111 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

Mechanically speaking, if you're going to do a DPS pulse laser, the only requirement is that you achieve the same damage and heat over a period of time, but done in smaller chunks. The math is easy.

If the current weapon, using Live: 11 damage, 7 heat, 3.92 cycle time... you can break that up into smaller chunks to make it a DPS... so 5.5 damage, 3.5 heat, 1.96 cycle time.

Would that be the sort of damage/cycle time folks would prefer? It does sit more in line with the AC/5 in this regard. There may need to be a bit of work here for the sake of parity. AC/5 is only 1 ton more, runs MUCH cooler, and has shorter cycle time, and has more range and PPFLD.

But I don't know if I like the direction of this. Something we'd have to test.

[Sereglach]

ScarecrowES, on 16 September 2016 - 10:50 PM, said:

Mechanically speaking, if you're going to do a DPS pulse laser, the only requirement is that you achieve the same damage and heat over a period of time, but done in smaller chunks. The math is easy.

If the current weapon, using Live: 11 damage, 7 heat, 3.92 cycle time... you can break that up into smaller chunks to make it a DPS... so 5.5 damage, 3.5 heat, 1.96 cycle time.

Would that be the sort of damage/cycle time folks would prefer? It does sit more in line with the AC/5 in this regard. There may need to be a bit of work here for the sake of parity. AC/5 is only 1 ton more, runs MUCH cooler, and has shorter cycle time, and has more range and PPFLD.

But I don't know if I like the direction of this. Something we'd have to test.

At least, unlike others, you're willing to give the concept a test. I appreciate that.

[GreenHell]

You could always go the extreme route and make pulse lasers "Pulse" 1 point of damage however many times per second you need them to. Need 2 damage per second? Make it shoot 1 damage every 1/2 second. I know it's not technically "lore friendly" but it's different and it puts pulse lasers squarely in the DPS category.

Just an idea I had. Probably a bad one but hey, if I don't put it down I'll forget it.

-edit-
seen someone had a similar idea in a different thread... oh well

Edited by GreenHell, 17 September 2016 - 08:49 AM.

[FupDup]

ScarecrowES, on 16 September 2016 - 10:50 PM, said:

Mechanically speaking, if you're going to do a DPS pulse laser, the only requirement is that you achieve the same damage and heat over a period of time, but done in smaller chunks. The math is easy.

If the current weapon, using Live: 11 damage, 7 heat, 3.92 cycle time... you can break that up into smaller chunks to make it a DPS... so 5.5 damage, 3.5 heat, 1.96 cycle time.

Would that be the sort of damage/cycle time folks would prefer? It does sit more in line with the AC/5 in this regard. There may need to be a bit of work here for the sake of parity. AC/5 is only 1 ton more, runs MUCH cooler, and has shorter cycle time, and has more range and PPFLD.

But I don't know if I like the direction of this. Something we'd have to test.

Having the same DPS but lower frontloaded damage is a direct and substantial nerf. No one in their right mind would choose that weapon.

The idea of making pulses into DPS weapons is to actually give them superior DPS (and preferably lower DPS) at the cost of reducing their alpha strike damage.

[Sereglach]

FupDup, on 17 September 2016 - 10:43 AM, said:

Having the same DPS but lower frontloaded damage is a direct and substantial nerf. No one in their right mind would choose that weapon.

The idea of making pulses into DPS weapons is to actually give them superior DPS (and preferably lower DPS) at the cost of reducing their alpha strike damage.

Depends on how you play, at least to an extent (do agree that they should have superior DPS with reasonably efficient HPS). Right now the meta on live is stuck in the same rut no matter what weapons loadout you're choosing (within the meta) . . . High Alpha all the way with as much PPFLD as possible.

A LPL with superior DPS that you can control better, in a more detailed fashion (not like a PPC with all your heat eggs in one shot baskets), could be superior to frontloaded damage . . . especially if that frontloaded damage is lower DPS and long cooldowns. One missed shot could spell doom for a longer cooldown weapon with a bunch of heat waste. One missed shot on a LPL with an ~1.5 second cooldown and a mere 3.5 heat means nothing in comparison.

For example, the LPL I recommended could create a great twist-shoot-twist playstyle in a brawl that weaves in your SRM's and AC's with each volley, while constantly keeping you moving, and not costing you too much if you miss a shot or -at least- don't put it where you want it.

