108 replies to this topic

[PhoenixFire55]

DrxAbstract, on 22 November 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

Chalk that up to whatever reasons you want, I'm just saying there's no comparison to be made - UACs are a superior weapon more often than not.

This is purely your opinion based on nothing. Superior to what? Small pulses? ... Yeah, sure, if you put ONE UAC5 on a KingCrab it is going to be superior to ONE SPL on the same KingCrab. But funny thing is, there are weapons that completely suck by themselves and yet suddenly become real good in big numbers ... LRMs, SRMs, UACs, SL/SPLs etc. Practically half of all the mechs in game can boat lasers. And only like 5-6 mechs in game can boat UACs to make them any viable. And yet its the UACs that got nerfed. A single UAC already sucked when you put it on your mech ... ask any Centurion or Hunchback or whatever, they'd tell you that you are way better off with 1-2 LPLs and some heat sinks instead.

DrxAbstract, on 22 November 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

Do you have any idea what the two primary reasons for Lights being undesirable are?

1. Limited Firepower.
2. Limited Survivability.

Nope. They just require brains to play, unlike heavies and assaults.

DrxAbstract, on 22 November 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

Sure, my BK only requires pinpointing 96 Damage into one location... Only. And yet there's still the option to, and possibility of, spreading damage safely to other portions of the chassis - Which is a common practice to increase survival time, I hear... Now, where are you going to spread that damage on an LCT? Let's ignore the very real possibility that taking a hit from said weapons wouldn't, in all likelihood, kill or cripple you regardless of where they hit. It might take 10 shots to kill a BK and it might take 10 shots to kill an LCT... The difference is the BK isn't going to implode from a single direct hit - That kind of matters... A lot.

I'm not going to spread the damage on a Locust, I'm going to avoid it alltogether. Unlike your BK I have the speed required to do so. A DireWolf vs Locust scenario that you called an anecdote is actually plain and simple truth. With limited turn ratios and speed Dire simply can't do anything, Locust has enough speed and accel/deceel quirks to stay out of Dire's frontal arc at all times if he chooses to. Dire can literally do nothing when it is caught alone in the open.

DrxAbstract, on 22 November 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

Admittedly, it can be easier to peg specific sections on a BK than hitting a LCT in general... But, BUT - The people capable of nailing those kinds of shots despite the twisting and spreading are the same ones that don't have much difficulty hitting a wily Locust.

It depends on a mech, but trust me, I practice often enough with some of the top players to know that isn't as simple as you may think. A 1v1 between a top tier pilot in a Kodiak and a top tier pilot in a Locust isn't anywhere near as one-sided as you might imagine.

DrxAbstract, on 22 November 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

Indulge me for a moment: Which Mech would you rather be in when facing those people? A Locust, or any other Mech?

Depending on the map and what mech they bring it just might be a Locust. I'll once again give you an "anecdote" scenario as you call it ... If I'm to fight against a brawler Atlas for example, I'd bring something like a LPL Locust any day.

DrxAbstract, on 22 November 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

Not sure what you don't understand about me saying "most Mechs" and then you intentionally pull from the pool of Mech Builds that obviously doesn't fall into that category... Really? ... But to answer your dubious question: In my opinion an 2xERPPC Shadowcat is a large threat to both the Locust and BK while the 3xERLL and 2xLPlas could go either way for the LCT.

Laughable tbh. SHC isn't considered a top performing mech by any standarts and yet "somehow" in several particular scenarios it becomes OP compared to any mech that can be considered a top performing mech. Something tells me that same thing goes for a Locust or nearly any other mech. But please, keep rambling about what you think "legitimate threat" is or isn't.

DrxAbstract, on 22 November 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

That's funny because math also states having an an 83-85% chance of something not happening means it is the majority, and most likely, outcome. Can it bite you in the backside? Sure... Odds are it will not--Odds are you're hitting the potential more often than not... With an 83% chance, odds are you're going to hit the potential pretty bloody often.

LOL ... you truly amaze us all with your understanding of jam mechanics and related stats. Yep, jam only happens "rarely", i.e. with ~20% chance. Problem is, when it happens it lasts far longer than related weapon cooldown for most UACs. That's why on the stats page I linked to you CUAC2 for example suffered a decrease in DPS with double tapping. I find it mildly amusing that you don't understand it and yet are still trying to bring some sort of "argumentation" over here. FFS.

Once again, there are facts and then there is your personal irrelevant opinion.

DrxAbstract, on 22 November 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

All of which can be performed by a Medium, and in some cases a Heavy: Cicada, Blackjack, Griffin, Shadowhawk, Viper, Shadowcat, Nova, Hunchback IIC, Huntsman, Linebacker, Summoner... So, what can Lights do that those Mechs cannot? Since that list covers: Speed, Mobility, Damage Output, Poking, Flanking and Vulturing with the added bonus of more survability; By all means--Give me the situations Lights are uniquely suited for... I'll wait.

LOL ... not even reading anymore huh? Mediums are like 3-4 times bigger than a Locust and twice slower than a Locust, they have none/minor accel/deccel quirks etc. But please, keep your delusions and tell yourself mediums can perform same role some more. Even most lights can't do it anymore, let alone mediums.

DrxAbstract, on 22 November 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

While pointing out this was the most favored option to make the Tournament "more interesting", not to make it conducive to min-maxing efficiency - I'll posit this question: Would those teams have picked Lights for the most efficient min-max dropdeck layout? I can't answer that because I'm not them... But I've a strong suspicion the answer would be "No." Likely because it wouldn't be as entertaining... Which just happens to be one of the main reasons people still play Lights: They're hilariously fun sometimes(preference over viability).

