5 replies to this topic

[Serious Table]

I did some rough and obviously anecdotal testing on the AC/5, UAC/5, and RAC/5 for their use cases, and these were the numbers that I found over three tests in each scenario:

Mech used in each scenario is an UNSKILLED JM6-DD (-25% UAC jam chance quirk), with an XL315, 2 of the tested weapon, 6 tons of ammo, and 10 Double Heatsinks (no additional heatsinks were added to the mech).

30 Second DPS test.
* 2x AC/5
*** 210 Damage; heat neutral
*** 210 Damage; heat neutral
*** 210 Damage; heat neutral
 
* 2x UAC/5 - Damage Variance is from one weapon jamming
*** 300 Damage; full jam once, no overheats
*** 250 Damage; full jam once, no overheats
*** 280 Damage; no full jams, no overheats
 
* 2x RAC/5 - Full Auto, no stopping. If one weapon jams, stopping to lower jam bar so as to avoid heat bug.
*** 271.3 Damage; no full jams, 3 overheats
*** 229; 1 full jam, 2 overheats
*** 267.3; 2 full jams, no overheats
 
* 2x RAC/5 - Full Auto until jam bar fills, then wait.
*** 185.8; no jams, no overheats.
*** 202.5; no jams, no overheats
*** 183.6; no jams, no overheats

There are a few key things and feelings in my testing that I feel should be highlighted in order to make the RAC/5 something worth taking.

Reduce the time it takes for the weapon to cool off. As it is now, the last tests were so low compared to AC/5s because it took them 5 seconds to heat up while firing, and 10 seconds too cool down without firing again. Because of the additional weight required, RAC/5s when used on a *consistent* basis (to jam bar limit then stop), should put out more damage over time than an AC/5. The AC/5 weighs two tons less, has additional range, and generates less heat as an advantage.

• SUGGESTED FIX: Lower time it takes to cool the weapon off completely from 10 seconds to 7.5 seconds. Jam duration being high, however, I believe encourages skillful use of the weapon.

Damage needs to be increased very slightly. As is, the UAC/5 in my testing is performing more reliably and dealing more damage over the same duration of time, at ranges greater than the RAC/5 is effective. It's also doing this for 1 ton less. The RAC/5 should be dealing more damage within its optimal range due to the increased weight investment.

• SUGGESTED FIX: Bump damage from 1.35 to 1.45. This in combination with the cool off change suggested above should increase its effective damage within its optimal range.

Heat could be toned down slightly. I say slightly because if the changes above are taken into consideration, then Mechs using 2x RAC/5s are going to be overheating more quickly with how hot the weapon is in practice. This is to compensate for that change.

• SUGGESTED FIX: Reduce heat from 4 to 3.7.

Hopefully this data proves useful. I realize the sample size is small, but I've only got so much time to test!

Edited by Serious Table, 01 July 2017 - 09:33 AM.

[Top Leliel]

Making spool-up time not contribute to the jam bar, and removing ghost heat to avoid the bug(and make assault mechs able to do better with a bunch of them) would help solve this problem.

Reducing jam duration to be on par with UACs would also work.

[MischiefSC]

They are bigger and heavy enough to warrant being a worthwhile addition but as is a uac5 can snapfire, more heat manageable, better damage concentration and smaller. There's no reason to take a RAC.

Currently RACs are a bad weapon still.

[MrVei]

the RAC weapons need to fire as soon as you start to spin the weapon with the fire rate speeding up to full speed. this way we can take pop shots like with the other ac weapons but at much less dmg since the ac5 does 1.35 dmg a shot

[chewie]

That jam chance needs to be halted until the first shot is actually fired.

It climbs so quick in that first 1, you are at almost 20-25% before the first shot is fired.

[Cy Mitchell]

Serious Table, on 01 July 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

I did some rough and obviously anecdotal testing on the AC/5, UAC/5, and RAC/5 for their use cases, and these were the numbers that I found over three tests in each scenario:

Mech used in each scenario is an UNSKILLED JM6-DD (-25% UAC jam chance quirk), with an XL315, 2 of the tested weapon, 6 tons of ammo, and 10 Double Heatsinks (no additional heatsinks were added to the mech).

30 Second DPS test.
* 2x AC/5
*** 210 Damage; heat neutral
*** 210 Damage; heat neutral
*** 210 Damage; heat neutral
 
* 2x UAC/5 - Damage Variance is from one weapon jamming
*** 300 Damage; full jam once, no overheats
*** 250 Damage; full jam once, no overheats
*** 280 Damage; no full jams, no overheats
 
* 2x RAC/5 - Full Auto, no stopping. If one weapon jams, stopping to lower jam bar so as to avoid heat bug.
*** 271.3 Damage; no full jams, 3 overheats
*** 229; 1 full jam, 2 overheats
*** 267.3; 2 full jams, no overheats
 
* 2x RAC/5 - Full Auto until jam bar fills, then wait.
*** 185.8; no jams, no overheats.
*** 202.5; no jams, no overheats
*** 183.6; no jams, no overheats

There are a few key things and feelings in my testing that I feel should be highlighted in order to make the RAC/5 something worth taking.

Reduce the time it takes for the weapon to cool off. As it is now, the last tests were so low compared to AC/5s because it took them 5 seconds to heat up while firing, and 10 seconds too cool down without firing again. Because of the additional weight required, RAC/5s when used on a *consistent* basis (to jam bar limit then stop), should put out more damage over time than an AC/5. The AC/5 weighs two tons less, has additional range, and generates less heat as an advantage.

• SUGGESTED FIX: Lower time it takes to cool the weapon off completely from 10 seconds to 7.5 seconds. Jam duration being high, however, I believe encourages skillful use of the weapon.

Damage needs to be increased very slightly. As is, the UAC/5 in my testing is performing more reliably and dealing more damage over the same duration of time, at ranges greater than the RAC/5 is effective. It's also doing this for 1 ton less. The RAC/5 should be dealing more damage within its optimal range due to the increased weight investment.

• SUGGESTED FIX: Bump damage from 1.35 to 1.45. This in combination with the cool off change suggested above should increase its effective damage within its optimal range.

Heat could be toned down slightly. I say slightly because if the changes above are taken into consideration, then Mechs using 2x RAC/5s are going to be overheating more quickly with how hot the weapon is in practice. This is to compensate for that change.

• SUGGESTED FIX: Reduce heat from 4 to 3.7.

Hopefully this data proves useful. I realize the sample size is small, but I've only got so much time to test!

My test with the RACs also showed heat to be a larger limiting factor than the jams. I agree the heat on each RAC needs to be decreased and it would be great if the spin up time did not count towards the jam bar or alternately, decrease the spin up time even more.

Top Leliel, on 01 July 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

Making spool-up time not contribute to the jam bar, and removing ghost heat to avoid the bug(and make assault mechs able to do better with a bunch of them) would help solve this problem.

Reducing jam duration to be on par with UACs would also work.

It is not just the GH that is causing the problems. Even a single RAC generates far too much heat to be on par with other weapons. They are like a combination UAC/laser in that you have to bring ammo AND additional heatsinks in order to use them.