37 replies to this topic

[WhyHelloDer]

The6thMessenger, on 30 June 2017 - 01:32 AM, said:

You mean, "spin down"?

No I mean cooldown of the Jam Bar. Spin down, spool down. You can call it whatever you want but it is effectively a cooldown same as any other weapon.

[The6thMessenger]

WhyHelloDer, on 30 June 2017 - 01:40 AM, said:

No I mean cooldown of the Jam Bar. Spin down, spool down. You can call it whatever you want but it is effectively a cooldown same as any other weapon.

I honestly don't know what it is currently, so i couldn't make calculations. Give me a number.

[The Basilisk]

Orkimedes, on 30 June 2017 - 12:15 AM, said:

Tangentially related to the proper functioning of rotary autocannons:

Currently, the following situation exists.
Firing 2 RAC2: no ghost heat
Firing 2 rac5: no ghost heat
Firing 1x RAC2 + 1x RAC5: massive ghost heat.

Putting aside the issue of ghost heat on RACs in the first place aside, that's just dumb.

Noticed this too...but methinks thats just a bug.

[ForceUser]

WhyHelloDer, on 30 June 2017 - 01:32 AM, said:

Exactly what I've been saying. However, I dont even think that would be enough. If for example the cooldown was brought down to 5 seconds youd still only be operating inside a 10 second window with 3.95 seconds of fire time. So actual dps would be stated multiplied by .395, soooo effective sustained dps for the RAC/2 at 1.58 and RAC/5 at 3.44. Thats still below the normal AC/2 and only slightly above the AC/5. Not good enough.

But you have a much, much higher burst damage. You can not have a higher burst damage *and* a higher or even as high dps. That's not balanced.

[The6thMessenger]

ForceUser, on 30 June 2017 - 03:00 AM, said:

But you have a much, much higher burst damage. You can not have a higher burst damage *and* a higher or even as high dps. That's not balanced.

The thing is that, compared to other weapons they deal most of their damage at a shorter duration. RAC on the other hand, it does large amount of damage because of the large face-time, which realistically just jeopardizes the user.

[Metafox]

My impression is that PGI meant for RACs to be a kind of DPS/burst damage hybrid in order to differentiate them from other weapons. RACs should deliver a high DPS for a short period of time. I haven't tested them that much, but it does seem clear that they don't put out enough damage during their DPS burst to make them effective. I think that they just need a big damage increase.

The issue with cooldown nodes seems to be kind of a big problem too. The weapon tree was supposed to be designed so that we don't need to take unusable nodes in order to get all of the nodes that we want. I haven't actually tested RAC DPS with and without cooldown skills, but the mechlab stats do indicate that the RACs get no benefit from cooldown nodes.

[SOL Ranger]

I believe new mechanics are needed:

RAC

• RNG jam mechanic is removed.
  
• Individual weapon heat bar is introduced.
  
• RAC's now have two firing modes, Safety Mode and Override Mode.
  
• Safety Mode slows down the rate of fire of the weapon at very high heat. The higher the heat bar gets at the extremes the slower the weapon fires to better contain that heat, making prolonged nonstop firing less effective but more easily possible, from 75%-100% heat the weapon reduces firing rate of up to 50% to retain active firing capability. In the event of still surpassing maximum heat the weapon instantly stalls to cool down and can be fired at below 90% heat again, no weapon damage is taken during the stall.
  
• Override Mode ignores all safety mechanisms for the weapon. If the weapon surpasses 100% heat in override mode it takes 1 damage every second until it cools down enough or is destroyed eventually.
  
• RAC's dissipate and capacitate heat equal to a number of X heatsinks and can hold up to Y heatsinks additionally within the weapon, adding extra tonnage of course but also heat efficiency for the weapon. Fully fitted with extra heatsinks the weapon should be able to keep firing uninterrupted for prolonged periods of time
  
• Spin up/down mechanic remains and is visible on the weapon HUD as well, but does not generate any heat naturally, but now it has a proper sound effect of a spinning heavy metal cylinder.

UAC

• Jam mechanic is removed.
  