RHoD and MRBC used to have tonnage based dropdecks instead of classes based one back in the "poptart" era. And FYI for the heaviest possible dropdecks people still brought assaults and lights, not heavies or mediums. The most common dropdecks were something like 9 Highlanders with 3 Spiders or 8 Highlanders with 4 Ravens. I guess now you are gonna tell me that competitive teams are just like that ... they bring mechs into matches "for fun". Once again your suspicion/opinion is entirely wrong.

DrxAbstract, on 22 November 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

That is not what I said. Here's the entire statement, context and all:

How you get "All mechs must be the same" from that requires twisting my words - I said 'comparable', which means relatively equal in overall potential contribution via manipulation of, but not specifically limited to, the areas I listed. That means there can be any number of varied intricacies that collectively achieve the goal of relatively equal potential... Which they are not, hence the comparison of the 3 Mechs to show just how much more potential one generally unremarkable Mech has specifically due to the use of UACs... Kind of like the KDK-3 vs. Other KDK variants. The Dire was in the same position, but unlike the KDK it doesn't have the huge engine bonus to maneuverability, meaning you had more options and a larger margin of error and a wider array of Mechs/Builds could deal with them.

I've quoted the exact phrase with full context. Your quote is 4 times longer and yet 3/4 of it isn't even related because its useless rambling about how UACs are magically good on everything with nothing to do with what mechs can mount them in bunches. You said what you said, its not my problem you lack the backbone to stand by your words, and your words were exactly as follows ...

Quote

Now, in a balanced combat game Mech builds across all weight classes and chassis should have comparable statistics in terms of DPS, Effective Damage per Shot, Range and Survivability

... "comparable" or similar/nearly similar DPS + "comparable" effective damage per shot + "comparable" range + comparable survivability = all mechs doing the same = all mechs being the same for all intents and purposes.

DrxAbstract, on 22 November 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

Except they're not similar... They're not even close: Minimal heat, superior burst and sustained damage, superior range... And why are you comparing weapons with high tonnage requirements to those with low tonnage requirements? A Battlemaster would have been a better comparison to an LCT-1E than a UAC boat... But really, they're not similar.

Yeah, right ... not similar. 12 DPS isn't similar to 15 DPS at all. 250 damage you dish out without sending yourself to overheat in 20 seconds isn't similar to 300 damage you dish out without sending yourself to overheat in 20 seconds. Like ... not at all.

A Battlemaster overheats and becomes useless in 2 shots dishing out ~100-120 damage, but yeah, of course its a much better comparison. [/sarcasm]

DrxAbstract, on 22 November 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

I suppose that means you think the "LRMs are OP" and "Lights are OP" threads have merit too, then?

This isn't about how much merit these or other threads have. People create threads about certain mechs and loadouts because they constantly see these mechs and loadouts in game. For each UAC boat you see in game there are 3 LRM boats and 6 laservomit boats. But please, keep trying to tell us how its UACs that are overpowered compared to everything else. This truly is beyond hilarious. Whats even worse is that devs are just as clueless.

Prior to the release of the Kodiak there wasn't a single thread on the forum with whine about how UACs were overpowered. Same time there were dozens if not hundreds legitimate and otherwise threads about laservomit this and laservomit that, along your usual LRMs OP ones. And even after KDK came out, there are threads specifically claiming that Kodiak is OP, which has nothing to do with ACs/UACs in general.

DrxAbstract, on 22 November 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

I don't disagree the LCT-1E can be useful given the right circumstances, but you don't see swarms of Locusts; It's the shiniest peanut in the **** due to the re-scale and nerfs to historically superior Lights. The proliferation of Gauss-PPC, UAC+Laser, UAC and even SRM builds should be indication enough one has considerably less situational and universal viability than the others... Hell, how often have you even seen an LCT in the MWOWC, for that matter... ? I doubt it's because the Light pilots and their teams felt it was too stronk. Gimmick builds like SRM bombers have been utilized more often and I dont see you mentioning those, ironically.

*shrug*

Don't see "swarms" of Locusts? Sorry, but apart from the days in CB I've never seen "swarms" of any lights, ever. But nowadays the only viable lights I see in game are exactly Locusts. With a small addition of ACH's. Every other light in game you see nowadays is either utterly fails in its job or playes the game like a medium mech would. MWWC (as you yourself have properly noted) runs a different game build, where other lights are still capable of doing what Locust does and then some.

As for "proliferation" of Gauss-PPC and other whatnot ... once again, laughable. If you call one mech out of a dozen a "proliferation" ... well, nothing to talk about really. Funny tho that Gauss+PPC were just as proliferated if not more proliferated that UACs even before the patch, and yet its UACs getting the nerf. And laservomit spam that was about 5-6 times more proliferated before the patch isn't even considered ...

Clueless. Typical.

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 24 November 2016 - 01:07 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

So, why are you guys arguing King Crabs vs Locusts anyways?

Normally I'd put LCT a bit below ACH, JNR-IIc and Oxide because it's easier to kill. It's hard to hit, but you only need to hit it once. In a 1:1 the LCT may be the best in the right hands, but in a more realistic match setting the locust will at some point show it self and if 3 people fire at it, one will hit and disable/pop it.

Back on topic though, cUAC10's did have a disproportional high damage potential for 10 tons/4 slots. It wasn't game-breaking, but it sort of was OP in a way, especially at lower tiers where the PPFLD gameplay doesn't dominate, I'd assume. In any case, it was quite popular just below comp-level and in FW to use 2x cUAC10+lasers on both TBR and EBJ, as well as the 2x cUAC HBK-IIc. Again, not game-breaking, but if you compare these to the corresponding IS builds and to IS ACs in general I think you'll see the point of normalizing the double-tap gain for all UACs. cUAC10 and cUAC20 were affected most, but that was because they used to gain 45% and 60% dps respectively for double-tapping, for lower tonnage and fewer slots than the corresponding IS loadout.

