17 replies to this topic

[BigBenn]

Dear PGI,

Please consider increasing the "new" ballistic cool down quirk to 15%. You've removed the AC5 7.5% quirk, removed the ballistic cool down 7.5% quirk (stacked @ 15%), and added a 10% ballistic quirk. The reload rate is what made the AC5's good on the CTF-IM. Granted you add in a 25% range quirk, but I'm not sure if I'd trade any bit of the cool down quirk for more range all things considered.

or...

Compromise: reduce the range quirk to 20%, and increase the ballistic cool down quirk back up to 15%???

Thanks for your consideration.

-BigBenn

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

I wish you luck on your request, but remember sometimes...

[vettie]

Im with you on this. Cool down > range
For me, that is.

[Bishop Steiner]

I run AC10s on mine.

Problem solved.

[LT. HARDCASE]

I'll take the new +25% velocity quirk over that 5% cooldown we lost.

[El Bandito]

I'd run UAC5s, which I consider to be superior to the AC5.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I prefer to run A/C5s in the IM over Ultras because they just seem to fit better, have a good reliable short cool down, and allow the mech to have better durability while maintaining good speed.

Basically I can run an Ilya with 3 A/C5s, 3 MLasers, Endo and Ferro and still equip a STD 290 or 295 to give a bit extra durability and the engine is big enough for good maneuverability and speed. With ultras, you are generally running a slow STD engine or a more vulnerable XL. On top of that, regular A/C5s with all their quirks and modules, can get you close to a 30% cool down improvement over regular A/C5s while not worrying about the pesky jamming with ultras.

Overall either works well I think, but with all the quirks to A/C5s and durability compounded with a good quick STD engine, A/C5s are the goto for me.

[Bishop Steiner]

LT. HARDCASE, on 30 November 2015 - 05:08 PM, said:

I'll take the new +25% velocity quirk over that 5% cooldown we lost.

very useful for my ac10s.

562/1125 meter range, 1187 m/s velocity? Yes please.

[Bishop Steiner]

MeiSooHaityu, on 30 November 2015 - 06:29 PM, said:

I prefer to run A/C5s in the IM over Ultras because they just seem to fit better, have a good reliable short cool down, and allow the mech to have better durability while maintaining good speed.

Basically I can run an Ilya with 3 A/C5s, 3 MLasers, Endo and Ferro and still equip a STD 290 or 295 to give a bit extra durability and the engine is big enough for good maneuverability and speed. With ultras, you are generally running a slow STD engine or a more vulnerable XL. On top of that, regular A/C5s with all their quirks and modules, can get you close to a 30% cool down improvement over regular A/C5s while not worrying about the pesky jamming with ultras.

Overall either works well I think, but with all the quirks to A/C5s and durability compounded with a good quick STD engine, A/C5s are the goto for me.

I'll take this over 3 AC5s. ILYA MUROMETS

Yeah, AC5s have the DPS advantage, but DPS when you are the broad side of the barn? Pass. Blast, twist, blast again. Nice heavy PP-FLD chunks every 1.8 seconds. Anyhow, always worked better for me than the 5s.

[Xetelian]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 November 2015 - 06:58 PM, said:

I'll take this over 3 AC5s. ILYA MUROMETS

Yeah, AC5s have the DPS advantage, but DPS when you are the broad side of the barn? Pass. Blast, twist, blast again. Nice heavy PP-FLD chunks every 1.8 seconds. Anyhow, always worked better for me than the 5s.

You can fit FF on that and put the AC 10s on the same side.

ILYA MUROMETS

I don't know if this is better but I tend to shield with my left side on a lot of mechs.

[BigBenn]

That is the thing about these new quirks, they are all inclusive. No more AC5 specific mechs. No more LL specific mechs. No more SRM specific mechs (quirks wise).

My standard CTF-IM loadout is 2 AC5, 1 AC10, and 3 ML. I run a STD engine for 64 KPH, and the rest is ammo.

I'm not sure if I'm liking these new quirks. The "all inclusive" thing is taking away some of the individualism certain mechs had. But alas.....

[Bishop Steiner]

Xetelian, on 30 November 2015 - 07:26 PM, said:

You can fit FF on that and put the AC 10s on the same side.

ILYA MUROMETS

I don't know if this is better but I tend to shield with my left side on a lot of mechs.

I prefer them in each arm, so they converge together
Also, like more ammo. I usually run it with a 340xl and 7 tons ammo... but am thinking about swapping a ton or so since the AC10 ammo buff.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 November 2015 - 08:04 PM.

[cSand]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 November 2015 - 04:56 PM, said:

I run AC10s on mine.

Problem solved.

pff

LBX10s, yo, 3 of em

HIDE YO KIDS, HIDE YO WIFE

[Cyborne Elemental]

I think velocity would be a much more important quirk to have for AC-5 builds.
What is the point of all that DPS when you still can't land your shots over long range vs fast targets?

[NeoCodex]

I still think it is better to put it in the torso. The torso hardpoint is also a little higher, and with the low Cataphract arms that comes as a blessing. In a perfect world, it would make sense to put both in arms, but during the time of playing this game I learned the advantage of making one sided hunchback style builds across all mechs that support it, and utilising any higher placed hardpoint you might have as a priority, arm mounted or not.

There's just so many situations on these maps that you are not able to hit your target from a low slung arm. And convergence? Well we have arm lock. I think about it as why Dragon Slayer was good. Tough weapons are divided by arm and torso, the actual convergence with arm lock on is better because weapons are much closer together (not to mention you now have fully functional left side shield), so if one hits the other one will for sure. But that was in the poptart era where everything was fired from the high up, so it's not really the same, but it eliminates the convergence argument - if that worked so well, there's really no reason to mount secondary weapon on the left arm. Cataphract might come as an exception to this rule with the very low slung arm which many times will not hit, but I would still use it exactly because of this and even strongly recommend the one-sided build. If the arms were like on a Jagermech, that would be a different thing.

Edited by NeoCodex, 01 December 2015 - 12:17 AM.

[Elizander]

Velocity will beat out the CD. ACs are notoriously slow.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 November 2015 - 06:58 PM, said:

I'll take this over 3 AC5s. ILYA MUROMETS

Yeah, AC5s have the DPS advantage, but DPS when you are the broad side of the barn? Pass. Blast, twist, blast again. Nice heavy PP-FLD chunks every 1.8 seconds. Anyhow, always worked better for me than the 5s.

You're going to hate me, but I already run something similar on my Catapult K2 .

I ran the dual 10s on the IM and dual gauss, A/C5s seem to be the sweet spot for me.

[DerMaulwurf]

I prefer UACs on mine, just because the AC/5 on the torso looks so inredibly bad.

Also helps to make the most out of the times, when you can line up your gorilla arms to fire.

And I hate projectile speed quirks, since having the same guns handle differently between my mechs really isn't helpful.