• UAC's are given an auto-loader clip depending on model 8 UAC/2, 4 UAC/5, 2 UAC/10, 1 UAC/20).
  
• Can use extra rounds in quick succession as currently, but after they are consumed the reload will be similar to that of a normal AC.
  
• Reloads ammunition to the extra clip when the main barrel is loaded and the weapon is not firing.
  
• Can use the extra barrel at any point it contains a shell.
  
• Slightly(~15%) slower cooldown than AC's due to the "complexity of the loading mechanics".

This way we have reliable burst ballistics UAC's, we get bursty manually controlled hot but lighter assault RAC's and more reliable heavy sustained damage RAC's if invested some extra weight into them.


Reserved for all the human things, also placeholders everywhere.

Edited by SOL Ranger, 30 June 2017 - 07:19 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I think the charge-up/down times need to be lowered. THey make the weapon extremely impractical. YOu can't really use it at long range, because the enemy will never stand out in the open long enough. Once you get into close range, however, you need the ability to stop and start firing all the time, or you risk a lot of friendly fire.

I am not sure about heat and all that because the ghost heat is supposed to be bugged right now. It could be that even with the changes, the damage is overall a bit too low.

I think the charge-up/down times need to be lowered. THey make the weapon extremely impractical. YOu can't really use it at long range, because the enemy will never stand out in the open long enough. Once you get into close range, however, you need the ability to stop and start firing all the time, or you risk a lot of friendly fire.

I am not sure about heat and all that because the ghost heat is supposed to be bugged right now. It could be that even with the changes, the damage is overall a bit too low.


The RACs are certainly suicide friendly, because the entire time you're firing, your presenting your CT to your enemy. You can't avoid that at all.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 30 June 2017 - 08:20 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

RACs feel TERRIBLE currently.. extremely unwieldy to use with the spin up time, slow projectile speed spread, and just nothing like devastating enough to be worth the effort, especially given how fast they heat you up. Ballistics are meant to be cool running because the high slot count and ammo requirement means you cant mount DHS in any notable number.

If the mechanics stay the same (which they will, because they already coded them and they release in 2 weeks), they absolutely need ghost heat to be removed (boating them is hard, there are only three mechs that even can mount 4 5s: Anni, Sleipnir and Mauler, and they are all 50 kph turrets - Mal and Sleipnir have to run STD engine to fit 4, so cant go faster), and i cant see a viable weapon synergy for them really.

Edit 2 - yep. Testing on a Sleipnir to see if running 2 RAC5s and 2 AC5s or UAC2s worked out well, and it doesnt at all really. It gets about 120 dmg out in 5 seconds, where the UACs get 100 - 150+ depending on luck, can be snapshotted and peek to a much greater extent, have longer range and higher projectile speed, and benefit from skill tree. For any RAC5 build to work out the DPS would have to be MUCH higher to outweigh all those disadvantages, not ~the same.

edit 3 ... well. 2 of them on a Bushwacker with a reasonable engine actually feels semi decent. Maybe thats their niche.. dakka mediums.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 30 June 2017 - 09:56 AM.

[Agent 0range]

They need to start firing immediately with the dps ramping up to max over a spin up time. Spin down time should reduce cooling efficiency but allow firing at a higher base dps.
Base dps needs increasing and amount of total spin time reduced slighly.

In its current state it is a useless weapon v any decent alpha build. As you receive an alpha while waiting 1 second to fire then youlet loose with dps that spreads snrd can torso twisted to spread the damage further then it is time to take another alpha. Laser vomit alpha v 2 racs dem lazors are going to punch holes way before the racs if the player is spreading damage. Changing the effect of the spin up/ spin diwn would at least allow the rac user to fire controlled burst.

Also I hate the idea of a rotary cannon that need to make it barrel spin fast to fire. The loading mechanism would have to be in sync with barrel rotation.

[Linkin]

RACs definitely need some tweaking, alot of good suggestions and data in here. The main glaring problem I see, as mentioned by others, and in my own experience, is the jam bar filling during the spin up of the weapon. That needs to stop if nothing else. The jam bar shouldn't start filling until the weapon starts sending rounds down range.

