#41
Posted 16 November 2016 - 02:49 AM
I love these forums !
#42
Posted 16 November 2016 - 06:01 AM
Pariah Devalis, on 15 November 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:
cAC need to be deleted. Clans did not use standard cAC. Standard IS AC already weigh less than IS UAC, and it would be fantastic if they got extra ammo per ton vs the UAC, for additive weight savings.
But they won't be deleted, and an extra ton of ammo for standard ACs does nothing to actually make them more competitive in actual combat, it only lets you bring another medium laser or whatever.
Seriously. I can do just as well with isAC and cAC in a QP match, but notice the near-complete lack of anybody using either in a competitive mode. Only the WHM-BW, which is no longer MRBC-legal, and the MAL-MX90 used them. One of them actually still used UACs to do most of the work, and the other relied on non-trivial ballistic quirks.
#43
Posted 16 November 2016 - 06:33 AM
LT. HARDCASE, on 15 November 2016 - 03:57 PM, said:
330 damage before overheat isn't enough?
330 damage over 20 seconds or so? Nah. My Dakka Whale used to fair better than that. Also, couple that with turning speed and turning rate, low mounts and terrible hitboxes and well.. you get the deal.
Edited by Digous, 16 November 2016 - 06:34 AM.
#44
Posted 16 November 2016 - 07:30 AM
Yeonne Greene, on 16 November 2016 - 06:01 AM, said:
But they won't be deleted, and an extra ton of ammo for standard ACs does nothing to actually make them more competitive in actual combat, it only lets you bring another medium laser or whatever.
Seriously. I can do just as well with isAC and cAC in a QP match, but notice the near-complete lack of anybody using either in a competitive mode. Only the WHM-BW, which is no longer MRBC-legal, and the MAL-MX90 used them. One of them actually still used UACs to do most of the work, and the other relied on non-trivial ballistic quirks.
The direct trade for tonnage translates in more secondary weapon systems to supplement your AC5. Hilariously meaning you can actually increase your alpha potential, though with less bursty AC. If the ammo gave 25% more ammo per ton, you could get a net gain of 2-3 tons per AC5 over a UAC5 with the same ammo count. That adds up, fast.
Edited by Pariah Devalis, 16 November 2016 - 07:31 AM.
#45
Posted 16 November 2016 - 09:31 AM
#46
Posted 16 November 2016 - 09:37 AM
Deathlike, on 15 November 2016 - 05:22 PM, said:
The difference is that you won't have to wait 4 years for a change... (it'll just be 1 or 2...)
Who said you needed 4 years?
Edited by Mystere, 16 November 2016 - 09:37 AM.
#47
Posted 16 November 2016 - 09:51 AM
#49
Posted 16 November 2016 - 10:22 AM
But in the right hands, it is still dangerous enough to topple giants.
#50
Posted 16 November 2016 - 11:16 AM
#51
Posted 16 November 2016 - 11:32 AM
2 uac 10
2 uac 5
Needs less Nerf Bat
wait...
wut...
who....
Feels like i just hit myself with The Nerf Nat
Edited by The Nerf Bat, 16 November 2016 - 11:36 AM.
#52
Posted 16 November 2016 - 01:16 PM
Pariah Devalis, on 16 November 2016 - 07:30 AM, said:
The direct trade for tonnage translates in more secondary weapon systems to supplement your AC5. Hilariously meaning you can actually increase your alpha potential, though with less bursty AC. If the ammo gave 25% more ammo per ton, you could get a net gain of 2-3 tons per AC5 over a UAC5 with the same ammo count. That adds up, fast.
It is a neat theory, but it doesn't really translate to application. Medium lasers don't complement an AC/5 very well with their limited range, so what am I complementing it with? Am I trading six mediums under the current scheme for two larges under yours? A single PPC and some mediums? Why would I not just spend the tons on UACs? Doesn't really seem worth it.
The reality is that what the extra tonnage will be spent on is engine and heatsinks, the two things most ballistic builds are starved for. The occasional 'Mech might now be able to squeeze in a PPC, but it isn't like AC/5 or 10 or literally any size of standard AC are tearing it up even on hyper-quirked' Mechs such as the QKD-IV4 or RFL-3N. They need something more, because the only things that really go well with them are still so big and Heavy that your theory doesn't work until we are talking about the most massive 'Mechs available.
With cACs, at least cERML are so good across such a large swath of brackets, that your theory would work there...except Clans have cUACs for everything (until the nerf...boohiss).
#55
Posted 17 November 2016 - 01:55 AM
#56
Posted 17 November 2016 - 02:07 AM
Digous, on 15 November 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
Heat is almost like laser (edited: Vomit Alpha), you cannot keep DPS, specially on hotter maps.
Great, now DW is officially dead and buried.
Phhhhhssssssst.... hey... yeah.. yeah you... guess what?
NOBODY CARES!
#Loads LRM's into his boat..
#57
Posted 17 November 2016 - 02:08 AM
Dakka is far from dead.
What people are crying about is they can no longer mindlessly mash buttons or macro it..
This is a Gif free post..
#60
Posted 17 November 2016 - 06:34 AM
Templar Dane, on 16 November 2016 - 10:02 AM, said:
So mechs with a single ballistic should face stare with a weapon that does 2 damage.
If you are taking only a single AC/2 you're doing it wrong.
Face staring only works for high DPS mechs, so it implies you have a lot of weapons that are short cycle time, not just one.
11 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 11 guests, 0 anonymous users