112 replies to this topic

[RAM]

WrathOfDeadguy, on 23 September 2016 - 11:18 PM, said:

Most ACs in Battletech are *meant* to be burst-fire weapons; there were only a few exceptions. AC ratings in TT were based on how much armor they could punch through every ten seconds, not per slug.

Yes, the majority of Autocannons are described as burst-fire and yes, their rating derives from their maximum armour destruction/penetration; however, the time-frame involved is not 10 seconds.

kf envy, on 23 September 2016 - 11:42 PM, said:

ps. i think that PGI need to bring back the Jam % to IS AC we had back in bate

Regular ACs never jammed.

Yeonne Greene, on 24 September 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

At a higher level, I just think it's ridiculous to give the Clans the option of taking slot-equivalent, non-cluster LB-X ACs but not the IS. Yeah, it will obsolete the AC/10, but that's hardly anything to cry over.

I suggested that the Clan ACs replicate IS functionality and that an IS LBX10's AC equivalent be created that replicates Clan burst functionality.

JC Daxion, on 24 September 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

Clan Ac's need to either drop a ton, or be removed.. as of now, there is zero reason to use one

There are reasons; they tend to be minor and are generally sub-optimal, but they do exist.


RAM
ELH

[Y E O N N E]

RAM, on 24 September 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

I suggested that the Clan ACs replicate IS functionality and that an IS LBX10's AC equivalent be created that replicates Clan burst functionality.

Can't say I agree to that. The burst functionality is a major component toward balancing the lighter, smaller Clan ACs against the heavier, larger IS ones. There is nothing functionally desirable about burst fire. The only way I would agree to burst for IS ACs is if the Clan version of burst remains diffused in comparison, i.e. an IS AC/5 will fire two 5-damage rounds rapidly with a correspondingly longer cool-down while the Clan one remains as we are familiar with.

On a fluffier level, there is no difference between a Clan LB-X and an IS one. It is the same tech, the same gun, the same exact performance characteristics including range. The only reason it is 10 tons is because the creators of the game had already oopsed with the IS version being 11 tons.

[RAM]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 September 2016 - 08:41 PM, said:

Can't say I agree to that. The burst functionality is a major component toward balancing the lighter, smaller Clan ACs against the heavier, larger IS ones. There is nothing functionally desirable about burst fire. The only way I would agree to burst for IS ACs is if the Clan version of burst remains diffused in comparison, i.e. an IS AC/5 will fire two 5-damage rounds rapidly with a correspondingly longer cool-down while the Clan one remains as we are familiar with.

On a fluffier level, there is no difference between a Clan LB-X and an IS one. It is the same tech, the same gun, the same exact performance characteristics including range. The only reason it is 10 tons is because the creators of the game had already oopsed with the IS version being 11 tons.

Not looking for you to agree, although you clearly misunderstood. I am not saying replace the IS AC functionality; I did say that an equivalent to the Clan LBX ACs be created for the IS LBX - with the same burst mechanic that the Clan's currently use. Conversely, the Clan LBX standard ACs could use the boost offered by FLD...

Even ignoring Lore, there is functional desirability to burst fire: adjustment, walking fire, suppression, splitting targets, etc. It may be less optimal than single-shot, but it does have its own advantages. Regardless, using the MWO stats for anything is circumspect given all the PGI changes.


Unlike some of the other issues, the IS LBX weight was deliberate, and therefore cannot be an 'oops'


RAM
ELH

[WrathOfDeadguy]

That... is actually not a bad idea. I have a fair number of builds that would benefit from having that one more slot and one more ton from using LB-10X, but currently don't because the weapon sucks in its current implementation. If PGI never gets around to dealing with ammo switching, introducing 'alt fire' versions of the guns for IS makes sense, and the burst fire mechanic would prevent it from totally obsoleting the regular AC10. Simple and elegant- I like it.

[Y E O N N E]

RAM, on 25 September 2016 - 01:54 AM, said:

Not looking for you to agree, although you clearly misunderstood. I am not saying replace the IS AC functionality; I did say that an equivalent to the Clan LBX ACs be created for the IS LBX - with the same burst mechanic that the Clan's currently use. Conversely, the Clan LBX standard ACs could use the boost offered by FLD...

Even ignoring Lore, there is functional desirability to burst fire: adjustment, walking fire, suppression, splitting targets, etc. It may be less optimal than single-shot, but it does have its own advantages. Regardless, using the MWO stats for anything is circumspect given all the PGI changes.


Unlike some of the other issues, the IS LBX weight was deliberate, and therefore cannot be an 'oops'


RAM
ELH

I didn't misunderstand; I got exactly what you meant when describing the LB-X, and I want none of it. Walking up the target means I've missed my shot already, and I don't see it as a worthwhile benefit. And I see no reason why Clans should get to have a single-shot weapon that is lighter and smaller and equipped with better range (LB-5X and LB-2X). That's a no-go and completely breaks the game. People think the KDK is bad now? They have no idea...