[Mike Barnes]

With all of the testing I did, being on unskilled mechs, I didn't even think about the fact that there is now a skill node that reduces jam time, this further exasperates the problem of, "no skill just jam the button 'cause better DPS." The cool down needs to be lowered somewhat, and the damage values need to be jumped up dramatically. If this weapon system is going to have more than a niche place in the game, it needs to do something better than any other weapon system, and right now it doesn't do that, in all conceivable ways the system lags behind any of its competitors. I can get behind the earlier posted DPS numbers of ~13 and ~16, that should make the system about right, but dropping the spool down to a second less than spool up, would make everything about right.

[Cato Zilks]

I think that WhyHelloDer is being generous to PGI with the wind up stats, I think it is closer to 1.5 seconds to wind up. I clocked myself 10 times and averaged and It was never close to 1.05. But his work up of the DPS is great even if it over estimates the dps of RAC weapons. Here is my own work up.
4) RACs. (from https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5804821 )

I will focus on the RAC/5, but this applies to the RAC/2 as well. This weapon is garbage right now: the heat is scaled for a super high damage output, but its actual damage output is crap and requires insane face tanking. Other threads point out the dps advantage the The RAC/5 has over the UAC5 and AC5. However it has a ~1.5 second charge and then really barely out does UACS.

• You see an enemy at time X. You take .5 seconds to aim.
  
  • With a UAC5 you double tap and do 10 damage in 1.5 seconds.The second round of double tap starts at X+2.16 sec so on and so forth.
    
  • You begin charging the RAC as you aim (+.3 delay). Wait for 1.5 seconds. At ~1.8 seconds begin dealing damage. So by the time you reach that initial 10 damage that UAC put out it is already 2.8 seconds and the UAC has put out 20 damage and is halfway reloaded for its 5th and 6th shot.

This weapon is bigger, heavier, has a firing delay, has lower dps, and worse pinpoint. Why would we use it?



What should change:

• Maybe let us hit a key to get the barrels spinning so there is not a fire delay, but a jam means you need to get that barrel going again. Also, don't have the jam bar reduce while the weapon is jammed. Make this a weapon that you need to pay attention to avoid jams.
  
• If we were going with lore this weapon would do 30 damage in 1.67 seconds (the firing rate of an AC5). As that would be utterly insane, we should tone that down some.
  
  • Lets put the damage inline with the heat that PGI already have set, 4/sec.
    
    • For comparison reasons we will want to set that to the cooldown rate of an AC5 (4 x 1.66=6.64).
  • 6.64 / 1.5 (AC5 heat) = 4.3 RAC5 shots per single AC5 shot.
    
  • 4.3 x 5 = 21.5, which means the RAC/5 should do 21.5 damage per 1.66 seconds or 12.95 damage/sec based on its heat.
• Eliminate Ghost heat entirely from RAC weapons, but have the jam bar move faster when more RACs are firing. It does not spike heat but will jam weapons real fast.
  
  • Allow two RAC/5s or three RAC/2s to fire without jam penalty. This allows a 6 RAC/2 or a 4 RAC/5 mech the ability to rotate their fire between the 2 jam bars to keep the fire rate up, while still putting respectable firepower out.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 30 June 2017 - 10:59 AM.

[WhyHelloDer]

Cato Zilks, on 30 June 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:

I think that WhyHelloDer is being generous to PGI with the wind up stats, I think it is closer to 1.5 seconds to wind up. I clocked myself 10 times and averaged and It was never close to 1.05. But his work up of the DPS is great even if it over estimates the dps of RAC weapons. Here is my own work up.
4) RACs. (from https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5804821 )

It's not that I'm being generous. I recorded some gameplay and then looked at the time in video editing down to two decimals. The gun started spinning up at 2.12 seconds and the first shot was fired at 3.17 seconds.

