62 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

Darkhorse045, on 22 July 2017 - 11:14 AM, said:

Actually try only 2ml with the twin RACs with a light 300, 7 tons of ammo for the win!

I do that in my Shadowhawk. It's a beautiful thing. And RACs made my Enforcers worth playing.

[MechaBattler]

I've been using 3xRAC2 on my Shadowhawk and actually really enjoying it. 2xRAC5 seem to gain heat faster than 3xRAC2s. On one of my Uziels I use RAC5 and RAC2 with 2ERSmall and get decent results. Though mind you this is all pug queue.

[Khobai]

Quote

Racs Are Dissappointing

but if you buy a mechpack you wont be disappointed

[Captain Grayson Lighthorse]

NimoStar, on 09 August 2017 - 04:17 AM, said:

Point is, this isn't suppossed to be an infantry ;supress fire; game, as if we were on Iraq taking cover from AK47s fire.
We pilot giant robots with fusion engines. Yet we use them (the game forces us to use them) as if we were infantrymen on COD.

So yeah, pokewarrior online is perfect, specially because it doesn't have the "mech" part.

RACs had a chance to change this, making "tanking" more viable, and constant battle instead of taking your face out of the back of a building, fire once, then hide (behind a building or rock or even a TREE that by all logic would resist much less than a titanic metal warmachine of the year 3000, yet are magically indestructible) but by making RAC bad weapons, they didn't change anything.

NimoStar, you are exactly correct with these statements. This is supposed to be a game of giant robot war machine smash and bash; mega brawling to the EXTREME! But because PGI wants to keep strangling weapons and 'Mech capabilities, we are forced into playing "peek and poke" instead of "brawling war machines from hell" like it's supposed to be.

RACs were destroyed at design in this game. They were suppose to fire a 6-round burst of shells, with each shell doing the full damage of the rated weapon. Then, you have a cool down for the weapon to reload. PGI ruined this weapon. If they would have implemented it like it was designed in BattleTech lore, it would have been as effective as it was designed to be. The can be used as a fire suppression weapon if enough players on your team have them and work together in that effort. But it you have too many of them, and your team doesn't use them in a collective manner, the other team will just roll over you with those old fashioned AC/20s and LBXes and leave you smoldering in the dirt. PGI needs to revamp the RACs and make them work like they are supposed to work to make them worth the tonnage required to carry them.

[The6thMessenger]

Captain Grayson Lighthorse, on 03 October 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

NimoStar, you are exactly correct with these statements. This is supposed to be a game of giant robot war machine smash and bash; mega brawling to the EXTREME! But because PGI wants to keep strangling weapons and 'Mech capabilities, we are forced into playing "peek and poke" instead of "brawling war machines from hell" like it's supposed to be.

RACs were destroyed at design in this game. They were suppose to fire a 6-round burst of shells, with each shell doing the full damage of the rated weapon. Then, you have a cool down for the weapon to reload. PGI ruined this weapon. If they would have implemented it like it was designed in BattleTech lore, it would have been as effective as it was designed to be. The can be used as a fire suppression weapon if enough players on your team have them and work together in that effort. But it you have too many of them, and your team doesn't use them in a collective manner, the other team will just roll over you with those old fashioned AC/20s and LBXes and leave you smoldering in the dirt. PGI needs to revamp the RACs and make them work like they are supposed to work to make them worth the tonnage required to carry them.

The problem is this pinpoint nature of MWO. They have to dumb down the damage so we couldn't destroy equipment easily, hell PGI already doubled armor values and structure values.

Personally, i think the damage is fine. It's just that getting the DPS out is just not worth the stare, and they have so much stuff holding it back such as the really long jam duration/dissipation coupled with a lengthy spin that encourages people to get the most of their stares everytime..

[Akillius]

I agree with OP, tried RAC's when new and use them on a couple select medium builds just for quickdrop fun but otherwise they're dead to me.


Since this old thread's been revived...
Anyone that's fired mini gatling gun irl knows
1. you press the electric switch and it fires (no delay).
2. don't tap the trigger like a semi-auto rifle or could get a difficult-to-clear-jam so just wait about +1 second to start firing again.
3. it does lots of damage, but it eats through ammo belts.