And yes, the LB-10X was an oops. Notice how it is the only LB-X AC that is lighter and smaller than its standard AC counterpart on the IS side. They realized quickly how that obsoletes the standard AC when equipped with slug, so they stopped that. Damage done, though. As a result, the Clan one has to be lighter, because maker forbid the IS have a piece of equipment that is straight-up equal to or better than its Clan counterpart.

[Bobzilla]

LT. HARDCASE, on 24 September 2016 - 06:40 AM, said:

There's always this claim they can jam on the first trigger pull, but thus far not a single video has been provided as evidence.

Russ himself asked for someone to give proof, so he could have it fixed, and he got nothing.

I have gone in Training Grounds with thousands of rounds, and couldn't replicate the issue. It just doesn't happen.

Tho testing in training grounds is a bad idea and probably a waste of time if the bug is caused by a hiccup in HSR.

[Jack Spade Ward]

Clan AC are non-existent. Thei're worthless. No sense whatsoever to use them if you can get UACs.

Now, if the clan ACs would fire a single shot like IS ACs, now that would be diferent! I even dare that most clan mechs using ballistics would use those.

[Mcgral18]

Jack Spade Ward, on 25 September 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

Clan AC are non-existent. Thei're worthless. No sense whatsoever to use them if you can get UACs.

Now, if the clan ACs would fire a single shot like IS ACs, now that would be diferent! I even dare that most clan mechs using ballistics would use those.

Which is why it shouldn't happen

Other balance methods are available.

[Jack Spade Ward]

Mcgral18, on 25 September 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

Which is why it shouldn't happen

Other balance methods are available.

So.... what are you saying? That IS has better tech then? And it should keep it and not be nerfed?

[Y E O N N E]

Jack Spade Ward, on 25 September 2016 - 09:43 AM, said:

So.... what are you saying? That IS has better tech then? And it should keep it and not be nerfed?

No, he's saying that the superiority of FLD is the only thing that keeps the IS AC in the running and if you give it to Clan ACs, then IS ACs become completely worthless.

[Jack Spade Ward]

Yeonne Greene, on 25 September 2016 - 09:45 AM, said:

No, he's saying that the superiority of FLD is the only thing that keeps the IS AC in the running and if you give it to Clan ACs, then IS ACs become completely worthless.

Or not! IS is on top since last december with that huge nerf on clan heatsinks.
If clan ACs would have the same single shot as IS, maybe that would level up the field! That would make the KDK-3 obsolete for example! And the superiority of IS wouldnt be so obvious!

[Sun-Tzu Liao]

RestosIII, on 23 September 2016 - 10:23 PM, said:

Clan Autocannons are burst fire weapons. For instance, an AC/20 fires 4 shells that do 5 damage each. Sadly, the non-ultra ACs for the Clans are just placeholders you should never, ever take.

The6thMessenger, on 23 September 2016 - 10:24 PM, said:

Really? Did you tried the C-UAC already?

The damage is divided among those shots. UAC20 shoots 4 rounds, each dealing 5 damage instead. It's like the trend where the lasers deal more damage and have more heat, but has longer duration. The C-UAC20 can burst 8 rounds.

Ive noticed this myself, which is wrong! These are not the true characteristics of either Clan AC/UAC. Might as well call it a RAC! With the Clan firing at a burst of 8 rounds at 5 points per damage, this sounds more like a HAG!

[Y E O N N E]

Jack Spade Ward, on 25 September 2016 - 09:52 AM, said:

Or not! IS is on top since last december with that huge nerf on clan heatsinks.
If clan ACs would have the same single shot as IS, maybe that would level up the field! That would make the KDK-3 obsolete for example! And the superiority of IS wouldnt be so obvious!

Your information is out of date, the IS is not on top. KDK, TBR, HBK-IIC, and ACH are currently the overall best 'Mechs in the game. IS 'Mechs like the GHR-5H, WHM-BW/WHM-6R, LCT-1E, GRF-3M, and HBK-4P have some niche uses, but overall it's the Clans running the field.

[Jack Spade Ward]

Yeonne Greene, on 25 September 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

Your information is out of date, the IS is not on top. KDK, TBR, HBK-IIC, and ACH are currently the overall best 'Mechs in the game. IS 'Mechs like the GHR-5H, WHM-BW/WHM-6R, LCT-1E, GRF-3M, and HBK-4P have some niche uses, but overall it's the Clans running the field.

Ive been long enough on the game to know all the nerfs they did so far. So, if i mentioned the last december patch that killed the clans, i do know what im talking about!
The mechs you named, i can name IS counterparts that excell those. Any doubts?

[Mcgral18]

Jack Spade Ward, on 25 September 2016 - 11:38 AM, said:

Ive been long enough on the game to know all the nerfs they did so far. So, if i mentioned the last december patch that killed the clans, i do know what im talking about!
The mechs you named, i can name IS counterparts that excell those. Any doubts?