[Cy Mitchell]

Navid A1, on 30 June 2017 - 01:11 AM, said:

The projectile speeds are unbelievably slow.

i'd say 2200 m/s for RAC2 and 1800 m/s for RAC5

after all, each shell of a RAC2 does 0.5 damage and each one for RAC5 does 1.2 damage.

those are very small projectiles and should go really really fast

Agreed. I am OK with most of the Mechanics and damage of the weapon but the velocity is simply too slow. These are suppression weapons and they need to get to the target in a hurry in order to be effective. With the velocities suggested above they can be used to move jump snipers, ridge humpers and peekers back into cover and lower that opponents effectiveness. I would also like to see the spin up time halved. With the relative low damage they certainly would not be OP with this change.

[MechanicalWraith]

RACs need burst damage, and that means more dps than AC-2s (while they're firing, obviously) long-term dps should be balanced on tonnage and to a lesser extent, crit slot cost. That's all that really matters, although the range reduction compared to AC-2s was disappointing, they're hard enough to aim at a few hundred meters while managing the jam bar, the projectiles could just move faster and go further (same number of projectiles instantiated, same performance cost more or less)

They MUST be able to jam though, because Battletech.

[The6thMessenger]

The6thMessenger, on 30 June 2017 - 06:02 AM, said:

Rotary Autocannons:

Russian Roulette of MWO

Quote

Introduction:

Rotary Autocannons are one of the new Ballistic Weapons introduced in the upcoming Civil War Tech, and is accessible during the PTS. Lovely for those who enjoyed pounding enemies with shells, especially beautiful equipped on an Urbanmech.

This analysis is meant to review the RACs, and provide recommendation in how to improve such weapons.

Quote

Methodology:

Using nothing more than a Rotary Autocannon, I continuously shot from beginning to end at a target upon the Academy. Suffering the full extent of the Spin-Up, completely filling up the Jam Meter, and still shooting until the weapon Jams. Then total damage done is recorded.

After the Jam has been cleared, and the Jam Meter empty, the Rotary Autocannon was shot again from Spin-Up to Jam, and then recording the total damage done. Repeated 24 times, recording 25 instances, and done so on each weapon system.

Quote

Data:


RAC5 Data
RAC2 Data

Quote

Discussion:



The AC5, weighs 8 tons, shoots shells dealing 5 damage, every 1.66s, at 3.012048192771084 DPS.

The AC10 weighs at 12 tons, shoots shells dealing 10 damage every 2.50s, at 4 DPS.

The UAC5, weighs 9 tons, shoots shells dealing 5 damage, every 1.66s. It can double-shot, at 15% chance of jam, for 6.0s. Effectively, it can double-shot 6.666666666666667 times on average, dealing 66.66666666666667 damage, at a cumulative 11.06666666666667 CD + 6.0s cooldown, effectively doing 3.90625 DPS.

For the RAC2, as shown by the data of 25 tries of average total damage done incurring 10 second jam. It has an average of 29.04 damage done, 7.26 seconds of average continuous shoot time. Does a minimum of 1.22 EDPS, and maximum of 2.22 EDPS, with an average of 1.68 EDPS.

For the RAC5, as shown by the data of 25 tries of average total damage done incurring 10 second jam. It has an average of 75. damage done, 7.26 seconds of average continuous shoot time. Does a minimum of 2.68 EDPS, and maximum of 6.20 EDPS, with an average of 4.24 EDPS.

The E-DPS is calculated by means of dividing the Average Damage Done by the added Average Shoot Time and the Jam Duration:

Quote

EDPS = Average Damage Done / (Average Shoot Time + Jam Duration)

The Maximum and Minium is calculated by means of dividing the Damage Done by the added Shoot Time and the Jam Duration, with the Shoot-Duration calculated by diving Damage/done with the Burst Damage/Second provided by the weapon system:

Quote

Max/Min EDPS = Damage Done / ((Damage Done / Burst DPS) + Jam Duration)

Shown in the scatter plot, the RAC2 have a fairly consistent range around 18 to 35 total damage done with only 3 instances out of 25 of above 40 total damage done.

While the RAC5 has a consistent range around 36 to 60 total damage done. Nearly reaching nearly 180 total damage done, with 10 instances out of 25, of above 60 total damage done. Both RACs show wide ranges of total damage done.

