255 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

Snowbluff, on 29 June 2017 - 06:08 PM, said:

RACs and HAGs were in development for the clans during this era. So no, they wouldn't have to make something up if they moved the year up by 2.

Nope. Clan RACs and HAGs are not considered Civil War tech--they are Jihad era tech. So hang onto your butts until 2 years later, when PGI does Jihad tech/mechs.

[Snowbluff]

El Bandito, on 29 June 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

Nope. Clan RACs and HAGs are not considered Civil War tech--they are Jihad era tech. So hang onto your butts until 2 years later, when PGI does Jihad tech/mechs.

Aff. Butt firmly held, Star Captain. :v

[Dead Tom Kerensky]

Viktor Drake, on 29 June 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

Disagree Bishop. It has been a long time since I felt most of my Clan mechs had any sort of real advantage and there are two fact your omitting.

1) PGI flat out told us that the Clans were attracting more of the higher skilled player base. That is skill advantage, not tech advantage.

2) As of the data after the introduction of the skill trees, PGI was showing only a 6% overall difference between Clan and IS mechs and this was before the nerfed several of the best performing Clan mechs into the ground and further beat up the Clans with the energy re-balance. Sorry Bish, but the skill advantage alone would account for that 6% difference, maybe even more. All PGI did with the energy re-balance is give the Clans a handicap to balance out the skill gap between Clans and IS. I am talking overall here, not individual skill because there are quite a few skilled IS player out there, just not as many as on the Clan side of things.

So honestly at best, taking into account skill and tech, we are easily at parity level right now in IS vs Clan fights. Take the skill out and look only at the tech we are probably realistically at a point where IS mechs are a bit better. After the new tech drops, IS will be clearly superior skill factored in or not at least that is what I am seeing on the current PTS. I kid you not Bishop, every IS mech I have built on the PTS has gained at least a 10% performance increase and many even feel stronger than that compared my current builds in the live environment. I am really feeling like half my mechs, the Clan ones, are going to be feeling rather inferior come the July Tech patch.

Of course this means I have mixed feelings. Disappointed about the Clan tech but am jumping for joy at the buffs my IS mechs are going to be getting.

I've played both pretty heavily in faction play. Clans are easier to win with especially on movement type objectives. Most good groups play clan on regular seasons. During Tukayid though almost all good units went IS because they knew the queue would be much faster. This brought the IS win rate up dramatically.

[chucklesMuch]

Commander A9, on 29 June 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

Whoops! I meant "Heavy Lasers!" Excuse me. XD

Meanwhile, yes, HEAVY LASERS, I'm definitely looking forward to. They're going to melt stuff!

Like the heavy light-saber firing pilots!

[FLG 01]

Snowbluff, on 29 June 2017 - 06:08 PM, said:

RACs and HAGs were in development for the clans during this era. So no, they wouldn't have to make something up if they moved the year up by 2.

As Bandito said: that's not the FCCW, that's the Jihad. The only FCCW tech that is positively missing on the Clan side are the new flamers (ER and heavy), but I don't think the game needs more flamers.

Also, some your data is incorrect anyway: the C-RAC prototypes were developed in 3073, regular production of the design started in 3104, and it was not common until 3145. Setting the date to 3068 or 3069 would not help you getting this weapon.
You are right, however, that the Clan Hyper-Assault Gauss Rifle was ready for production in 3068. So were the Plasma Rifle and the Light Autocannons for the IS. And let's not start on experimental stuff. If anything, PGI did the Clans a favour restricting the update to the FCCW.

None of this is surprising. The whole idea of the FCCW-era was to close the technological gap between Clans and IS, because FASA realized how unbalanced the TT-game was. But then, so far I have not seen anything in the PTS as overall potent as dual C-GR plus dual C-ERPPC.

Edited by FLG 01, 29 June 2017 - 06:36 PM.

[El Bandito]

FLG 01, on 29 June 2017 - 06:35 PM, said:

But then, so far I have not seen anything in the PTS as overall potent as dual C-GR plus dual C-ERPPC.

Aye, Clan PPFLD is still the strongest, and I am stoked for my MCII that is due mid-July. Gonna have a blast for 3-6 months before PGI nerfs it.

[Snowbluff]

Man, I am so turned off by clan PPFLD. I'd rather have more other options feel viable.

[0bsidion]

Viktor Drake, on 29 June 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

So in TT a RAC/5 could do 30 damage in 10 seconds or 3 damage per second (remember each turn represented 10 seconds of time passing) and In MWO, they can do 9.6 damage per second so they are junk?