That's one of the issues with Live lasers, and not taking the numbers far enough to meet PTS goals, and the problem PGI is having in balancing the LPL in particular. They're all so close together that there isn't much of a choice between them. They all just play the same way (especially with the current meta mentality rut) . . . so of course the one with the best DPS/HPS and best FLD aspects wins.

EDIT: I'm presuming, btw, that you meant "(and preferably with lower HPS)" in your post.

Edited by Sereglach, 17 September 2016 - 11:03 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 17 September 2016 - 10:43 AM, said:

Having the same DPS but lower frontloaded damage is a direct and substantial nerf. No one in their right mind would choose that weapon.

The idea of making pulses into DPS weapons is to actually give them superior DPS (and preferably lower DPS) at the cost of reducing their alpha strike damage.

Not sure I understand the reasoning here - in part, I think, because we really don't have any examples of two kinds of weapon in a given category that perform mechanically different, there's little way to tell what people would prefer.

"DPS" is a misnomer in this conversation, I think. The very purpose of a "DPS" weapon is one that trades frontloaded damage for damage dealt over time. You could precisely argue the opposite of your assertion here... if you give the "DPS" weapon a damage or heat advantage, noone would use the other option. The reality is, players will use whichever option gives them an advantage, and thus your only real option for balance is to give NEITHER an advantage.

Breaking the LPL up into 2 pulses over the same duration still presents a significant damage advantage over other large lasers, compares equally on heat, and extremely favorably on duration. Compared within the laser category, the changes are the very definition of a "DPS" weapon.

Large Laser:
2.11 DPS
1.64 HPS

ER Large Laser:
2 DPS
1.78 HPS

LPL (double cycle):
2.8 DPS
1.78 HPS

Significantly higher DPS than any other large laser. Equal heat to the more powerful ER. Less than half the cycle time of either of those lasers.

[FupDup]

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 11:06 AM, said:

Not sure I understand the reasoning here - in part, I think, because we really don't have any examples of two kinds of weapon in a given category that perform mechanically different, there's little way to tell what people would prefer.

"DPS" is a misnomer in this conversation, I think. The very purpose of a "DPS" weapon is one that trades frontloaded damage for damage dealt over time.

Correct. That's my point, it's a trade. What I'm asking for is a trade of reduced frontloaded damage in exchange for greater damage over time.

Nerf one aspect of the weapon and then buff another aspect at the same time. Don't just nerf one aspect and do nothing else.

What you're asking for is reducing the frontloaded damage while leaving the damage over time be exactly the same. You're not trading in that case, you're just nerfing without compensation.

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 11:06 AM, said:

You could precisely argue the opposite of your assertion here... if you give the "DPS" weapon a damage or heat advantage, noone would use the other option.

That would only be the case if the DPS or heat advantage was jacked up to a very high level.

It also works both ways. Giving a frontloaded weapon too much damage advantage without sacrificing DPS or heat will make the frontloaded weapon be the clearly superior choice. Low-alpha weapons MUST have significantly higher DPS or some other advantage or else they gain nothing for the loss of frontloadedness.

For example, imagine for a moment if we nerfed the reload time of the AC/5 to around 3 seconds or so. It would be useless. The weapon is viable because its low cooldown lets it have enough DPS to compensate for having a low alpha strike.

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 11:06 AM, said:

The reality is, players will use whichever option gives them an advantage, and thus your only real option for balance is to give NEITHER an advantage.

You're giving frontloaded lasers the advantage over the pulses here, as described above.

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 11:06 AM, said:

Breaking the LPL up into 2 pulses over the same duration still presents a significant damage advantage over other large lasers, compares equally on heat, and extremely favorably on duration. Compared within the laser category, the changes are the very definition of a "DPS" weapon.

No, what you just did was turn the LPL into a 7-ton Medium Laser with a somewhat reduced reload time.

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 17 September 2016 - 11:19 AM, said:

No, what you just did was turn the LPL into a 7-ton Medium Laser with a somewhat reduced reload time.

Then... leave it the way it is? I honestly don't know what to tell you. It's like we're trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

PGI was the one that decided to deviate from TT by making lighter weapons have inexplicably shorter cooldowns. Under such reasoning, MLs are already DPS LLs.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 17 September 2016 - 11:34 AM.

