standard type" AC for the clans was a no-brainer.

Or to use a RL example: How many soldiers in Vietnam hated their M-16s becasue they jammed constantly (regardless of whether the military`s out of spec ammo or the actual weapon design was the cause)? And how many DIED because of it?

Now, how exactly would have giving them the option to take shotguns instead been a viable solution?

If you understand that connection, the reasons for implementing a non jamming ac for the clans are painfiully obvious.

There`s a good reason armies outfit their GIs with reliable multi-range weapons and only allow a few people in certain units to take shotguns or higher-maintenance weapons like an m249.

Here is the thing. The UAC is exactly the same as the Standard AC. (well one less crit). It only becomes unreliable if you double tap. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DOUBLE TAP. In fact, put them on chainfire and mine never, ever jam. Period.

But it gives you the ability to do so if you need to. You got that heavy enemy moving in for the kill on you, and you have a choice, for the exact same tonnage, and more crits of a Standard AC, or a UAC, which is functionally identical..... but you can now double tap it and either get one last single burst off, or a double, which makes more sense.

Just stop with the unreliability thing. That is a matter of double taps or twitchy finger and sensitive mice.

To be blunt, your "point" in this is moot. Because the UAC only becomes unreliable when you CHOOSE to make it so. At all other times, it is a standard AC. If you can't trust your trigger discipline, well, training wheels?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 09 June 2014 - 07:26 AM.

[VanillaG]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 June 2014 - 05:51 PM, said:

Would love to see how a level 7 targeting computer and lb-10x will stack

They won't. Targeting Computers do not affect LBX weapons based on the post by Paul.

[Bishop Steiner]

Zerberus, on 08 June 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

^^ I love the way you always pick out one or 2 specific iterms and then assume that the entire time was spent only on those one or 2 features, just to paint PGI in the worst light possible. To be honest, part of me missed it during your absence... And now that Darthbane has finally quit for good (ROFL, I`ll believe it when I see it for more than 7 days), you DO have some slack to pick up

For example, have you ever considered the possibility that the switchable ammo might have been a low priority for the first 5 months, because in the big picture it was the same drop of fly dung that it is now, and because they (like everyone else) wrongly assumed that the Cryengine already had this feature coded in due to past experiences with Cryengine 1+2, whioch would have made it a 5 minute deal to actually implement??

Of course not, and that`s why you`re depicting the fly dropping as an elephant pile. Which, if they had truly spent 8 months only working on switchable LBX ammo (which wasn`t even announced until , what, april?) it truly would be.

But it only works entirely on the assumption that the rest of teh clan packs and all other things that have happened to the game since december were done by magical Coding Faeries that come in when PGI is out and write good code that PGI can`t. And believing that without a significant amopunt of mind altering substances is, for me, a pretty tall order.

BTW clans were announced in december, which is not 8 months before June. L2Calendar

Let's see...how long did it take for the Placeholder nature of the Command Console to be fixed? So considering Paul and crew still have NO CLUE how to make the switch ammo work, yeah. Really looking forward to a pointless placeholder. For the next 2 years. (unless it ends up like MASC, and the pretty much never figure it out?)

Alex Warden, on 09 June 2014 - 04:42 AM, said:

you can switch between armor peeling and critseeking in the middle of a match... you can´t do that with an ultra...

how desirable that "advantage" is on the other hand, i´m not sure yet, we gotta see

No. You can't. You equip ONE or the OTHER. Dear goodness, Alex, before jumping in read what Paul Wrote.

[anonymous161]

A shame really.

My panties wouldn't be in a bunch if it were for the price for what we are getting...we have very little options to choose from. If they were to just let us buy one mech instead of being forced to buy 3 at a time the pricing wouldn't be so bad and could at least try them without paying mint for them.

Very disheartening I was looking forward to playing with the clan mechs. I will never have enough cbills or the patience to wait for the mechs i really wanted overall.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jun Watarase, on 09 June 2014 - 06:51 AM, said:

Yea the LBX is supposed to invalidate the older ACs. Thats the entire point. They are a new model AC. ER weapons invalidated the older ones and DHS invalidated SHS.

The devs are completely fine with DHS invalidating SHS but they are not with the LBX and AC? Talk about double standards.

