50 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

I want to make this logical, and quick.

For a Clan UAC/20 to deal 20 extra points of double-tap damage, it has to risk a single jamming instance. A single jam will prevent roughly one instance of normal-mode firing.

For a Clan UAC/2 to deal 20 PTS of double-tap damage, it has to risk 10 jamming instances. A single jam will prevent roughly 8 instances of normal-mode firing.

---------------------------
So, for a UAC/2 to be as effective of an "Ultra" Autocannon as a UAC/20, it faces 10x the jamming risk, and each jam is 8x more punishing. Combine those two factors, and you can see why double-tapping the UAC/2 is highly discouraged by the current game design. CUAC/2 should not be double-tapped.

Can we fix this to make the weapon more suitable for its intended role as an Ultra-class weapon? I not seeking parity wth UAC/20, just something better than what we have now.

P.S. Edit.

Bobzilla, on 31 December 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

Never mind OP's comparison, the main takeaway is double tap on CUac2 actually does less dmg than not double tapping. It's broken.

I used the UAC/20 vs UAC/2 as an example of how the absence of jam scaling places weapons out of sync with the intended game balance.

Yes, you can compare doubletap to non-double tap, but then you lose a point of interest. The impulse weapons (UAC/20 for example) CAN have allowable reduced DPS when jamming over time, and it mightt be okay as long as a single double tap happens more than. 50% of the time. Impulse weapons are not meant for sustained DPS. However, DPS weapons suchbas the UAC/2 experience an inflated jamming risk due to the need for repeated firing instances, and the fact that a single jam ameliorates many firing chances.

It's that last fact that I wanted to bring to light. The synergistic combination of more jams and more shots blocked by a single jam.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 31 December 2015 - 11:22 AM.

[Tyler Valentine]

Prosperity Park, on 31 December 2015 - 10:09 AM, said:

I want to make this logical, and quick.

For a Clan UAC/20 to deal 20 extra points of double-tap damage, it has to risk a single jamming instance. A single jam will prevent roughly one instance of normal-mode firing.

For a Clan UAC/2 to deal 20 PTS of double-tap damage, it has to risk 10 jamming instances. A single jam will prevent roughly 8 instances of normal-mode firing.

---------------------------
So, for a UAC/2 to be as effective of an "Ultra" Autocannon as a UAC/20, it faces 10x the jamming risk, and each jam is 8x more punishing. Combine those two factors, and you can see why double-tapping the UAC/2 is highly discouraged by the current game design. CUAC/2 should not be double-tapped.

Can we fix this to make the weapon more suitable for its intended role as an Ultra-class weapon?

I agree with you, but to make it truly mathematical you would have to factor in the 4 projectiles of the AC20 vs the 1 projectile of the AC2 and the percentage of hits. However, more to the point, jam chance should increase with caliber.

[Squirg]

Solution: Don't use UAC/2s?

[Lukoi Banacek]

Problem with your assessment PP is that the UAC2 sbould be as effective as the UAC20 at dealing damage.

It should not, in proportion to its range advantage.

Im not saying the UAC2 could not use some love but the range advantage is a significant factor that cannot be ingnored with a flat damage comparison as you have here, if we wish for the game to be balanced at all.

[Mcgral18]

Change Jam Time from 5s to something lower

2s or 3s

[Tangelis]

How many UAC 2's can be equipped vs UAC20's? Ton for ton...ammo for ammo...range to range?

Those UAC 2 boats kill or shred me just fine.
I understand your math and you may in fact be correct, but I'm not convinced the weapon needs help.

Edited by Tangelis, 31 December 2015 - 10:19 AM.

[Cyborne Elemental]

Squirg, on 31 December 2015 - 10:13 AM, said:

Solution: Don't use UAC/2s?

This is not a solution. EVER.

Things that are broken, need to be fixed.

[Squirg]

Mister D, on 31 December 2015 - 10:18 AM, said:

This is not a solution. EVER.

Things that are broken, need to be fixed.

I agree with you but look at the state of mgs, flamers, and lbx and ask yourself if PGI will fix anything.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Lukoi Banacek, on 31 December 2015 - 10:14 AM, said:

Problem with your assessment PP is that the UAC2 sbould be as effective as the UAC20 at dealing damage.

It should not, in proportion to its range advantage.

Im not saying the UAC2 could not use some love but the range advantage is a significant factor that cannot be ingnored with a flat damage comparison as you have here, if we wish for the game to be balanced at all.

UAC/2 is Balanced against the UAC/20 because UAC/2 is supposed to sustain constant fire. The current Ultra mechanism completly destroys this Balancing Factor.

Also, see last sentence of my last paragraph.

Tyler Valentine, on 31 December 2015 - 10:13 AM, said:

I agree with you, but to make it truly mathematical you would have to factor in the 4 projectiles of the AC20 vs the 1 projectile of the AC2 and the percentage of hits. However, more to the point, jam chance should increase with caliber.

I have not yet seen a UAC/20 jam halfway through a burst; I don't think projectile count has an effect on jamming.

Also, yes, jam chance should be reduced, and also duration.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 31 December 2015 - 10:22 AM.

[Flutterguy]

Prosperity Park, on 31 December 2015 - 10:24 AM, said:

UAC/2 is Balanced against the UAC/20 because UAC/2 is supposed to sustain constant fire. The current Ultra mechanism completly destroys this Balancing Factor.

Also, see last sentence of my last paragraph.



I have not yet seen a UAC/20 jam halfway through a burst; I don't think projectile count has an effect on jamming.

Also, yes, jam chance should be reduced, and also duration.