[FupDup]

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 11:32 AM, said:

Then... leave it the way it is? I honestly don't know what to tell you. It's like we're trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Well, I'm looking for a solution to PGI's desires to turn pulses into DPS weapons. If they're going to stick with it, I'd rather that they do it right.

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 11:32 AM, said:

PGI was the one that decided to deviate from TT by making lighter weapons have inexplicably shorter cooldowns. Under such reasoning, MLs are already DPS LLs.

It's not inexplicable, the explanation is so that they're useful. If all weapons had the same cooldown then only the biggest guns would be worthwhile. Some weapons are useless even with fast cooldowns, like the IS SL or AC/2.

[Kin3ticX]

I think its time to drift from lore on ultras and get rid of jam chance entirely. Mechwarriors are extremely fickle, people will decide on a small advantage as if its lightyears better. People will either all bandwagon auto-include the Ultra or all move to the Vanilla to avoid the jam. Think of all the dev time that can be saved never messing with jam chance ever again. Differentiate the weapons in a fashion that is less table-top.

I think the overall changes will shift the meta but there is a slight problem. The scope of the ED rebalance seems to show that ED cant swim on its own, and this can indicate that its not an great idea after all.

You may find that you can have a PTS with many of these changes except without ED and get nearly the same minty freshness.

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 17 September 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

Well, I'm looking for a solution to PGI's desires to turn pulses into DPS weapons. If they're going to stick with it, I'd rather that they do it right.



It's not inexplicable, the explanation is so that they're useful. If all weapons had the same cooldown then only the biggest guns would be worthwhile. Some weapons are useless even with fast cooldowns, like the IS SL or AC/2.

Well, the point I was making was that smaller lasers already fill the DPS role you're looking for, thanks to PGI's fudging of cooldowns.

Remember, the damage, heat, range, etc of lasers were supposed to be metered out in the same amount of time. What MWO currently does is bring medium lasers closer in line with your vision of what a DPS large laser is. And small lasers are a DPS version of medium lasers.

Still, this hasn't been taken to extremes, thankfully - so there's still wiggle room we can use to better differentiate pulse lasers.

So realistically... what we can do to help this is bring standard lasers into slightly more close parity, but find a way to give SLs a boost. What about giving SLs a slightly longer cooldown, but slightly less heat and more range? Large and medium lasers are not too far off, so use them as a baseline for parity here. 2.75s cooldown, 1.8 heat, 180m range?

Then, have all your pulse lasers work as half-cycle versions of themselves. Remember, this means that the cycle time of a LPL is STILL half the cycle time of a standard ML. Duration can be brought down a little but too, so we're looking at duration at half of the ML too. I'm almost afraid this DPS version of LPL is OP, just due to how LITTLE of that damage is going to spread, and how I can put more of it exactly where I want, when I want.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 17 September 2016 - 01:10 PM.

[Sereglach]

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

Then, have all your pulse lasers work as half-cycle versions of themselves. Remember, this means that the cycle time of a LPL is STILL half the cycle time of a standard ML. Duration can be brought down a little but too, so we're looking at duration at half of the ML too. I'm almost afraid this DPS version of LPL is OP, just due to how LITTLE of that damage is going to spread, and how I can put more of it exactly where I want, when I want.

That's not a terrible basis, but like what's being said through the thread, doing it right will require an actual choice, as well as overall improved DPS over the ER and Standard Counterparts to actually be a solid DPS choice, even if that DPS comes at the cost of heat and tonnage.

FupDup, on 17 September 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

Well, I'm looking for a solution to PGI's desires to turn pulses into DPS weapons. If they're going to stick with it, I'd rather that they do it right.

Solid thought process, and I'd love to see them do it right, too. Ranges aside (because the range numbers are already decent . . . not perfect . . . but decent), it's not that hard to look at the lasers and get numbers that would work reasonably well. For instance (roughly speaking here) using all the standard(base) lasers as they are on LIVE:

IS Large Laser Series

Spoiler

LL
9 Damage @ 7 Heat
1.0 Duration and 3.25 Cooldown
DPS = 2.12, DPH = 1.29, HPS = 1.65, DPS/HPS = 1.28
Result: Basic Standard baseline to judge all other Large Lasers off of.