Also, there were whine-threads about DAKKA DWFs before the KDK-3 and as I remember DWFs were the most used assaults in tournaments for area denial too. The DWFs had much larger drawbacks than the KDK-3's though so the KDK-3 took it to a new level. That doesn't necessarily mean that the dakka-nerf now had anything to do with the KDK-3 really. People just assume it. The KDKs got their own nerfs and personally I think the arc reduction is quite noticeable. It also makes the KDK handle more like an assault so I approve. It used to feel like piloting a Heavy with double weapons loadout...

I only see two problems with the UAC nerfs.

1. The jam duration was excessive for cUAC10's. A slightly higher jam chance and a slightly lower lockout time would have been preferrable.
2. It was made in isolation. Had they also increased the CD for PPC and Gauss by ~10% and buffed machineguns, SL, SPL and cERLL I think this would have been much better received.

[PhoenixFire55]

Duke Nedo, on 24 November 2016 - 01:38 AM, said:

So, why are you guys arguing King Crabs vs Locusts anyways?

Its just an example. Maybe I decided to pick the most ridiculous one, but thats the entire point. Once again, people are crying about UACs being OP. The only thing UACs are good at is putting out sustained DPS, so I compare sustained DPS from UACs (with ~50t invested into weaponry) and sustained DPS from something seemingly laughable like a Locust with 6SPLs (6t of weapons). The DPS per ton of weapons ratio is ~10 times in favor of the Locust, so the legit question is, why the heck are UACs getting fubared (again) when they barely manage to out-DPS a fkn Locust?

Its bloody ret@rded. Ballistics are supposed to dominate in a situation when its flat out DPS vs flat out DPS, same way high-alpha laservomit / Gauss+PPCs are supposed to domiate in poke-wars. But once again clueless nerfing overlord is shafting weaponry that isn't all that good in the first place.

Duke Nedo, on 24 November 2016 - 01:38 AM, said:

Normally I'd put LCT a bit below ACH, JNR-IIc and Oxide because it's easier to kill. It's hard to hit, but you only need to hit it once. In a 1:1 the LCT may be the best in the right hands, but in a more realistic match setting the locust will at some point show it self and if 3 people fire at it, one will hit and disable/pop it.

Jenners of all kinds aren't even considered lights anymore. They are mediums for all intents and purposes. ACH is a semi-light I guess, while Locust nowadays is the only true light mech thats left.

Duke Nedo, on 24 November 2016 - 01:38 AM, said:

Back on topic though, cUAC10's did have a disproportional high damage potential for 10 tons/4 slots. It wasn't game-breaking, but it sort of was OP in a way, especially at lower tiers where the PPFLD gameplay doesn't dominate, I'd assume. In any case, it was quite popular just below comp-level and in FW to use 2x cUAC10+lasers on both TBR and EBJ, as well as the 2x cUAC HBK-IIc. Again, not game-breaking, but if you compare these to the corresponding IS builds and to IS ACs in general I think you'll see the point of normalizing the double-tap gain for all UACs. cUAC10 and cUAC20 were affected most, but that was because they used to gain 45% and 60% dps respectively for double-tapping, for lower tonnage and fewer slots than the corresponding IS loadout.

Numbers in a vacuum are great, but with PGI it always seems that can only (barely at that) look at very select few numbers in a vacuum. There are a lot of things to consider, normalizing IS UAC5 to a clan UAC5 for example isn't as easy as it might seem, simply because these are two entirely different weapons. The pure damage potential is irrelevant when you consider clan ACs spread nearly like LRMs on a relatively fast moving target, especially so with double tap. Because they aren't FLD, clan UAC boats require constant facetime, which reduces the survivability of mechs using them quite a lot, which in turn compensates their "damage potential" already. Now when you remove damage potential, there is zero reason to use them over your average high-alpha laservomit meta.

The comparisons between Clan and IS mechs you brought up is legit. However, once again it has nothing to do with UACs. The lone fact that a Clan Hunchback is able to take a Clan XL and survive the loss of a torso allows it to bring an extra heavy weapon (i.e. two UAC10s vs one AC10 for IS) for the saved tonnage. This problem obviously comes from TT rules, but the difference is that in BT/TT Clan and IS were never meant to be balanced as is. The balance was achieved by greater numbers of much cheaper mechs on IS side.

PGI is clueless tho, so its not a surprise they are still trying (albeit not too hard) to do the bandaid balancing instead of fixing the actual problem.

Duke Nedo, on 24 November 2016 - 01:38 AM, said:

Also, there were whine-threads about DAKKA DWFs before the KDK-3 and as I remember DWFs were the most used assaults in tournaments for area denial too. The DWFs had much larger drawbacks than the KDK-3's though so the KDK-3 took it to a new level. That doesn't necessarily mean that the dakka-nerf now had anything to do with the KDK-3 really. People just assume it. The KDKs got their own nerfs and personally I think the arc reduction is quite noticeable. It also makes the KDK handle more like an assault so I approve. It used to feel like piloting a Heavy with double weapons loadout...

DireWolf OP was a trend after it came out I guess. It lasted for a month or two but then (some) people actually started thinking on how to use its weaknesses. Dire practically didn't change at all since then, save very minor quirks, yet I doubt anyone would call it OP these days.