I know, it seems contradictory because on paper the RACs here look better, but it doesn't actually work out that way practice because in TT the RAC/5 was dishing out 5 damage a pellet, whereas here it seems to be about 3 damage a pellet.

So if you really want to deliver as much damage as possible you've basically got to get into a staring contest with everything. Trust me, TT RACs are better.

Edit: Fupdup is saying "To confirm from Weapons.XML, RAC/2 is 0.5 per shell and RAC/5 is 1.2." which would explain their entirely underwhelming performance. They're basically long range MGs. No wonder I couldn't kill anything with them.

Edited by 0bsidion, 30 June 2017 - 05:46 AM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

FupDup, on 29 June 2017 - 04:48 PM, said:

Probably because skilled players often prefer to compound their skill advantage by also using the strongest mechs/guns/strats/etc.

If that is the case, then Clan mechs and technologies are blatantly UNDER POWERED. I mean lets use the data correctly.

If we say your statement is true and skilled players are moving toward Clan Tech because they perceive it to be the most powerful and all the most skilled player are playing on the Clan Side due to that perceived advantage, then having mear 6% advantage while also having all that skill stacked up on the Clan side would mean that the Clan Mechs are in a very bad place indeed. I mean quite simply, with all that skill combined with Over Powered Tech, they should be showing at 30-40-50% advantage if not more.

FupDup, on 29 June 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

There are other factors like beam duration, range, heat, and cooldown at play. The LPL has the advantage in those four areas.

Yep. Clan Heavy Medium Laser has a 5 second Cool down for example which means the LPL can fire twice in the same time frame that a Heavy Medium Laser can fire once.

[Widowmaker1981]

FupDup, on 29 June 2017 - 11:41 AM, said:

That's kind of the point. The IS needs a boost more than the Clams do.

However, keep in mind that most of the new IS items suck anyways.

FTFY

Its really just HMGs, IS-UACs, IS-ERMLs and LFEs that will be worth using at all, as the stats stand right now. maybe LFF armour on edge case builds. IS streaks seem OK too if you like streaks. RLs OK for trolls, but not for anyone else.

ATMs and RACs are both unusable garbage (RACs are sustained fire weapons that cant sustain fire due to 1/3 uptime on jam bar or burst weapons that cant actually burst due to 1 second delay before firing.. and 180m min range means ATMs are useless LRM clones that do less damage).

HLs have burn times that make them truly bad, but maybe i guess they have some use on lighter, tonnage starved mechs

MRMs appear to be unusable past SRM ranges... so why not use SRMs.

Stealth armour seems bad due to too much heat and disabling IFF (meaning you get friendly fire). The only possible use i can see for it is if it prevents you from showing as a black spot on a white field in long range thermal vision on hot maps.

LAMS is hilariously bad. Yes, auto shutting down from missiles being fired near you is bad.

LGauss is puny and not worth the tonnage, HGauss is bad compared to (U)AC20 when slots and tons are considered due to the appalling range

IS LBX 2/5/20 were always going to be terribad. The only reason the LBX10 sees ANY use is that its smaller and lighter. Waste of coding time without slot and weight changes compared to source.

HPPC gimped by splash. Pointless for the weight. SNPPC has too short a range (i was expecting 450 optimal 600 max). LPPC GH cap at 2 makes them pretty much pointless.

LAP/LTAG = who cares

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 30 June 2017 - 06:04 AM.

[Natred]

Not surprised

[Dogstar]

Viktor Drake, on 29 June 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

The IS on the other hand. Holy Hell in a Handbasket. Each and every IS mech I have tested so far has gotten a huge buff. LFEs along are having a crazy effect on how powerfuly my IS mechs have become and most of the weapons systems range from great to at least decent. There are only a few pieces of IS tech that appear to be duds so far.

Viktor Drake, on 29 June 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

Disagree Bishop. It has been a long time since I felt most of my Clan mechs had any sort of real advantage and there are two fact your omitting.

1) PGI flat out told us that the Clans were attracting more of the higher skilled player base. That is skill advantage, not tech advantage.

2) As of the data after the introduction of the skill trees, PGI was showing only a 6% overall difference between Clan and IS mechs and this was before the nerfed several of the best performing Clan mechs into the ground and further beat up the Clans with the energy re-balance. Sorry Bish, but the skill advantage alone would account for that 6% difference, maybe even more. All PGI did with the energy re-balance is give the Clans a handicap to balance out the skill gap between Clans and IS. I am talking overall here, not individual skill because there are quite a few skilled IS player out there, just not as many as on the Clan side of things.