ERLL
9 Damage @ 8 Heat
1.0 Duration and 3.75 Cooldown
DPS = 1.89, DPH = 1.125, HPS = 1.68, DPS/HPS = 1.125
Result: Increased range in exchange for lesser DPS with more heat . . . but still a reasonably close DPS:HPS ratio.

LPL
5 Damage @ 3.5 Heat
.5 Duration and 1.5 Cooldown
DPS = 2.5, DPH = 1.75, HPS = 1.75, DPS/HPS = 1.43
Result: Range and heat efficiency are traded for significantly higher DPS that is nearly pinpoint.

IS Medium Laser Series

Spoiler

ML
5 Damage @ 4 Heat
.9 Duration and 3 Cooldown
DPS = 1.28, DPH = 1.25, HPS = 1.03, DPS/HPS = 1.12
Result: Basic Standard baseline to judge all other Medium Lasers off of.

ERML (non existent, yet, but basically inevitable for the future)
5 Damage @ 4.5 Heat
.9 Duration and 3.5 Cooldown
DPS = 1.14, DPH = 1.11, HPS = 1.02, DPS/HPS = 1.12
Result: Increased range in exchange for lesser DPS with more heat . . . but exact same DPS:HPS ratio.

MPL
2.5 Damage @ 2.25 Heat
.4 Duration and 1.25 Cooldown
DPS = 1.51, DPH = 1.36, HPS = 1.36, DPS/HPS = 1.11
Result: Range and heat efficiency are traded for significantly higher DPS that is nearly pinpoint, but DPS:HPS ratio is still close to the others.

IS Small Laser Series

Spoiler

SL
3 Damage @ 2 Heat
.75 Duration and 2.25 Cooldown
DPS = 1.0, DPH = 1.5, HPS = .67, DPS/HPS = 1.49
Result: Basic Standard baseline to judge all other Small Lasers off of.

ERSL (Same with the IS ERML, not in game, yet, but eventually expected)
3 Damage @ 2.3 Heat
.75 Duration and 2.5 Cooldown
DPS = .92, DPH = 1.3, HPS = .71, DPS/HPS = 1.30
Result: Increased range in exchange for lesser DPS with more heat . . . but modest DPS:HPS ratio decrease.

SPL
1.5 Damage @ 1.0 Heat
.25 Duration and 1.0 Cooldown
DPS = 1.2, DPH = 1.5, HPS = .8, DPS/HPS = 1.5
Result: Range and heat efficiency are traded for significantly higher DPS that is nearly pinpoint.

[ScarecrowES]

Well, yes... there is a choice involved. Committing to pulse lasers as DPS weapons means having to make adjustments to both pulses AND standard lasers to better differentiate their roles.

It may also require a change in mechanics that I simply don't trust PGI to do correctly.

I'd be happy to give Sereglach's numbers here a shot. Look pretty promising as a starting point. At least give us an idea if the fast-cycle pulses are worth trying.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 17 September 2016 - 03:09 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

I made a feedback post here. However, I want to share this section directly:

Spoiler

I have seen the changes being made to the lasers, and have noted that they are trending toward values often discussed in the past by myself and others. I have created a table which scores the weapons according to a set of swing weights applied against the various characteristics such as weight, slots, damage, duration, etc. Weight, damage, and slots normalized with values in a secondary table (not shown) along linear behavioral models because more is always better. Range, duration, and cool-down are normalized along an exponential behavior curve because there is a certain point where being better provides increasingly diminished returns while being worse yields provides increasing levels of penalty.

Here are the resulting scores for the weapons on the Live server:



Notice the wild disparities. Some weapons are just really bad while some are just really good.

Here are the adjustments I've made to get them on the same level:



I am assuming all lasers can reach up to 2x their optimum ranges. You will also notice that some of them retain dramatically superior scores; my model is not perfect because weight and slots are incredibly hard to account for, but I believe the numbers assigned to their traits to be sound.

Why do I think they are sound? First, let me explain how I believe the balance works mechanically.

Increased damage is offset most directly by an increase to beam duration; if a Medium Laser does 5 damage in 0.9 seconds and you want to make its Clan counterpart deal 7 damage, then the most direct way to balance them would be to make the latter burn for about 1.25 seconds. That means they both deal the same damage for a given amount of time exposed, but one of them has the potential to do more should the user choose to remain exposed.