Same should apply to a Kodiak. Kodiak (or rather KDK-3 alone) does have favorable hardpoints and favorable hardpoint locations, and it was obvious from the moment they announced KDKs that a clan battlemech with four high-mounted ballistic hardpoints would be quite powerful. And yet PGI in their ever so infinite idiocy even gave it positive quirks on release. Why? ... To me the answer is obvious, imagine how much c-bills players sinked into buying and mastering Kodiaks only to have the one OP robot? Now the supposed OP robot is slowly getting nerfed, somehow we've seen this same scenario so many times before ...

Another question is why the hell all Kodiaks got nerfed when all but "3" were rather sh!tty to begin with.

But lets get back on topic of UACs. I'm sure you are aware that DireWolf could mount same quad-UAC10 build as what most KDK-3 did (talking about pre-ghost-heat-nerf-fix UAC10s). I've seen quite a few of those, along with mixed UAC-5/10 builds, along with 5xUAC5 builds. Same builds as on KDK-3. Yet nobody ever said they were OP. Then Kodiak comes out and forum overflows with tears ... Somehow, something tells me that UACs aren't the problem.

Not even gonna go into the land of BlackWidow and Sleipnir as only representatives of their chassis which can mount 4 ballistics somehow magically also being cash-only hero mechs. I'm sure you can catch my drift.

Duke Nedo, on 24 November 2016 - 01:38 AM, said:

I only see two problems with the UAC nerfs.

1. The jam duration was excessive for cUAC10's. A slightly higher jam chance and a slightly lower lockout time would have been preferrable.
2. It was made in isolation. Had they also increased the CD for PPC and Gauss by ~10% and buffed machineguns, SL, SPL and cERLL I think this would have been much better received.

Once again, what are we comparing with what? Pure damage numbers in a vacuum? I play the game often enough and on a high enough level to know what works and what not and to see what builds people bring into the game. If dakka was so overpowered it needed to be nerfed then why did I see 5-6 laservomit mechs to each dakka mech. Yes, there are potatoes everywhere nowadays, even in T1, but I doubt that everyone is stupid and brings an inferior loadout just because.

UACs (just like most weapons are and should be) are situational. You rely on your UACs to be able to put out very high and what is more important reliable sustained DPS when you fully expose yourself with constant facetime to do your thing. Increasing the jam chance will only force people to use UACs same way they use vomit, Gauss and PPCs ... poke and alpha, because there is no more reliable high sustained DPS in them. Does anyone really thinks this somehow makes better and more diverse gameplay? Really?

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 24 November 2016 - 04:14 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 04:09 AM, said:

Jenners of all kinds aren't even considered lights anymore. They are mediums for all intents and purposes. ACH is a semi-light I guess, while Locust nowadays is the only true light mech thats left.

Heh, ok, Locusts totally dominates the 20-tonners fair enough.

Quote

Numbers in a vacuum are great, but with PGI it always seems that can only (barely at that) look at very select few numbers in a vacuum. There are a lot of things to consider, normalizing IS UAC5 to a clan UAC5 for example isn't as easy as it might seem, simply because these are two entirely different weapons. The pure damage potential is irrelevant when you consider clan ACs spread nearly like LRMs on a relatively fast moving target, especially so with double tap. Because they aren't FLD, clan UAC boats require constant facetime, which reduces the survivability of mechs using them quite a lot, which in turn compensates their "damage potential" already. Now when you remove damage potential, there is zero reason to use them over your average high-alpha laservomit meta.

Sure cUACs are weakened by the squirt-mechanics, but that is primarily to compensate for their low weight and few slots, just in the same way as all clan lasers got longer duration to weaken their base damage/weight/space values. That doesn't make them 100% facetime weapons (especially not 10's and 20's) though, only cUAC2's, AC2's and quirked AC5s are really face-tanking weapons. cUAC5's have a "duration" of 110 ms x2 = 0.22 secs. I.e. much shorter than any laser, though it's cold and not hitscan so it lies somewhere in between.

Neither the cUAC5 or the UAC5 were severely nerfed, and both are/were quite close in performance per ton imo. For cUAC10's though, the clan version was much better than the AC10 per ton. I still think it is, by a fair amount. For 20's I think IS has the edge in performance per ton over all, but the clan version has a niche use in that it allows you a damage potential of 40 for only 12 tons and one ballistic slot. It's difficult to apply that efficiently, but you can make some fun clan light troll builds for backstabbing or get a huge alpha on otherwise hardpoint starved mechs etc.

Quote

The comparisons between Clan and IS mechs you brought up is legit. However, once again it has nothing to do with UACs. The lone fact that a Clan Hunchback is able to take a Clan XL and survive the loss of a torso allows it to bring an extra heavy weapon (i.e. two UAC10s vs one AC10 for IS) for the saved tonnage. This problem obviously comes from TT rules, but the difference is that in BT/TT Clan and IS were never meant to be balanced as is. The balance was achieved by greater numbers of much cheaper mechs on IS side.

It has something to do with UACs because cUACs are much lighter than isUACs. Clan XL, endo/ff and 12t gauss are the other pink elephants in the room...

Quote

DireWolf OP was a trend after it came out I guess. It lasted for a month or two but then (some) people actually started thinking on how to use its weaknesses. Dire practically didn't change at all since then, save very minor quirks, yet I doubt anyone would call it OP these days.

If my memory is not failing it was the preferred assault in tournaments until the day the KDK-3 was released. In QP it was feast or famine mech, but as an area-denial turret with team support it was (is) a powerhouse.