There are plenty of ways to make the older ACs viable if they really want to. For one, they could fire speciality ammo.

But that still doesnt address the problem of cluster shot being pointless when they do the same damage as a slug except that its spread out.

Imagine if 4 SRM-6s did the same damage as an AC20 except they were spread out. Oh god...

ER Lasers and PPC never really obsoleted the standard. Because they are so much hotter it was a situational benefit. Many mechs still are better off with standard lasers, or Pulse.

The LB-X was never actually "intended" to obsolete anything, as that is not how game balance, TT or Video works. The TT Devs pooched it. And that is why they spent the next decade trying (and failing) to keep standard ACs viable with specialty ammo types.

Instead of doing the smart thing, which most people mentioned all the way back in CB, which was to allow switch ammo, but to have the "Slug" either do less damage (8 instead of 10, for instance), have lower range than a standard AC10, Have a mild "CoF", or a combo of all the above.

And suddenly you still have a useful multipurpose weapon, that did not obsolete the standard AC.

Trauglodyte, on 09 June 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

I could have read the post in the Command Center wrong but I think you're misinterpretting the point of the "one off", Bish. The whole idea is that when you equip an LB 2/5/10/20, you also end up getting a free Standard AC in the weapon group. It allows you to carry multiple ammunition types so that you can fire differently. It is a coding plan that lacks in ellegance but gets the job done.

As mentioned in the last Dev Vlog, we ran into an issue with the ability to swap ammunition types on the fly while playing the game. This has not changed. For the time being, we have created a one off weapon type that has the exact same characteristics as the LB-X in terms of weight and space requirements but fire slugs with the same characteristics of the Clan Ultra AutoCannon counterparts. For example, the Clan LB 2-X will fire a cluster round totalling 2 damage. The Clan AutoCannon/2 will fire a 2 round volley with each slug doing 1 damage for a total of 2 damage. Players will have to make the choice as to which weapon to equip to their Clan 'Mechs according to the firing style they wish to use. The space and weight of the Clan AutoCannon/2 is the same as the Clan LB 2-X. The range, firing mechanics, damage, etc. are the same as the Clan Ultra AutoCannon/2 (minus the double tap ability). These "Clan AutoCannon/#" weapons will remain in the game until such time that we can get the ammunition switching working.

Not too sure where the ambiguity is there Traug, my man.

VanillaG, on 09 June 2014 - 07:27 AM, said:

They won't. Targeting Computers do not affect LBX weapons based on the post by Paul.

that is unfortunate (and probably for the best....but it would have been fun to have a multi-LB and MG maxi target computer mech for a single patch just to watch the oceans of tears and rage. Because occasionally it is fun to ride a short wave of OOPS!)

[Trauglodyte]

I only bring that up, Bish, cause Paul even said that was how they were probably going to handle it. So, you equip and LB and you get a free standard AC along with it. It is essentially the best bad way of fixing the problem. So, I guess that is where the ambiguity for me is coming from. And that was all derived to what I posted in response to the prior Command Chair post in which Paul "liked".

Edited by Trauglodyte, 09 June 2014 - 07:45 AM.

[Zerberus]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 June 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

Here is the thing. The UAC is exactly the same as the Standard AC. (well one less crit). It only becomes unreliable if you double tap. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DOUBLE TAP. In fact, put them on chainfire and mine never, ever jam. Period.

But it gives you the ability to do so if you need to. You got that heavy enemy moving in for the kill on you, and you have a choice, for the exact same tonnage, and more crits of a Standard AC, or a UAC, which is functionally identical..... but you can now double tap it and either get one last single burst off, or a double, which makes more sense.

Just stop with the unreliability thing. That is a matter of double taps or twitchy finger and sensitive mice.

To be blunt, your "point" in this is moot. Because the UAC only becomes unreliable when you CHOOSE to make it so. At all other times, it is a standard AC. If you can't trust your trigger discipline, well, training wheels?

Last time I used UACs (which is a few months back), mine still regularly jammed even when NOT doubletapping, literally on the first shot.. Which is why I soon after ripped them out of everything and have not looked back since. I need a weapon that goes "BOOM" when I expect it to, not when it wants to. Which is why I absolutely refuse to use UACs anymore, at least in groups of less than 4, as I simply have no faith left in the weapon.