So honestly at best, taking into account skill and tech, we are easily at parity level right now in IS vs Clan fights. Take the skill out and look only at the tech we are probably realistically at a point where IS mechs are a bit better. After the new tech drops, IS will be clearly superior skill factored in or not at least that is what I am seeing on the current PTS. I kid you not Bishop, every IS mech I have built on the PTS has gained at least a 10% performance increase and many even feel stronger than that compared my current builds in the live environment. I am really feeling like half my mechs, the Clan ones, are going to be feeling rather inferior come the July Tech patch.

Of course this means I have mixed feelings. Disappointed about the Clan tech but am jumping for joy at the buffs my IS mechs are going to be getting.

Viktor Drake, on 30 June 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

If that is the case, then Clan mechs and technologies are blatantly UNDER POWERED. I mean lets use the data correctly.

This certainly made my day, what world do you live in? Oh I know the Clan Crocodile tears one. Grats on being the newest member.

Edited by Dogstar, 30 June 2017 - 06:07 AM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

0bsidion, on 30 June 2017 - 05:37 AM, said:

I know, it seems contradictory because on paper the RACs here look better, but it doesn't actually work out that way practice because in TT the RAC/5 was dishing out 5 damage a pellet, whereas here it seems to be about 3 damage a pellet.

So if you really want to deliver as much damage as possible you've basically got to get into a staring contest with everything. Trust me, TT RACs are better.

Honestly yeah your right, I was just messing you but lets be honest, alot of things were better in TT. I mean things like real 2.0 heat DHS rather than the 1.4 heat DHS we got in game hehe.

As far as the RAC in game, I like them alot, I really do though I can see why people don't like them but think the reason people don't like them has more to do with what they wanted to be like in game vs their actual performance. What I mean by that is I think people expected to be able to boat them and just mow down enemies in seconds but instead got something more along the lines of a big machine gun that doesn't seem to do much to the enemy. It is a perception thing mostly and let me explain why.

First with a RAC/5 9.6 dps is alot of damage. That is 28.8 damage in a 3 second burst. An AC/10, a comparable weight and size weapon, only does 10 damage in that same time frame. The difference is in the PPFLD of course. With that AC/10 your pumping that 10 points directly into the CT of the enemy and then immediately dodging back into cover. That is decisive and that is immediately identified as being powerful.

With a RAC/5 however to do damage first you have a delay while the weapon spins up, then you have to hold your burst on target for those 3 seconds before you head off into cover. That is alot of face time where your potentially getting shot at. Also your 3 second burst isn't all going to the CT most likely, instead its is getting spread all over the enemy. That situation isn't decisive so doesn't feel powerful hence the disappointing vibe most are getting the RACs. However, disappointed vibe or not, 28.8 damage in 3 seconds from one weapon is pretty amazing and will really take a toll on the enemy throughout the fight even if it is just sandpapering off armor all over their mech and this isn't even considering the secondary effect of screen shake and the disorientating effect the enemy suffers when being hit by a RAC.

So at the end of the day, if your boating RAC's and expecting decisive results, your going to be tremendously disappointed because they just don't provide enough concentrated, decisive damage to the enemy. Instead your going to just be sandpapering the armor off them and making it easier for your teammates to kill. Your damage will probably be decent but your just not going to be killing much, kind of like an LRM boat to be honest. However if you take a RAC to support or combine with other weapons, I think they are amazing.

So my recommendation is, if you want to boat, go UAC, if you want quick, decisive damage, go standard AC, if you want sustained DPS, suppression and disorientation, go RAC. Personally I think it is great to have these sort of choices.

[Steve Pryde]

Love my King Crab with dual UAC20(no host heat LOL!)+dual subnose PPCs+LFE. *___*

MRMs, ATMs and Rotary ACs are completly garbage.

[DGTLDaemon]

Steve Pryde, on 30 June 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

Love my King Crab with dual UAC20(no host heat LOL!)

Am I reading this right? Dual UAC20s with no ghost heat for an 80-point alpha? And people used to say that quad UAC10 KDK-3 was OP...

[Oberost]

DGTLDaemon, on 30 June 2017 - 06:32 AM, said:

Am I reading this right? Dual UAC20s with no ghost heat for an 80-point alpha? And people used to say that quad UAC10 KDK-3 was OP...

80 point alpha at 270m for 30 tons plus ammo...

Good, but no OP.

BTW, the KDK-3 was OP because of the damage potential of quad UAC10 AND really high mounts AND broken GH.