Quote

But lets get back on topic of UACs. I'm sure you are aware that DireWolf could mount same quad-UAC10 build as what most KDK-3 did (talking about pre-ghost-heat-nerf-fix UAC10s). I've seen quite a few of those, along with mixed UAC-5/10 builds, along with 5xUAC5 builds. Same builds as on KDK-3. Yet nobody ever said they were OP. Then Kodiak comes out and forum overflows with tears ... Somehow, something tells me that UACs aren't the problem.

I think the main reason was that the DWF had enough B hardpoints to boat moar cUAC5's + E support so it didn't "need" to boat cUAC10s. I also have a feeling that cUAC10's were overlooked for some time, but became popular the last year or so. Probably also as a result of the buffs clan UACs got when squirt time was reduced to 110 ms and the number of pellets were decreased. IMO the cUAC10's have been one of the top-performing weapons lately, but Paul forgot about some other top and bottom performers... like gauss, ppc, cerll, machineguns, sl, spl, lbx etc... PGI should finish the job and bring all weapons closer to each other in performance.

Quote

Once again, what are we comparing with what? Pure damage numbers in a vacuum? I play the game often enough and on a high enough level to know what works and what not and to see what builds people bring into the game. If dakka was so overpowered it needed to be nerfed then why did I see 5-6 laservomit mechs to each dakka mech. Yes, there are potatoes everywhere nowadays, even in T1, but I doubt that everyone is stupid and brings an inferior loadout just because.

UACs (just like most weapons are and should be) are situational. You rely on your UACs to be able to put out very high and what is more important reliable sustained DPS when you fully expose yourself with constant facetime to do your thing. Increasing the jam chance will only force people to use UACs same way they use vomit, Gauss and PPCs ... poke and alpha, because there is no more reliable high sustained DPS in them. Does anyone really thinks this somehow makes better and more diverse gameplay? Really?

IMO cUAC's and UAC5's are still good, and in a good place now. AC2, AC5, AC10 and LBXs need more help. Laservomit is also in a pretty good spot if you forget about cERLL, SL and SPL. That people use a lot of lasers is not strange, they are the light but hot burst damage alternative that fits on every mech size. Ballistics are the heavier but cooler alternative for a more sustained dps. You can't really compare them directly number for number, but performance-wise I think they are in a good spot.

I've preached this before, I think this is two steps forward, one step backwards. Finish the job and address the rest of the outliers and we will have more variety.

[PhoenixFire55]

Duke Nedo, on 24 November 2016 - 04:54 AM, said:

Heh, ok, Locusts totally dominates the 20-tonners fair enough.

Locusts totally dominate everything in between 20-35t that doesn't boat a bunch of Streaks.

Duke Nedo, on 24 November 2016 - 04:54 AM, said:

Sure cUACs are weakened by the squirt-mechanics, but that is primarily to compensate for their low weight and few slots, just in the same way as all clan lasers got longer duration to weaken their base damage/weight/space values. That doesn't make them 100% facetime weapons (especially not 10's and 20's) though, only cUAC2's, AC2's and quirked AC5s are really face-tanking weapons. cUAC5's have a "duration" of 110 ms x2 = 0.22 secs. I.e. much shorter than any laser, though it's cold and not hitscan so it lies somewhere in between.

Ahem ... low weight and few slots? Compared to what exactly? LPLs that are a more reliable, efficient and "safe" option? Because last I checked a UAC weighted twice more, took 2-3 times more crit slots (4-5 times more if you consider ammo) and got blown up almost every time you had a component with it open. And if I had an option to put four IS AC10s on a Kodiak I'd do that in a heartbeat.

Duke Nedo, on 24 November 2016 - 04:54 AM, said:

Neither the cUAC5 or the UAC5 were severely nerfed, and both are/were quite close in performance per ton imo. For cUAC10's though, the clan version was much better than the AC10 per ton. I still think it is, by a fair amount. For 20's I think IS has the edge in performance per ton over all, but the clan version has a niche use in that it allows you a damage potential of 40 for only 12 tons and one ballistic slot. It's difficult to apply that efficiently, but you can make some fun clan light troll builds for backstabbing or get a huge alpha on otherwise hardpoint starved mechs etc.

Increased jam duration is a severe nerf. As I've said, reliability is the major thing.
Damage potential as have been already said countless times here is just fancy words. There is no such thing as constant 40 damage from two UAC10s, there is 26 average damage from them while double tapping.
And AC20s of all kinds are just garbage. Because GhostHeat^TM.

Duke Nedo, on 24 November 2016 - 04:54 AM, said:

It has something to do with UACs because cUACs are much lighter than isUACs. Clan XL, endo/ff and 12t gauss are the other pink elephants in the room...

No it hasn't. As I've said I'd rather put IS ACs on my clan mechs if I could.
PPFLD > p!ss-spray.

Duke Nedo, on 24 November 2016 - 04:54 AM, said:

If my memory is not failing it was the preferred assault in tournaments until the day the KDK-3 was released. In QP it was feast or famine mech, but as an area-denial turret with team support it was (is) a powerhouse.

It was but what were other options? ... Victors and Highlanders got shafted hard in every possible way. Warhawks that were same size with less armor? Awesomes? ... lol
Atlases were used instead in brawl oriented decks, but thats about it.

Mauler became the mech to go when it came out and then became useless after the removal of most quirks. Same happens with Kodiaks now. Just yesterday we were seriously considering Highlanders-IIC over Kodiaks. The ever-shifting money-sinking quirk-dependant meta.