Quote

Limitation:

> "10s Jam Duration" is taken from different community source.
> During the course of testing, there were times i think i may have missed and started from the beginning of one of the sessions.
> There was a time i missed the screenshot of the damage done, I simply ignored it and moved on.
> I only did 25 instances of full shooting, which may not be completely representative of the weapon considering full service along with many other users.

Quote

Conclusion:

The RAC2 is in an abhorrently bad spot. Consider that it's DPS is between 1.22 to 2.22 at an average of 1.68, but with a weapon of similar tonnage, the AC5 that does 3.01, its not as good. Factor in the immense face-time to do damage, and such damage means that it would be spread ALL OVER both by inherent cone of fire, and torso-twisting that can be done by competent pilots.

The RAC5 seems to have good damage output. At 4.24 average EDPS, at a maximum of 6.20 DPS, but at a low 2.68, resulting in a fairly inconsistent and erratic instances of total damage done. For comparison, the AC10 at 10 damage/shot and 2.50s interval, does 4 DPS, sitting at 12 tons. At 4.24 average is a massive boost of DPS, for a 10-ton weapon.

The RACs takes advantage of a very high damage per second, done so at an immense amount of face-time. Realistically, this is not good considering the meta, as staring people to death means better window of time for retaliation.

At nearly 8 seconds to maximize damage output, this duration is completely devastating. To put that into perspective, the old C-ER-LL does 11 damage for 1.5s, but it's already widely regarded as hard to use, at the same duration the RAC only dealt 6 damage, despite 8 tons of weight, and the RAC5 only dealt 14.4 damage.

The RACs may also do large amount of damage, but that is spread everywhere due to the nature of stream-firing shells. Like lasers, they can be spread by torso twisting, aggrevated by the fact that it has cone of fire.

Quote

Recommendation:

> The RAC5 has an erratic damage output, even if capable of high damage output. It would be best if the RACs -- even the RAC2 -- could be more consistent.
> The RAC2 needs immense damage boost to normalize it's damage output for it's weight, else it won't be worth to be used over better choices like the AC5.
> The RACs should immediately jam after filling up the Jam Meter, this makes the weapon predictable and opens up for more control.
> Following the predictable Jam, it should have a larger duration before jamming.
> The Jam Meter shouldn't be filled while just winding up
> RACs spread an enormous amount of damage all around the mech, than focused on one spot. Making more powerful shells, and less amounts of shot would fix that. But also increase ammo count and/or damage per ammo/ton.

Here's a complete set of suggested changes:

Spoiler

The6thMessenger, on 29 June 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

Quote

GENERAL CHANGES:

> RACs now jam instantly the moment the Jam Meter is filled
> Jam Meter only fills up during firing, not while spinning.
> Spin-UP Time is at 0.75s, Spin-DOWN Time at 1.25s.
> Damage per Ammo-Ton is at 200 -- cause that damage will be spread EVERYWHERE.

Quote

RAC2

Optimal Range: 540m
Max Range: 1080m
Damage/Shot: 1
Fire Interval: 0.115s
Burst DPS: 8.680555555555553
Burst Duration: 4s
Jam Duration: 6s
Effective DPS: 3.472222222222221
Ammo/Ton: 200

Quote

RAC5

Optimal Range: 450m
Max Range: 900m
Damage/Shot: 2
Fire Interval: 0.177s
Burst DPS: 11.28472222222222
Burst Duration: 5s
Jam Duration: 8s
Effective DPS: 4.340277777777776
Ammo/ton: 100

Quote

Sources:

Spoiler

WhyHelloDer, on 30 June 2017 - 12:10 AM, said:

I ran the numbers on the time it takes to fully spin up, and how long it takes to cooldown as well as to unjam. Assuming you either stop firing at the red or you immediately jam, these are what the numbers look like:

Class 2 Autocannons

RAC/2: 1.05 seconds spin up -> 3.95 seconds spent firing for 4 dps -> 10 second CD/Jam

AC/2: 15 seconds firing for 2.78 dps

Class 5 Autocannons

RAC/5: 1.05 seconds spin up -> 3.95 seconds spent firing for 9.6 dps -> 10 second CD/Jam

AC/5: 15 seconds firing for 3.01 dps

So, over this 15 second period the RACs are only firing for 3.95 seconds. That is only 26.3% of the total time period, and thus to get the actual dps of a RAC weapon you need to multiply them by .263. So, the actual sustained dps of RAC weapons, as compared to their normal AC counterparts is as follows:

RAC/2: 1.052
AC/2: 2.78
RAC/5: 2.548
AC/5: 3.01

This is a test for sustained dps, and the RAC just does not cut it...