You're looking at this wrong. The UAC/2 isn't really a fair comparison with the UAC/20. The better comparison is the UAC/2 double tap dps vs. normal dps where on average double tapping actually reduces dps.

[Deathlike]

When the jamming numbers were listed initially, all I could imagine was our balance overlord thinking +1% or-1% from the IS UAC5 jam chance is "enough" while leaving jam time the same.

It's like SRMs when the 2s and 4s didn't stand out much from each other back in the day. They didn't have dramatically different cooldowns nor vastly different spread.

Quality balance.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 December 2015 - 10:38 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Flutterguy, on 31 December 2015 - 10:29 AM, said:

You're looking at this wrong. The UAC/2 isn't really a fair comparison with the UAC/20. The better comparison is the UAC/2 double tap dps vs. normal dps where on average double tapping actually reduces dps.

That is the ultimate way of viewing it from a single weapon-perspective, but the comparison was made for a reason. It shows how jam chance and jam duration should be different for all classes of UAC because a flat chance and a flat duration is a very poor scalng choice.

[Lukoi Banacek]

PP I read your whole paragraph. There is no reason to get snippy. Your comparison is apples and oranges, but your baseline premise is that the UAC2 should be capable of the same damage as the UAC20...as stated in your fourth paragraph. You make it clear that you equate effectiveness with damage.

The problem with your premise is exactly that. That damage is the only metric of effectiveness. Your premise ignores the range and tonnage/space advantage of UAC2 as well as the minor dakka shaking.

Point being, uac2 may need to be improved to be as effective, but that commensurate damage isnt necessarily the right way to go about it. Its an oversimplification.

[Mcgral18]

Squirg, on 31 December 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

I agree with you but look at the state of mgs, flamers, and lbx and ask yourself if PGI will fix anything.

If PGI wanted to give me about $3.50, I could have a look.

They're incredibly easy changes to make, which begs the question of why they haven't happened? I could change the input variables in a couple of seconds, by marginal amounts, which would make them better weapons.

Add in the typical Patch compiling, and you add little work for testing/implementation.


They went and implemented Ghost Damage, but have not adjusted the MGs, the Flamer (hurray, soon the 4 year anniversary of uselessness), the LB2x still has the same velocity as the LB5x (working as intended? Maybe, LB10 and 20x are also the same).
The Jam times aren't even Normalized, they are identical.

cACs are worthless piles of junk, also a 5 minute fix for the whole family.


It upsets me a little, the game which has so much potential just...doesn't do simple things. Ghost Damage and Ghost Heat, but not adjusting base weapon stats?

They seem content balancing with Quirks and power creep. Their game, I suppose.

[Yosharian]

Haha you use UAC2s

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 31 December 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

If PGI wanted to give me about $3.50, I could have a look.

They're incredibly easy changes to make, which begs the question of why they haven't happened? I could change the input variables in a couple of seconds, by marginal amounts, which would make them better weapons.

Add in the typical Patch compiling, and you add little work for testing/implementation.


They went and implemented Ghost Damage, but have not adjusted the MGs, the Flamer (hurray, soon the 4 year anniversary of uselessness), the LB2x still has the same velocity as the LB5x (working as intended? Maybe, LB10 and 20x are also the same).
The Jam times aren't even Normalized, they are identical.

cACs are worthless piles of junk, also a 5 minute fix for the whole family.


It upsets me a little, the game which has so much potential just...doesn't do simple things. Ghost Damage and Ghost Heat, but not adjusting base weapon stats?

They seem content balancing with Quirks and power creep. Their game, I suppose.

Balance by Tier Paul™ is great for the Hoverjet™ lobby.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Lukoi Banacek, on 31 December 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

PP I read your whole paragraph. There is no reason to get snippy. Your comparison is apples and oranges, but your baseline premise is that the UAC2 should be capable of the same damage as the UAC20...as stated in your fourth paragraph. You make it clear that you equate effectiveness with damage.

The problem with your premise is exactly that. That damage is the only metric of effectiveness. Your premise ignores the range and tonnage/space advantage of UAC2 as well as the minor dakka shaking.

Point being, uac2 may need to be improved to be as effective, but that commensurate damage isnt necessarily the right way to go about it. Its an oversimplification.

My last sentence says I am not seeking parity.

Also, I think that making the comparison that shows UAC/2 jamming 8x harder is a very good comparison. It shows how a flat duration and a flat chance across all UAC platforms is a poor choice.



Sometimes you need to compare apples to oranges if they are served in the same fruit basket.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 31 December 2015 - 10:54 AM.

[Squirg]

Mcgral18, on 31 December 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

They're incredibly easy changes to make, which begs the question of why they haven't happened? I could change the input variables in a couple of seconds, by marginal amounts, which would make them better weapons.

The truth of the matter is that Paul or whoever is in charge of balance is grossly incompetent. Usually the simplest answer is the most correct.

Mcgral18, on 31 December 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

It upsets me a little, the game which has so much potential just...doesn't do simple things. Ghost Damage and Ghost Heat, but not adjusting base weapon stats?

I've just come to not let it bother me and simply not expect even the bare minimum anymore.

[Deathlike]

Squirg, on 31 December 2015 - 10:54 AM, said:

I've just come to not let it bother me and simply not expect even the bare minimum anymore.

Expect less.

That sounds about right.

[Roadkill]

That comparison has similar results for the UAC/5 and UAC/10. Since the 5 and 10 seem fine, I'd have to say that there's some other problem with the UAC/2, or perhaps it only needs to be corrected a little bit rather than all the way to the UAC/20.