Duke Nedo, on 24 November 2016 - 04:54 AM, said:

I think the main reason was that the DWF had enough B hardpoints to boat moar cUAC5's + E support so it didn't "need" to boat cUAC10s. I also have a feeling that cUAC10's were overlooked for some time, but became popular the last year or so. Probably also as a result of the buffs clan UACs got when squirt time was reduced to 110 ms and the number of pellets were decreased. IMO the cUAC10's have been one of the top-performing weapons lately, but Paul forgot about some other top and bottom performers... like gauss, ppc, cerll, machineguns, sl, spl, lbx etc... PGI should finish the job and bring all weapons closer to each other in performance.

Sorry but wrong. The main reason was and is because DWF can't peek, i.e. it needs DPS over high alpha. UAC10s provide higher alpha but lower sustained DPS due to running much hotter (even prior to UAC10 ghostheat history). KDK obviously peeks quite well and thus originally used a higher alpha ballistics build. You can imagine what it'd had if we didn't have UAC20 ghost heat.

The relative increase of popularity of UAC10 and ballistics in general is solely due to the mechs that came out. I've already mentioned mechs like BlackWidow, Sleipnir etc. Clans actaully got mechs that can mount several ballistics and not be left with joke-for-weapons backups, i.e. Kodiak, IIC mechs.

Duke Nedo, on 24 November 2016 - 04:54 AM, said:

IMO cUAC's and UAC5's are still good, and in a good place now. AC2, AC5, AC10 and LBXs need more help. Laservomit is also in a pretty good spot if you forget about cERLL, SL and SPL. That people use a lot of lasers is not strange, they are the light but hot burst damage alternative that fits on every mech size. Ballistics are the heavier but cooler alternative for a more sustained dps. You can't really compare them directly number for number, but performance-wise I think they are in a good spot.

Ok, let me ask you a simple question, assume you have a clan mech that has 1 ballistic and 3 energy hardpoints with 18t of free tonnage for weapons. What loadout would you use on it?

Duke Nedo, on 24 November 2016 - 04:54 AM, said:

I've preached this before, I think this is two steps forward, one step backwards. Finish the job and address the rest of the outliers and we will have more variety.

If only it'd be like this we wouldn't be where we are now. Alas with PGI its one step foward, two steps backwards.

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 24 November 2016 - 05:26 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

Ok, I don't have time for this so I'll make it short and stop it here.

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 05:24 AM, said:

Locusts totally dominate everything in between 20-35t that doesn't boat a bunch of Streaks.

Peeeerhaps in a 1-1 duel, but I'd prefer to be in a SRM JNR-IIc myself. In a match I'd rather have JNR-IIc, Oxide or ACH on my team. In any case, I don't really care, they are all good lights so what's the point arguing.

Quote

Ahem ... low weight and few slots? Compared to what exactly? LPLs that are a more reliable, efficient and "safe" option? Because last I checked a UAC weighted twice more, took 2-3 times more crit slots (4-5 times more if you consider ammo) and got blown up almost every time you had a component with it open. And if I had an option to put four IS AC10s on a Kodiak I'd do that in a heartbeat.

Compared to IS ACs ofcourse. And ammo explosion chance is like 10%. Lasers are in a different category all together, limited by heat more than anything else. No point comparing ACs to lasers. The reason clan UACs got squirt mechanics and is ACs did not is because cUACs are lighter and smaller than is(U)ACs. The reason clan lasers have longer burn time than IS lasers is because clan lasers are lighter and smaller. Same ****.

Quote

Increased jam duration is a severe nerf. As I've said, reliability is the major thing.
Damage potential as have been already said countless times here is just fancy words. There is no such thing as constant 40 damage from two UAC10s, there is 26 average damage from them while double tapping.
And AC20s of all kinds are just garbage. Because GhostHeat^TM.

1-1.5 sec extra duration. Not that severe. GH is bad agreed, but it's the same for IS and clans so no factor when comparing. Damage potential still is a thing, you will double your alpha 83% of the time so you can take calculated risks. The mechanic is not very good for balancing though, no RNG would be better for everyone I think. Since we have jam mechanics though we have to consider both peak- and average performance.

Quote

No it hasn't. As I've said I'd rather put IS ACs on my clan mechs if I could.
PPFLD > p!ss-spray.

Of course weight matters. Would you rather put a single AC5 on your mech instead of a single cUAC10 (because you can't fit an AC10)? Be my guest.

Quote

It was but what were other options? ... Victors and Highlanders got shafted hard in every possible way. Warhawks that were same size with less armor? Awesomes? ... lol
Atlases were used instead in brawl oriented decks, but thats about it.

Mauler became the mech to go when it came out and then became useless after the removal of most quirks. Same happens with Kodiaks now. Just yesterday we were seriously considering Highlanders-IIC over Kodiaks. The ever-shifting money-sinking quirk-dependant meta.

That was in response to your statement that DWFs were only used for a month. HGNs, really? Why? Ran out of Gauss/PPC for your KDK3's?

Quote

Sorry but wrong. The main reason was and is because DWF can't peek, i.e. it needs DPS over high alpha. UAC10s provide higher alpha but lower sustained DPS due to running much hotter (even prior to UAC10 ghostheat history). KDK obviously peeks quite well and thus originally used a higher alpha ballistics build. You can imagine what it'd had if we didn't have UAC20 ghost heat.

The relative increase of popularity of UAC10 and ballistics in general is solely due to the mechs that came out. I've already mentioned mechs like BlackWidow, Sleipnir etc. Clans actaully got mechs that can mount several ballistics and not be left with joke-for-weapons backups, i.e. Kodiak, IIC mechs.

That's what I said, wasn't it? If you can mount 6 cUAC5s you don't "need" to mount 4x cUAC10s. The KDK-3 only has 4B so 2-4x cUAC10 made more sense there, and 2x Gauss+2x ERPPC makes even more sense since it can peek. The buff to cUACs in June 2015 (?) did make them more popular already before KDKs and NGRs, on existing chassi like EBJ and TBR.