Now, there may or may not have been a patch in teh meantime that changed that... but even when Colt started chroming the barrels and the army started issuing cleaning kits and different ammo, it took forever for people to reaccept the M16, those that could reverted to the tried and proven M-14 or plundered an AK-47 off a dead enemy combatant.

This is the exact same thing.

So why should I be forced to use a shotgun instead when I SHOULD have access to a viable alternative, whether that alternative is a placeholder or not?

Edited by Zerberus, 09 June 2014 - 07:49 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Zerberus, on 09 June 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

Last time I used UACs (which is a few months back), mine still regularly jammed even when NOT doubletapping, literally on the first shot.. Which is why I soon after ripped them out of everything and have not looked back since. I need a weapon that goes "BOOM" when I expect it to, not when it wants to. Which is why I absolutely refuse to use UACs anymore, at least in groups of less than 4, as I simply have no faith left in the weapon.

Now, there may or may not have been a patch in teh meantime that changed that... but even when Colt started chroming the barrels and the army started issuing cleaning kits and different ammo, it took forever for people to reaccept the M16, those that could reverted to the tried and proven M-14 or plundered an AK-47 off a dead enemy combatant.

This is the exact same thing.

So why should I be forced to use a shotgun instead when I SHOULD have access to a viable alternative, whether that alternative is a placeholder or not?

if you are jamming first shot, you are twitching your mouse button and it is registering 2 shots. Too sensitive mouse, too sensitive client, IDK. Why don't I have this happen? Why do chainfired UACs never ever jam for me?

Trauglodyte, on 09 June 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

I only bring that up, Bish, cause Paul even said that was how they were probably going to handle it. So, you equip and LB and you get a free standard AC along with it. It is essentially the best bad way of fixing the problem. So, I guess that is where the ambiguity for me is coming from. And that was all derived to what I posted in response to the prior Command Chair post in which Paul "liked".

I bring up the exact wording of the post, nothing more, nothing less. You may indeed receive 2 guns for the price of one. But by Pauls rather direct wording, you equip one, or the other. Since the "other" option is a a fat UAC without the U, it is a rather bad place holder. Unless people are really worried about the grind cost of a UAC?

There is no reason for anyone with trigger discipline/non twitchy gear, to choose it over a UAC. Hence my questioning the idea of a placeholder that serves no actual purpose.

Bloody thing needs to be a single shot. (Because it makes so much sense for the weapon to fire a single shell that is a jumbo shotgun cartridge, and then switch to a stream of shell, all the same size as the first, yet each doing miniscule damage, in a full auto burst). Clans need something FLD beside PPC and Gauss. Make the place holder or eventual switch ammo do slightly less damage for the butthurt balance boys.

But this thing serves no purpose.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 09 June 2014 - 07:57 AM.

[Zerberus]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 June 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:

if you are jamming first shot, you are twitching your mouse button and it is registering 2 shots. Too sensitive mouse, too sensitive client, IDK. Why don't I have this happen? Why do chainfired UACs never ever jam for me?

Possible, though the only incidence in any game where the issue manifests itself is UACs im MWO... but yes, chainfired they never jammed for me, either... just completely wasted 2-3tons that could have been better used for ammo or backup weapons.

I`ll most certainly try them out again when the clans arrive, but my paitience for repeated equipment failure is very low. If they start jamming out of the gate, they`re gone faster than you can say surat, and there better be a viable alternative that doesn`t scatter.

Edited by Zerberus, 09 June 2014 - 08:01 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Zerberus, on 09 June 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

Possible if unlikely, as the only incidence in any game where the issue manifests itself is UACs im MWO... but yes, chainfired they never jammed for me, either... just completely wasted 2-3tons that could have been better used for ammo or backup weapons.

Unless you, like me, bro, use them the way they were intended? Standard AC you could throw into double fire mode in emergencies?


Mind you, I do dislike it it that my second round can jam in that scenario, which is something that needs fixing (if it jams it should only ever be after the second round.) But that only happens for me when I DT or hold the trigger. +*shrugs*

[wanderer]

It's notable that for higher ping, MWO can register a click multiple times-to the point of triggering UAC jams on the first shot.

Yes, the FIRST shot. Not the second. A+ coding there.