Increased range is offset most directly by an increase to cool-down. If two weapons dealing 8 damage are compared, then the one that has to get closer to deal it should be rewarded for being able to get close enough to be useful. Alternatively, you can say that the one with more range needs to have its DPS soft limited to provide larger windows of opportunity for closer-ranged 'Mechs to act.

Decreased cool-down time is offset most directly by increased heat. High DPS 'Mechs need to be limited in the amount of time they can spend on-target otherwise they become too powerful within their bracket.

Of course, each trait is also affected by the others; it's not a vacuum. Any change to any trait will require changes to at least one other. If we want to significantly buff one trait, we usually nerf several others to prevent the weapon from being feeling off, but it's not a 1-for-1 trade (i.e. increasing damage 3 points doesn't mean removing 3 points from anywhere else is appropriate; we might need to remove 5 points because the one we increased by 3 is more important).

In addition, I also know what competes against what and in what number. For example, on the Live server the Clan Large Pulse competes more directly with the Inner Sphere ER Large in terms of range, but the Inner Sphere Large in terms of damage-per-tick on the beam duration. I know that a pair of them is roughly equivalent to a trio of IS weapons, and I know that you don't often find more than four on any Clan 'Mech while IS bring six. I decided for my numbers that I would have the Clan Large Pulse, therefore, compete more directly with the Inner Sphere Large while the Clan ER Large and Inner Sphere ER Large more properly compete with each other.

[C E Dwyer]

I'm glad something was done about the Uac20 they were a pretty terrible weapon unless people are dumb enough to stand in front of them stationary.

The other AC20's need some love as well, they are a very situation weapon, one of the things I think is a positive about ED, is it will help hard point starved mechs like the Linebacker, and the Victor.

Two builds for the Victor I use or the Ac20 build in the example I used to use, because it is vastly inferior to the second example.

Ac20 Srm4x3 MLx2

Uac5x2 Srm4x3 MLx2

The Uac5 version has longer poke, has far more dps is all around a much better and flexible build and under ED it generates an alpha of 38 and fractions.

The Ac20 version generates another 10 alpha under ED giving it an even bigger penalty than the first example, yet being the worse build.

Its extra 10 pinpoint of the single AC is more than cancelled out , by the range limitations and the damage your going to take getting there, and how few shots you get per ton of ammo.

I'm aware that two of the weapons can produce pin point of 40, and that might be the cause of nervousness in buffing them, but I think they need to be generating less heat, or have a cool down reduction.

Finally

I've said it before PTs started and I have said it durring it and I'm saying it now.

Stop putting events on during PTS sessions.

Mousing over the QP button it reads 0% so aparently I am the only person on PTS which might be why my search for a match ends in failure, and all I can do is mess around on testing grounds.

[Ialdabaoth]

Agreed - or maybe, whenever you have a big PTS thing, actually do a PTS-based event?

[CuriousCabbitBlue]

dps can work just look at the old Huginn

[Ialdabaoth]

Also, if you want to make pulse lasers DPS kings, what about this:

- Small Pulse Laser: 4 dmg, 2 heat, cooldown 1.25, beam duration 1.25 (total 2.50; dps = 1.6)
- Medium Pulse Laser: 6 dmg, 4 heat, cooldown 1.50, beam duration 1.50 (total 3.00; dps = 2.0)
- Large Pulse Laser: 9 dmg, 8 heat, cooldown 1.50, beam duration 1.75 (total 3.25; dps = 2.76ish)

- Small Laser: 3 dmg, 2 heat, cooldown 2.50, beam duration 0.50 (total 3.00; dps = 1.0)
- Medium Laser: 5 dmg, 4 heat, cooldown 2.75, beam duration 0.75 (total 3.50; dps = 1.42ish)
- Large Laser: 8 dmg, 7 heat, cooldown 3.00, beam duration 1.00 (total 4.00; dps = 2.0)
- ER Large Laser: 8 dmg, 10 heat, cooldown 2.75, beam duration 1.25 (total 4.00; dps = 2.0)