Yes, prove it

[Y E O N N E]

Jack Spade Ward, on 25 September 2016 - 11:38 AM, said:

Ive been long enough on the game to know all the nerfs they did so far. So, if i mentioned the last december patch that killed the clans, i do know what im talking about!
The mechs you named, i can name IS counterparts that excell those. Any doubts?

Except by your own demonstration, you don't know what you are talking about.

So I'm with McGral: prove it.

[RAM]

Yeonne Greene, on 25 September 2016 - 06:44 AM, said:

I didn't misunderstand; I got exactly what you meant when describing the LB-X, and I want none of it. Walking up the target means I've missed my shot already, and I don't see it as a worthwhile benefit. And I see no reason why Clans should get to have a single-shot weapon that is lighter and smaller and equipped with better range (LB-5X and LB-2X). That's a no-go and completely breaks the game. People think the KDK is bad now? They have no idea…

Fortunately, neither what you do not see as an advantage nor whether you have a reason is relevant. Frankly thinking that cAC2s & cAC5s would “break the game” places you outside the realm of rational thought. If this were implemented and if Kodiaks switched to them, their DPS would be halved - tell us again how that would be bad?
(indeed that would be the type of trade-off the game so desperately needs)

Yeonne Greene, on 25 September 2016 - 06:44 AM, said:

And yes, the LB-10X was an oops. Notice how it is the only LB-X AC that is lighter and smaller than its standard AC counterpart on the IS side. They realized quickly how that obsoletes the standard AC when equipped with slug, so they stopped that. Damage done, though. As a result, the Clan one has to be lighter, because maker forbid the IS have a piece of equipment that is straight-up equal to or better than its Clan counterpart.

I am well versed in Battletech, but you are trying to find a problem pattern that is not there. When the developer says it was deliberate, it by definition is not an oops. An oops is when the developer says that was a mistake (to wit: no min range on cLRMs). The ‘lore explanation’ is that the Star League was just that much better at developing weapons…


RAM
ELH

[Nightops25]

You can't get cooldown or range modules for the CAC either, garbage.

[Tordin]

The Clan AC are indeed placeholders, but I do like the sound they make. Want swicthable ammo for weapons ASAP if balanced correctly of course...

[Y E O N N E]

RAM, on 28 September 2016 - 07:53 AM, said:

Fortunately, neither what you do not see as an advantage nor whether you have a reason is relevant.

It is entirely relevant, because what you claim to be an advantage is actually a technical liability within the context of the game mechanics regardless of your opinion on the subject.

Quote

Frankly thinking that cAC2s & cAC5s would “break the game” places you outside the realm of rational thought. If this were implemented and if Kodiaks switched to them, their DPS would be halved - tell us again how that would be bad?
(indeed that would be the type of trade-off the game so desperately needs)

Or it could mean I am using hyperbole to motion that I see a problem where you have failed to. As a bonus, that you have immediately jumped to calling me as you have demonstrates a lack of self-assessment on your part. Now which of us has "left the realm of rational thought?"

Halving the raw DPS is not a concern because FLD offers the same or superior effective DPS with less exposure time. This is why the PPC/Gauss Kodiak is the top pick, and was always the top pick even before they fixed the cUAC/10 glitch. With FLD ACs, the Kodiak would shift to bringing four AC/10 and be able to bing single components on targets at 600 meters all at once, without any noteworthy concern for heat. It becomes competitive with the PPC/Gauss combo, which runs hot, on smaller maps and it doesn't require as much coordination to support the face staring that a burst AC requires.

But the Kodiak is not the only concern. This 'Mech is already upsetting the game dynamic and the ACs would do little to change that outside of giving it yet another extremely potent option with no answer from across the tech bases, even indirectly. PPFLD 10- and 20- class ACs for 'Mechs like the EBJ, NTG, are too easy to boat and combine with already potent, light-weight energy weapons.

2 and 5, though? The 2 is already identical, but with better range and lower weight. I can bring two on a 45 ton 'Mech running at 106 kph with jump jets, comfortable ammo, and non-trivial complementary lasers. If AC/2 were independently good, this would be ridiculous. That we are relying on a weapon system just being miserable in any capacity to balance this on one side an massive quirks on the other should really tell you all you need to know.

The 5? Only potent on the KDK or DWF and underwhelming even then, but only because the 10 and Gauss exist. Compared to an Inner Sphere option, though, similar story as the 2.

Fundamentally, it always comes down to the Clans having the ability to comfortably bring more firepower for a given weight and speed, which translates directly to greater raw DPS within the typical engagement window. PPFLD exclusivity is one of the few mechanics that allows the IS to close the gap, and even that is woefully insufficient without the quirks. Clans neither need nor deserve access to that style of weapon at lower weights.

Quote

I am well versed in Battletech, but you are trying to find a problem pattern that is not there. When the developer says it was deliberate, it by definition is not an oops. An oops is when the developer says that was a mistake (to wit: no min range on cLRMs). The ‘lore explanation’ is that the Star League was just that much better at developing weapons…


RAM
ELH

Intention does not preclude something from being mistaken, and my evidence is that the lore explanation you cite cannot work.