[Trauglodyte]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 June 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:

I bring up the exact wording of the post, nothing more, nothing less. You may indeed receive 2 guns for the price of one. But by Pauls rather direct wording, you equip one, or the other. Since the "other" option is a a fat UAC without the U, it is a rather bad place holder. Unless people are really worried about the grind cost of a UAC? There is no reason for anyone with trigger discipline/non twitchy gear, to choose it over a UAC. Hence my questioning the idea of a placeholder that serves no actual purpose. Bloody thing needs to be a single shot. (Because it makes so much sense for the weapon to fire a single shell that is a jumbo shotgun cartridge, and then switch to a stream of shell, all the same size as the first, yet each doing miniscule damage, in a full auto burst). Clans need something FLD beside PPC and Gauss. Make the place holder or eventual switch ammo do slightly less damage for the butthurt balance boys. But this thing serves no purpose.

I 100% get what you're saying. How they worded it is rather strange. But, I read it is I originally described because, as you said, the clans need something more than just the PPC and the Gauss Rifle, jamming UACs aside. Getting 2 guns for the price of 1 is an ugly way of solving this problem while also creating a situation where they can, and probably will, bring that over to the IS. PGI has a long horrible history of testing something on one weapon and then making that the new norm - done simply because they don't have a proper testing realm or a large enough population that would actually utilize it let alone come en masse to the real testing server when it is available. Anyway, back to the point, there is enough in what they've said via twitter and reddit stuff to support it, even though they can't seem to just come out and say so 100% on our actual honest to goodness company hosted website.

Btw, it sure would be nice if they fixed the jamming issue when you actually use it properly. I mean, having it jam when I just push the button is a bit rediculous. Also, the fact that it because exponentially stronger the more of them you have makes for poor game play, imo.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 09 June 2014 - 08:06 AM.

[Zerberus]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 June 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

Unless you, like me, bro, use them the way they were intended? Standard AC you could throw into double fire mode in emergencies?


Mind you, I do dislike it it that my second round can jam in that scenario, which is something that needs fixing (if it jams it should only ever be after the second round.) But that only happens for me when I DT or hold the trigger. +*shrugs*

I understand the intended use... but exactly how does that help me if I get a double or triple jam on the first volley and have a3ac5 Ilya in front of me?

The only mech I ever drove where I found UACs reliable enough was teh 4UAC troll-jäger, where you were practically guaranteed that at least one would always work but had to sacrifice, well, EVERYTHING to get that reliability.

And that's just not a risk or tradoff that I see enough merit in vs. the reliability of standard /lbx ACs.

And as Wanderer just noted, my ping of 150-200 may or may not also play into the issue, didn`t even think of that.

Edited by Zerberus, 09 June 2014 - 08:09 AM.

[Forte]

See I'm looking at it like this. They are having an issue with the weapon system of switchable ammo. Which is also the first weapon in this game to use that. Ok. They are giving us solid shot regular ACs for those that want them (aka not replacing UAC or LBX). Are they optimal? No, but if they hadn't given something, that particular topic is what you'd be complaining about.

I'm glad they are keeping it in burst fire for one major reason, everyone already complains about FLD and pinpoint damage. This is one of their options to fixing it without nerfing damage. Maybe the same will happen to IS weapons when their tech improves, as in the lore (which everyone is so quick to use when it helps but not when it hurts) they could be either 1 slug or multiples as long as the shot equaled at the final AC value.

The comparison to DHS is kind of pointless. One is a direct upgrade to the other, while LBX vs AC vs UAC offer different things. UACs are for burst, LBX for finishing or light hunting, and AC is pinpoint and reliable.

I've still yet to see why there is any outcry, and honestly if you don't like them don't use them for the time being.

[Bishop Steiner]

Trauglodyte, on 09 June 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

I 100% get what you're saying. How they worded it is rather strange. But, I read it is I originally described because, as you said, the clans need something more than just the PPC and the Gauss Rifle, jamming UACs aside. Getting 2 guns for the price of 1 is an ugly way of solving this problem while also creating a situation where they can, and probably will, bring that over to the IS. PGI has a long horrible history of testing something on one weapon and then making that the new norm - done simply because they don't have a proper testing realm or a large enough population that would actually utilize it let alone come en masse to the real testing server when it is available. Anyway, back to the point, there is enough in what they've said via twitter and reddit stuff to support it, even though they can't seem to just come out and say so 100% on our actual honest to goodness company hosted website.

