29 replies to this topic

[MauttyKoray]

Something that struck me as odd...I know people don't like straying from TT, or other stupid reasons, but I'd rather have Battletech flavor with videogame balance.

CUACs are considered better than CACs, yet the CACs take more slots than CUACs... (though CAUCs gen more heat). However, why not just switch the CUACs and CACs crit slot stat? It would provide a larger benefit to the proclaimed 'useless' CACs, saving both crit slots and heat gen (taking the same tonnage), and possibly making it one more step harder for CUAC boats to be as abusive with the higher crit usage.

It also seems to make more sense that the mechanism allowing CUACs to refire would take more space than the CACs static fire rate, right?

---------------------

Edit: Alternatively, just leave CAC/LBX alone and increase CUAC to equal or take 1 more crit slots than the aforementioned?

MauttyKoray, on 25 March 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

I always try to provide multiple points of view such as my OP.

My original opinion on the matter (and now with IS UACs coming out), is honestly still kept with making CACs single tap and IS UACs multitap, differentiating the weapon types instead of flavoring the weapons first by faction.

ACs Now

Spoiler

Damage/Heat/Cooldown/Range/Slots/Tons

AC2 - 2 / 0.60 / 0.72 / 720 / 1 / 6.0
CAC2 - 2 / 0.60 / 0.72 / 900 / 3 / 5.0

AC5 - 5 / 1.50 / 1.66 / 620 / 4 / 8.0
CAC5 - 5 / 1.50 / 1.66 / 720 / 4 / 7.0 (2x2.5dmg salvo)

AC10 - 10 / 3.00 / 2.50 / 450 / 7 / 12.0
CAC10 - 10 / 2.00 / 2.50 / 540 / 5 / 10.0 (3x3.33dmg salvo)

AC20 - 20 / 6.00 / 4.00 / 270 / 10 / 14.0
CAC20 - 20 / 6.00 / 4.00 / 360 / 9 / 12.0 (4x5dmg salvo)

ACs Proposed Rebalance

Spoiler

Damage/Heat/Cooldown/Range/Slots/Tons

AC2 - 2 / 0.60 / 0.72 / 720 / 1 / 6.0
CAC2 - 2 / 0.60 / 0.72 / 900 / 3 / 5.0 (the one CAC that currently has a good balance between IS AC and CUAC)

AC5 - 5 / 1.50 / 1.66 / 620 / 4 / 8.0
CAC5 - 5 / 1.50 / 1.66 / 720 / 4 / 7.0 (single slug, seems fine otherwise to me, suggestions?)

AC10 - 10 / 3.00 / 2.50 / 450 / 7 / 12.0
CAC10 - 10 / 2.25 / 2.50 / 520 / 6 / 10.0 (single slug, range reduced by 20m, increased 1 crit slot, ?increase heat by 0.25?)

AC20 - 20 / 6.00 / 4.00 / 270 / 10 / 14.0
CAC20 - 20 / 5.50 / 4.00 / 330 / 9 / 12.0 (single slug, range reduced by 30m, ?reduce heat by 0.50?)

Edited by MauttyKoray, 25 March 2017 - 10:45 PM.

[Khobai]

CACs should fire single slugs like ISACs

then there would actually be a reason to use them over CUACs

to balance them against ISACs you could give them higher heat and longer cooldown.

Effectively, CACs would do less dps and generate more heat than ISACs but weigh less and have better range.

Edited by Khobai, 25 March 2017 - 12:16 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

yep, solid slugs. The reason why they broke the rounds up for the UAC's was the firing potential and it would be too cheap to fire double AC/20 slugs into a single spot(potentially). That can't possibly apply to the single AC's so whats the deal?

[Khobai]

well originally the deal was that CACs would be able to switch between burst fire mode and LBX mode.

but they ran into problems with the coding so the CAC and LBX stayed as two seperate weapons instead of being combined into one weapon with two fire modes

if PGI has no intention of combining CAC and CLBX into a single weapon then they need to change the CAC to single slug to differentiate it from the CUAC. but give them longer cooldown and higher heat compared to ISACs to balance it out.

Edited by Khobai, 25 March 2017 - 12:26 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Mmm, it is a bit weird, plus IS will get access to ultra variations so will they get a solid slug bonus there over clan too?

I don't mind the idea of splitting up the shots as they have done into short streams like that, but it should be pretty standardised, either in having variants for both IS and clan (possibly just make the solid slug version hotter and bigger specifically to counter certain build potentials), or by having IS ACs function in the same way.

[Khobai]

Quote

Mmm, it is a bit weird, plus IS will get access to ultra variations so will they get a solid slug bonus there over clan too?

the general consensus seems to be that IS UACs will be burst fire but fire 1 less burst than CUACs. which seems fair since they weight more.

but clans should get rotary ACs. its total BS that theyre not getting them.

[Shifty McSwift]

Khobai, on 25 March 2017 - 12:23 AM, said:

well originally the deal was that CACs would be able to switch between burst fire mode and LBX mode.

but they ran into problems with the coding so the CAC and LBX stayed as two seperate weapons instead of being combined into one weapon with two fire modes

Oh yeah, :\ damn. Depressing.

But I wouldn't mind if ACs stayed in their firing sections of 5 damage bullet streams and to have seperate "solid slug" AC weapons in 10 and 20 sizes specifically, that were bigger/hotter/less range or whatnot.