Quote

Ok, let me ask you a simple question, assume you have a clan mech that has 1 ballistic and 3 energy hardpoints with 18t of free tonnage for weapons. What loadout would you use on it?

Sure as hell not an LBX, or what was the point? If you're thinking SHC then I don't use ballistics on them at all, too little pod space to make sense. My point is that UACs are in a pretty good spot now compared to most lasers, ACs and SRMs. Gauss/PPC are a bit too strong imo, and machineguns, SL, SPL, LBX and cERLL are too weak. So I'd just like to let go of the UACs for now and focus on the best and worst weapons instead.

[s0da72]

In some far way universe in never never land, lies the mechwarrior online universe. They have an impressive arsenal of weapons like lasors, gauss riffles, and PPC's that we here on earth can only imagine. Yet with all their advanced knowledge they seem to have forgotten what we here on plant earth can do. Machine guns that can fire effectively over 120m and rotary autocannons that can actually fire without jamming. Maybe someday these two worlds will meet.

While we are at it, we could probably also tell them their UAV would be more effective if it had the ability to deploy its own missiles, you know like we do with drones. Maybe they would consider that to primitive and cowardly I guess.

Edited by s0da72, 24 November 2016 - 07:52 AM.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

My main takeaway from all this is that the WVR-7D apparently needed a good nerfbatting to keep it from getting uppity. Also, apparently, screw the ENF-5P. Again. After just getting nerfed with the jam chance tweaks. Stop trying to kill my badmechs! You're only hurting my teammates when I drive 'em anyway.

Targeted, incremental balance passes bring down overperformers without catching bads in the splash. Maybe next time try that before the global nerfbombing?

[DrxAbstract]

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

This is purely your opinion based on nothing.

Ah, right, because it's not like the UAC variants of the KGC, Kodiak, Dire Wolf and Mauler didn't lead the last Assault LB Event we had by a large margin, or in the case of the KDK, by a huge margin. One couldn't logically conclude that if it weren't for the detractors of the of chassis themselves limiting their performance (Which is the exact reason why the KDK UAC build is considerably more powerful by comparison) that they would have lead by a much, much greater margin... Right? Pure speculation of course, amirite?

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

Nope. They just require brains to play, unlike heavies and assaults.

And the typical dismissal... So, for example, the resize didn't adversely affect Lights, then? It was simply people suddenly losing their brains? Must have been.

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

I'm not going to spread the damage on a Locust, I'm going to avoid it alltogether. Unlike your BK I have the speed required to do so. A DireWolf vs Locust scenario that you called an anecdote is actually plain and simple truth. With limited turn ratios and speed Dire simply can't do anything, Locust has enough speed and accel/deceel quirks to stay out of Dire's frontal arc at all times if he chooses to. Dire can literally do nothing when it is caught alone in the open.

Yep, avoid it all together... So when you get back to reality and start facing not-complete-buffoons-in-Dires where people can actually aim, anticipate and stick together, are you still going to keep running with that reasoning? It's not like said Dire can't get completely shut down by the same 'inferior' ERPPC Shadowcat you brought up before in the exact same circumstances. *lol*

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

It depends on a mech, but trust me, I practice often enough with some of the top players to know that isn't as simple as you may think. A 1v1 between a top tier pilot in a Kodiak and a top tier pilot in a Locust isn't anywhere near as one-sided as you might imagine.

No, I don't trust you. You're the guy saying a Locust is an unstoppable force when played correctly, which means if it isn't then it's because there's a scrub piloting it... I'm not even going to bother addressing the warped absurdity of that kind of thought process.

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

Depending on the map and what mech they bring it just might be a Locust. I'll once again give you an "anecdote" scenario as you call it ... If I'm to fight against a brawler Atlas for example, I'd bring something like a LPL Locust any day.

That's not an anecdote, chief... Nor is that what I would have called it. An ERLL Cheetah could theoretically kill a Brawler Atlas in the same scenario, just like an ERPPC/LPL Shadowcat or Summoner would have... Wouldn't be that difficult and definitely wouldn't be something unique to a Locust.

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

Laughable tbh. SHC isn't considered a top performing mech by any standarts and yet "somehow" in several particular scenarios it becomes OP compared to any mech that can be considered a top performing mech. Something tells me that same thing goes for a Locust or nearly any other mech. But please, keep rambling about what you think "legitimate threat" is or isn't.

Aaaand there goes the point - Whooooosh!

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

LOL ... you truly amaze us all with your understanding of jam mechanics and related stats. Yep, jam only happens "rarely", i.e. with ~20% chance. Problem is, when it happens it lasts far longer than related weapon cooldown for most UACs. That's why on the stats page I linked to you CUAC2 for example suffered a decrease in DPS with double tapping. I find it mildly amusing that you don't understand it and yet are still trying to bring some sort of "argumentation" over here. FFS.

So where in the "maths" does the jam duration prohibit or restrict the chance for achieving maximum potential damage output? Oh, right, that would be the Jam Chance. Jam Duration has nothing to do with UACs chances of hitting their potential. It's only function is to counter-balance the UACs overall output and does not, in any way, prevent them from hitting their potential.

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

LOL ... not even reading anymore huh? Mediums are like 3-4 times bigger than a Locust and twice slower than a Locust, they have none/minor accel/deccel quirks etc. But please, keep your delusions and tell yourself mediums can perform same role some more. Even most lights can't do it anymore, let alone mediums.