My recommendations would be a boost in damage output, increase in jam bar length, not make the spin up affect the jam bar(other than to make it stop cooling down), and make the bar cooldown faster than it unjams. If it takes just as long to clear a jam then there is no point in managing the bar lets be honest.

Mike Barnes, on 29 June 2017 - 09:49 PM, said:

Okay so in my tests, I ran a stopwatch against TTK on the crimson straight atlas for standard and rotary autocannons, I din't run against ultras, for reasons you'll read in a moment. These tests were done in a VTR-9S for IS and a KDK-3 for clan weapons since they don't have any ballistic cool down quirks, just range and velocity n the case of the victor. Each listed time is the average of three runs, with the exception of the Rac/5 as it had a run where it did not jam 'til the atlas was dead that time is denoted with an asterisk, and then a second time which is the average of three more reasonable runs is listed. [color=#000000]I had to toss my data for both the C-uac/2 and the C-uac/20 for hilariously opposite reasons; in five tests of the C-uac/2 I didn't receive less than a 30% jam rate, while in five tests of the c-UAC/20 I didn't jam once. If someone else wants to get decent data here, please use a kodiak-3 for clan weapons and a VTR-9S for IS guns, please do not use any other mechs, and make sure that you do both with an empty skill tree. just follow those guidelines, and post your data, I'll math it, I am a professional.



Standard ACs just holding the trigger TTK:
AC/2 - 1:07.86
AC/5 - 1:00.99
AC/10 - 46.20
AC/20 - 36.58

UAC/2 - 1:01.39 this also had the largest data span, with 1:19.98 at the long end, and 51.44 at the short
UAC/5 - 49.88 I also want to note here that even the longest ttk was shorter than the average ttk from the rac/5.
UAC/10 - 44.71
UAC/20 - 31.59

Clan

C-uac/5 - 50.42
C-UAC/10 - 45.95

Racs, just holding the button down til it jams, and starts firing again
RAC/2 - 1:53.54
RAC/5 - 0:31.35*, 0:58.91

Racs, a full run to red of the bar, and then a full cool down. No jamming, also note that the gun heat will go up without firing a shot, no matter where it is if the barrel is not spinning; you can get the gun to red heat without shooting.

RAC/2 - 2:46.94
RAC/5 - 1:18.42

Data Notes: If you get lucky, it takes less than 20 seconds to center core an atlas with a UAC that does not jam, it is kinda great to watch. Also with the setups being so close in so many stats, I believe that the overall on the c-UAC/2 and 20 will be the same as the IS, but this is exhausting.

Seriously though, the RAC/2 is currently complete garbage, as for 33% more tonnage and 200% more crit spaces, severely reduced range, and just so much more heat, you get half of the DPS. The 5 similarly needs a huge damage boost just to be a competitive weapon but it isn't in as bad of shape as the 2.

Realistically, the closest tonnage and crit space weapon to the RAC/5 and Rac/2 up there is the C-uac/10, and and C-UAC/5 respectively these also have pretty similar ranges. If PGI wants for CW tech to close the gap between Clan and IS, then I feel that TTK should match those weapons or beat them by a little bit as the RACs really pump heat. In the meantime, we will have to continue to use heavier guns for the same damage levels.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 30 June 2017 - 01:40 PM.

[Linkin]

I haven't tried them in a match, but in testing grounds, the changes they did to RACs seem to have helped. I know they are only testing ground mechs, but a 3 RAC 5 Muromets, with no skill points can core things out before overheating or jamming. The main problem to me remains the jam bar starting to fill while the weapon spins up. But they do feel better to me know, in my limitied testing.