[El Bandito]

As I said before:

El Bandito, on 24 March 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

Most importantly--and this is what many people keep forgetting: Clan Autocannons are not supposed to be in game and should be removed, since it was only designed as select LBX ammo type, in the first place.

PGI simply need to get rid of the abomination that is CAC, so that there will be less bitching about it.

The CAC weapon group needs to be gone from this game.

[Shifty McSwift]

El Bandito, on 25 March 2017 - 12:43 AM, said:

As I said before:
The CAC weapon group needs to be gone from this game.

So just CUAC and CLBX? That could work too, I assume the ultras would still fire in 5 damage bullet streams with this in mind?

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 25 March 2017 - 12:55 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

The CAC weapon group needs to be gone from this game.

how is that more beneficial than making the CAC a viable alternative to CUACs?

CAC should fire single slugs like ISAC but with higher heat and longer cooldown

clans are getting screwed on new tech this summer so at the very least all the weapons they have now should be viable

[StealthdragonB]

Ummm the UAC fires single slugs which do 2 damage each, it isn't a burst fire auto cannon like the larger variants, unless your arguing that the UAC should have it's single slug broken into 2 bullets that deal 1 damage each. The LBX on the other hand fires 2 pellets that deal one damage each.

[El Bandito]

Shifty McSwift, on 25 March 2017 - 12:55 AM, said:

So just CUAC and CLBX? That could work too, I assume the ultras would still fire in 5 damage bullet streams with this in mind?

Yes, only Ultra and LBX should exist for the Clans. As for their balancing, there are many ways it can be done.

Khobai, on 25 March 2017 - 01:15 AM, said:

how is that more beneficial than making the CAC a viable alternative to CUACs?

CAC should fire single slugs like ISAC but with higher heat and longer cooldown

clans are getting screwed on new tech this summer so at the very least all the weapons they have now should be viable

Because it is stupid to have non-canon weapons in this game. As stupid as allowing the Clans to have Light Gauss, LFE, and Light Ferro. Clans already have the best techs--they have no need to branch out like the IS does. IS only branches out because their current tech is inferior than that of Clans. And even post July IS will likely still be shafted as the weaker side--especially since the MCII is coming out.

You should instead focus your attention on bringing HAG into MWO, cause that weapon is at least canon.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 March 2017 - 02:50 AM.

[Toothless]

Without any exaggeration here, they literally had to make up Clan Autocannons due to their own incompetence and inability to find their own 'lostech' to code LBX weapons properly. That was their explanation.

Let that sink in for a bit.

[Shifty McSwift]

ZacharyJ, on 25 March 2017 - 02:52 AM, said:

Without any exaggeration here, they literally had to make up Clan Autocannons due to their own incompetence and inability to find their own 'lostech' to code LBX weapons properly. That was their explanation.

Let that sink in for a bit.

They are also humans working on what is likely a very fragmented system in many different ways (and likely on other projects too) to attempt to bring us a game both fun enough to play and put money into and with enough depth to keep people motivated while trying to keep purist types from pulling their hair out, while of course make money in the process.

I mean constructive criticism is all well and good, but you act like it should be as easy as pie for all things to be "as they should" in all cases, and that the devs suck for not doing it exactly how you personally envisioned within your expected timeframe.

And to act as though you are entitled to x or y because of money that you personally chose to invest in a project mostly incomplete, or prone to continued future changes at the whim of the developers, is pretty lame.

[Shifty McSwift]

I shouldn't and wasn't pointing that entirely or only at ZacharyJ, apologies if it seemed as much, your comment was pretty restrained itself in relative terms, but still, it needed to be said

[Depressing-Fire]

IS get Rotaries, Clans get HAGs except clamz don't get HAGs yet atleast, makes me a tad sad.

[Mcgral18]

With isUACs coming in, ACs need buffs

cACs, isACs
Velocity is a good start

ACs being more accurate, effective at range,
UACs being damage hoses
LBx being bad


A nice different but useful setting
PP FLD cACs do not work without gimping them in some other way

[Mystere]

Shifty McSwift, on 25 March 2017 - 03:06 AM, said:

They are also humans working on what is likely a very fragmented system in many different ways (and likely on other projects too) to attempt to bring us a game both fun enough to play and put money into and with enough depth to keep people motivated while trying to keep purist types from pulling their hair out, while of course make money in the process.

I mean constructive criticism is all well and good, but you act like it should be as easy as pie for all things to be "as they should" in all cases, and that the devs suck for not doing it exactly how you personally envisioned within your expected timeframe.

And to act as though you are entitled to x or y because of money that you personally chose to invest in a project mostly incomplete, or prone to continued future changes at the whim of the developers, is pretty lame.

The words you are looking for are "software asset management" and "code refactoring".

Edited by Mystere, 25 March 2017 - 09:26 AM.

[Xetelian]

I'd very much like a reason to take a cAC over a cUAC in any circumstance. Whenever I see someone with cACs I feel bad for them because they were duped into buying a worse weapon.

[Cold Darkness]

Xetelian, on 25 March 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

I'd very much like a reason to take a cAC over a cUAC in any circumstance. Whenever I see someone with cACs I feel bad for them because they were duped into buying a worse weapon.

at the very least in case of the cAC2 thats not the case. it IS a sidegrade which offers advantages over the cUAC2 which more or less make up for its disadvantages.