That mediums/heavies have been encroaching on assumed Light-only functionalities isn't a recent development. It is a widely observed, documented and supported assertion on these forums, even by your coveted 'top-tier' players. That you are clearly blind to this is simply alarming. Ranged speed-pokes dominated by Lights? Nope. Hit and runs dominated by Lights? Nope. Your assumption that the LCT is 'top poker' is based solely on the presumption it's speed and size make it so... The reality is that these factors are minimal in actual application and substituted by the Armor, JJs and other weapon types of larger, proven-in-practice, Mechs.

Again, shiniest peanut in the ****.

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

RHoD and MRBC used to have tonnage based dropdecks instead of classes based one back in the "poptart" era. And FYI for the heaviest possible dropdecks people still brought assaults and lights, not heavies or mediums. The most common dropdecks were something like 9 Highlanders with 3 Spiders or 8 Highlanders with 4 Ravens. I guess now you are gonna tell me that competitive teams are just like that ... they bring mechs into matches "for fun". Once again your suspicion/opinion is entirely wrong.

You just countered your own argument and didn't even realize it... Amazing.

Did you stop and consider the fact those Lights were brought was to exploit their ECM and free up tonnage in said dropdecks for the viable Mechs? Oh, and Cataphracts/Victors were popular too (One of which is a Heavy). And As I've already stated, that you clearly ignored, the consensus for how the MWOWC drop limits were established is written clear as day in that respective thread--If you think it had anything to do with min-max efficiency and not PR-oriented exhibitionism there's not much to else to be said. The Lights taken in some of those matches are gimmick builds with extremely niche uses because the reality is Lights are not that good and do not serve a purpose other Mechs cannot. Do you truly believe they would be represented in statistically even proportions if it wasn't literally in the rules they had to be?

Oi.

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

I've quoted the exact phrase with full context. Your quote is 4 times longer and yet 3/4 of it isn't even related because its useless rambling about how UACs are magically good on everything with nothing to do with what mechs can mount them in bunches. You said what you said, its not my problem you lack the backbone to stand by your words, and your words were exactly as follows ...

... "comparable" or similar/nearly similar DPS + "comparable" effective damage per shot + "comparable" range + comparable survivability = all mechs doing the same = all mechs being the same for all intents and purposes.

No, you did't quote full context--you cherry-picked and twisted the wording to suit your purposes. Providing an incomplete list of contributory factors as an example of areas of improvement does not make Mech improvement mutually exclusive to that list nor denote all Mechs must have the same stats in all possible fields... I'm sorry you still don't understand that.

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

Yeah, right ... not similar. 12 DPS isn't similar to 15 DPS at all. 250 damage you dish out without sending yourself to overheat in 20 seconds isn't similar to 300 damage you dish out without sending yourself to overheat in 20 seconds. Like ... not at all.

A Battlemaster overheats and becomes useless in 2 shots dishing out ~100-120 damage, but yeah, of course its a much better comparison.

Can you, just once, use the actual numerical comparisons in a proper, factually accurate and representative manner, please?

Good god.

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

This isn't about how much merit these or other threads have. People create threads about certain mechs and loadouts because they constantly see these mechs and loadouts in game. For each UAC boat you see in game there are 3 LRM boats and 6 laservomit boats. But please, keep trying to tell us how its UACs that are overpowered compared to everything else. This truly is beyond hilarious. Whats even worse is that devs are just as clueless.


Prior to the release of the Kodiak there wasn't a single thread on the forum with whine about how UACs were overpowered. Same time there were dozens if not hundreds legitimate and otherwise threads about laservomit this and laservomit that, along your usual LRMs OP ones. And even after KDK came out, there are threads specifically claiming that Kodiak is OP, which has nothing to do with ACs/UACs in general.

And you never stopped to think why people said the KDK was OP? I've already more or less answered this one in an earlier response in this post, but I'll reiterate once more: Did it ever occur to you that people didn't complain about UACs (Which they did, in fact, do: Mauler-MX-90, Dire Wolf-B, KGC-000) because the Mechs that could carry them up to that point had inherent weaknesses that compounded in such a manner as to downplay the potential effectiveness of the weapons they were carrying? Once the KDK appeared it became pretty clear what a geometrically and statistically superior Mech chassis could do with UACs. You don't find it at all odd that the PPC/Gauss, laservomit and LBX/SRM splat versions of the chassis weren't achieving anywhere near the same success? Not in the slightest? Curious...

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

Don't see "swarms" of Locusts? Sorry, but apart from the days in CB I've never seen "swarms" of any lights, ever. But nowadays the only viable lights I see in game are exactly Locusts. With a small addition of ACH's. Every other light in game you see nowadays is either utterly fails in its job or playes the game like a medium mech would. MWWC (as you yourself have properly noted) runs a different game build, where other lights are still capable of doing what Locust does and then some.

Firestarters, Ravens, Jenners, ACHs, Spiders... Plenty of swarms of each one respective to the time periods they saw their most use due to effectiveness for various reasons. Even now, as Locusts are apparently considered one of the 'superior' Lights, you still don't see them in the numbers you would historically see superior Lights in.

PhoenixFire55, on 24 November 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

As for "proliferation" of Gauss-PPC and other whatnot ... once again, laughable. If you call one mech out of a dozen a "proliferation" ... well, nothing to talk about really. Funny tho that Gauss+PPC were just as proliferated if not more proliferated that UACs even before the patch, and yet its UACs getting the nerf. And laservomit spam that was about 5-6 times more proliferated before the patch isn't even considered ...

Clueless. Typical.

So... basically just a tirade that ignores actual representation and respective feasibility... Gotcha.

Agree to disagree? You're just going to continue namecalling, being generally foul and ignoring actualities so there's not much point in continuing on with you.