Btw, it sure would be nice if they fixed the jamming issue when you actually use it properly. I mean, having it jam when I just push the button is a bit rediculous. Also, the fact that it because exponentially stronger the more of them you have makes for poor game play, imo.

links?

Zerberus, on 09 June 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

I understand the intended use... but exactly how does that help me if I get a double or triple jam on the first volley and have a3ac5 Ilya in front of me?

The only mech I ever drove where I found UACs reliable enough was teh 4UAC troll-jäger, where you were practically guaranteed that at least one would always work but had to sacrifice, well, EVERYTHING to get that reliability.

And that's just not a risk or tradoff that I see enough merit in vs. the reliability of standard /lbx ACs.

And as Wanderer just noted, my ping of 150-200 may or may not also play into the issue, didn`t even think of that.

Why do 3 UAC5 Ilyas still pretty much universally destroy 3 ac5 ones?

Forte, on 09 June 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

See I'm looking at it like this. They are having an issue with the weapon system of switchable ammo. Which is also the first weapon in this game to use that. Ok. They are giving us solid shot regular ACs for those that want them (aka not replacing UAC or LBX). Are they optimal? No, but if they hadn't given something, that particular topic is what you'd be complaining about.

I'm glad they are keeping it in burst fire for one major reason, everyone already complains about FLD and pinpoint damage. This is one of their options to fixing it without nerfing damage. Maybe the same will happen to IS weapons when their tech improves, as in the lore (which everyone is so quick to use when it helps but not when it hurts) they could be either 1 slug or multiples as long as the shot equaled at the final AC value.

The comparison to DHS is kind of pointless. One is a direct upgrade to the other, while LBX vs AC vs UAC offer different things. UACs are for burst, LBX for finishing or light hunting, and AC is pinpoint and reliable.

I've still yet to see why there is any outcry, and honestly if you don't like them don't use them for the time being.

They are not giving us solid shot. They are giving us burst fire "standard" ACs. Considerable difference.

[Heffay]

Vassago Rain, on 08 June 2014 - 06:19 PM, said:

Really, now. You'd think that if people shell out 200+ dollars for your product, you'd at least make sure all the stuff is in place, ESPECIALLY when you make bold claims and assurances that everything will be delivered by the release date.

Is that so, High Admiral Vassago?

[Bishop Steiner]

Heffay, on 09 June 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

Is that so, High Admiral Vassago?

I always thought he was "Grand PooBah Vassago".


How sad.

[Tombstoner]

Zerberus, on 08 June 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

^^ I love the way you always pick out one or 2 specific iterms and then assume that the entire time was spent only on those one or 2 features, just to paint PGI in the worst light possible. To be honest, part of me missed it during your absence... And now that Darthbane has finally quit for good (ROFL, I`ll believe it when I see it for more than 7 days), you DO have some slack to pick up

For example, have you ever considered the possibility that the switchable ammo might have been a low priority for the first 5 months, because in the big picture it was the same drop of fly dung that it is now, and because they (like everyone else) wrongly assumed that the Cryengine already had this feature coded in due to past experiences with Cryengine 1+2, whioch would have made it a 5 minute deal to actually implement??

Of course not, and that`s why you`re depicting the fly dropping as an elephant pile. Which, if they had truly spent 8 months only working on switchable LBX ammo (which wasn`t even announced until , what, april?) it truly would be.

But it only works entirely on the assumption that the rest of teh clan packs and all other things that have happened to the game since december were done by magical Coding Faeries that come in when PGI is out and write good code that PGI can`t. And believing that without a significant amopunt of mind altering substances is, for me, a pretty tall order.

BTW clans were announced in december, which is not 8 months before June. L2Calendar

Clan tech came with the IP... its was a known issue 4+ years ago....one might have thought to ask the cry sales rep these sorts of questions and got the code support package.....

It's not like this game is EVE with how many combinations for weapons and stat balancing... its got 3 forms of auto-cannons.
why take the standard is a good question and a fairly obvious face palm at that.