[Widowmaker1981]

Viktor Drake, on 30 June 2017 - 06:25 AM, said:

Honestly yeah your right, I was just messing you but lets be honest, alot of things were better in TT. I mean things like real 2.0 heat DHS rather than the 1.4 heat DHS we got in game hehe.

As far as the RAC in game, I like them alot, I really do though I can see why people don't like them but think the reason people don't like them has more to do with what they wanted to be like in game vs their actual performance. What I mean by that is I think people expected to be able to boat them and just mow down enemies in seconds but instead got something more along the lines of a big machine gun that doesn't seem to do much to the enemy. It is a perception thing mostly and let me explain why.

First with a RAC/5 9.6 dps is alot of damage. That is 28.8 damage in a 3 second burst. An AC/10, a comparable weight and size weapon, only does 10 damage in that same time frame. The difference is in the PPFLD of course. With that AC/10 your pumping that 10 points directly into the CT of the enemy and then immediately dodging back into cover. That is decisive and that is immediately identified as being powerful.

With a RAC/5 however to do damage first you have a delay while the weapon spins up, then you have to hold your burst on target for those 3 seconds before you head off into cover. That is alot of face time where your potentially getting shot at. Also your 3 second burst isn't all going to the CT most likely, instead its is getting spread all over the enemy. That situation isn't decisive so doesn't feel powerful hence the disappointing vibe most are getting the RACs. However, disappointed vibe or not, 28.8 damage in 3 seconds from one weapon is pretty amazing and will really take a toll on the enemy throughout the fight even if it is just sandpapering off armor all over their mech and this isn't even considering the secondary effect of screen shake and the disorientating effect the enemy suffers when being hit by a RAC.

So at the end of the day, if your boating RAC's and expecting decisive results, your going to be tremendously disappointed because they just don't provide enough concentrated, decisive damage to the enemy. Instead your going to just be sandpapering the armor off them and making it easier for your teammates to kill. Your damage will probably be decent but your just not going to be killing much, kind of like an LRM boat to be honest. However if you take a RAC to support or combine with other weapons, I think they are amazing.

So my recommendation is, if you want to boat, go UAC, if you want quick, decisive damage, go standard AC, if you want sustained DPS, suppression and disorientation, go RAC. Personally I think it is great to have these sort of choices.

Why would i want to build a ballistic burst mech that does 75.84 damage over 5 seconds of exposure time with a slow projectile stream and built in spread to account for that then has to hide for 10 seconds before it can do anything else... when i could just take a standard laser vomit mech and do about 110 dmg (since you can fire twice in 5 seconds) which is hitscan and doesnt spread intrinsically?

[Dandred]

Does it matter in game though? If this is FCCW aren't there clansman and spheroids on both sides, with access to both tech bases?

[Angel of Annihilation]

Widowmaker1981, on 30 June 2017 - 06:41 AM, said:

Why would i want to build a ballistic burst mech that does 75.84 damage over 5 seconds of exposure time with a slow projectile stream and built in spread to account for that then has to hide for 10 seconds before it can do anything else... when i could just take a standard laser vomit mech and do about 110 dmg (since you can fire twice in 5 seconds) which is hitscan and doesnt spread intrinsically?

Well first of all, not every mech is capable of laser vomit, some actually require you to use other weapons, I mean that is the first thing that comes to mine. As for the rest, it depends how you are using your mechs. For example I was testing out a Dragon Slayer with a RAC/5. It only has 3 energy hardpoints so not really capable of laser vomit. However my preliminary build of 3 x Light PPC, 2 x MRM 10 and a RAC/5 combined with a large LFE engine actually worked exceptionally well, maybe even well enough that I would start using it again in general play.

Also you could ask why use a KDK-3 with Quad UAC/10s compared to a laser vomit build? Same logic kind of applies, especially when you consider how often 1-2 3 or even 4 of those UACs will be jammed up and unusable. The reason you do it is because it is effective. Basically often what seems logical based on paper theory doesn't always translate to what works well in real life.

[MustrumRidcully]

Viktor Drake, on 30 June 2017 - 06:25 AM, said:

Honestly yeah your right, I was just messing you but lets be honest, alot of things were better in TT. I mean things like real 2.0 heat DHS rather than the 1.4 heat DHS we got in game hehe.

What we actually got in this game DHS 0.7 and SHS 0.5. After all, our weapons basically produce twice as much heat per 10 seconds than they did in the table top, and so logically our DHS and SHS should also be twice as effective to be able to deal with that heat level.