- C Small Pulse Laser: 5 dmg, 2 heat, cooldown 1.25, beam duration 1.50 (total 2.75; dps = 1.81ish)
- C Medium Pulse Laser: 7 dmg, 4 heat, cooldown 1.50, beam duration 1.75 (total 3.25; dps = 2.15ish)
- C Large Pulse Laser: 10 dmg, 10 heat, cooldown 1.50, beam duration 2.00 (total 3.50; dps = 2.86ish)

- C ER Small Laser: 5 dmg, 3 heat, cooldown 2.25, beam duration 0.75 (total 3.00; dps = 1.67ish)
- C ER Medium Laser: 7 dmg, 5 heat, cooldown 2.50, beam duration 1.00 (total 3.50; dps = 2.0)
- C ER Large Laser: 10 dmg, 12 heat, cooldown 2.75, beam duration 1.25 (total 4.00; dps = 2.5)

[Y E O N N E]

Ialdabaoth, on 18 September 2016 - 08:24 AM, said:

Also, if you want to make pulse lasers DPS kings, what about this:

- Small Pulse Laser: 4 dmg, 2 heat, cooldown 1.25, beam duration 1.25 (total 2.50; dps = 1.6)
- Medium Pulse Laser: 6 dmg, 4 heat, cooldown 1.50, beam duration 1.50 (total 3.00; dps = 2.0)
- Large Pulse Laser: 9 dmg, 8 heat, cooldown 1.50, beam duration 1.75 (total 3.25; dps = 2.76ish)

- Small Laser: 3 dmg, 2 heat, cooldown 2.50, beam duration 0.50 (total 3.00; dps = 1.0)
- Medium Laser: 5 dmg, 4 heat, cooldown 2.75, beam duration 0.75 (total 3.50; dps = 1.42ish)
- Large Laser: 8 dmg, 7 heat, cooldown 3.00, beam duration 1.00 (total 4.00; dps = 2.0)
- ER Large Laser: 8 dmg, 10 heat, cooldown 2.75, beam duration 1.25 (total 4.00; dps = 2.0)

- C Small Pulse Laser: 5 dmg, 2 heat, cooldown 1.25, beam duration 1.50 (total 2.75; dps = 1.81ish)
- C Medium Pulse Laser: 7 dmg, 4 heat, cooldown 1.50, beam duration 1.75 (total 3.25; dps = 2.15ish)
- C Large Pulse Laser: 10 dmg, 10 heat, cooldown 1.50, beam duration 2.00 (total 3.50; dps = 2.86ish)

- C ER Small Laser: 5 dmg, 3 heat, cooldown 2.25, beam duration 0.75 (total 3.00; dps = 1.67ish)
- C ER Medium Laser: 7 dmg, 5 heat, cooldown 2.50, beam duration 1.00 (total 3.50; dps = 2.0)
- C ER Large Laser: 10 dmg, 12 heat, cooldown 2.75, beam duration 1.25 (total 4.00; dps = 2.5)

No.

One rule of thumb is that the shorter range, weaker, and less numerous Inner Sphere guns should have higher DPS than their Clan counterparts, and you violated that rule whole-hog.

[Honiara]

Andi Nagasia, on 16 September 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

Clan Ultra AutoCannons
The majority of the UAC line is performing approximately where we would like them to be, but we recognize that the previous changes put the Clan U-AC/20 in a difficult spot, despite already being the highest average DPS boost across the UAC line. Given the drawbacks of the weapon, we are fine with reducing the Jam Duration to equal that of the Clan U-AC/10.

PGI: I got to give it to you, you take something simple and make is so complex!!!

Your statement about U/AC's is just stupid, if you give all U/ACs the same jam chance and the jam duration based on the weapon cycle time the increase in DPS for double tapping would be identical (percentage relative) between the entire U/AC class of weapons.

Edit: I'm going to elaborate on the above, if we assume that the above statement from PGI is true, then we must assume that the AC20 is not balanced against the AC10, Because if they were balanced against each other then a fixed jam percentage with a jam duration based on weapon recycle time would balance the Ultra variant.

PGI - Please balance from the AC10 and AC20 first then you will find a jam duration based on recycle time will auto balance the weapons within the same class e.g. Ultras. If Ultras are then 2 powerful increase the jam chance percentage. to bring them into line with the Standard AC class

Edited by Honiara, 18 September 2016 - 12:07 PM.