The6thMessenger, on 06 July 2017 - 07:33 PM, said:

Would this fix it?

But hey don't take my word for it here's a good high res video that actually explains real miniguns usage and and shows in use. Wish it was army grade (or side door heli type) with sights mounted.


Dear PGI would like to see the same with RAC.
1. remove spin up and firing timer and "cool down".
2. tapping fire button (under 1.25 seconds) works like UAC but with much-much higher chance to jam and it takes a much-much longer to clear jam then UAC's.
3. drastically increase ammo usage and rate of fire (yes increases damage/second).
*OR* increase damage and drastically drop the amount of ammo per ton.
4. keep the heat, cause irl they heat up too, but remove ghost heat.
5. Only after all that, can you sell me a decal that says "Puff the Magic Dragon".

Edited by Max Rickson, 04 October 2017 - 06:19 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Max Rickson, on 04 October 2017 - 06:12 PM, said:

Since this old thread's been revived...
Anyone that's fired mini gatling gun irl knows
1. you press the electric switch and it fires (no delay).
2. don't tap the trigger like a semi-auto rifle or could get a difficult-to-clear-jam so just wait about +1 second to start firing again.
3. it does lots of damage, but it eats through ammo belts.

But hey don't take my word for it here's a good high res video that actually explains real miniguns usage and and shows in use. Wish it was army grade (or side door heli type) with sights mounted.

Don't take this the wrong way, this is a game, not real life. Yes we expect a bit of reality so that things would at least make sense like gravity, basic ballistics, etc.

Having said that, how a Minigun in real life performs is irrelevant to the balance. Our (my) concern here, along with a few others, especially the OP is about how it would fit on the balance curve and how it is worth taking over other weapons such as UAC and ACs.

[KageRyuu]

The6thMessenger, on 03 October 2017 - 02:37 PM, said:

The problem is this pinpoint nature of MWO. They have to dumb down the damage so we couldn't destroy equipment easily, hell PGI already doubled armor values and structure values.

Personally, i think the damage is fine. It's just that getting the DPS out is just not worth the stare, and they have so much stuff holding it back such as the really long jam duration/dissipation coupled with a lengthy spin that encourages people to get the most of their stares everytime..

Except that's the reason why they doubled the armor and structure, except for the head which they multiplied the structure by 5. Additionally, the RAC is far from pin point due to the slow projectile speed and the ability to torso twist, which is also funny enough present in the TT, albeit to a lesser degree.

[The6thMessenger]

KageRyuu, on 04 October 2017 - 11:01 PM, said:

Except that's the reason why they doubled the armor and structure, except for the head which they multiplied the structure by 5. Additionally, the RAC is far from pin point due to the slow projectile speed and the ability to torso twist, which is also funny enough present in the TT, albeit to a lesser degree.

"Damage is fine" that it can perform well in terms of balance. However the problem is getting out the damage, so that's my focus.

[KageRyuu]

The6thMessenger, on 04 October 2017 - 11:42 PM, said:

"Damage is fine" that it can perform well in terms of balance. However the problem is getting out the damage, so that's my focus.

Eh, I'm tired, probably misread your last post.

Either case fun facts abound before I away for the night.

1) Both RACs spin up for .5s, this can be tested by linking any machinegun to your RACs and watching the ammo counter closely.

2) Both RACs jam gauge takes 5 seconds to fill completely without letting go of the trigger, this includes the .5 seconds they are spinning up and not actually firing. This can be tested with AC10s.
2A) As such you only get 4.5 seconds of fire time before risking jamming the weapon.

3) Both RACs take 10 seconds to "cool off" or unjam. Again, easily tested with AC10s.
3A) As such it is pointless to use controlled bursts of any kind, best to ride the trigger till it jams or overheating ensues.

4) This taken all together reduces not only the stated DPS, but also the Average DPS considerably.

Speculation time!

Taking in all the above which is verifiable through experimentation, and assuming the RAC's have a 15% jam chance like the UACs, and given that they can only fire effectively for 4.5s before risking jamming, the average number of shots one will get would be 39.42 shots, so for each RAC their Max and Average DPS would be the following.

Not so much speculation thanks to The6thMessenger, according to the API the Jam Chance is 3.7% which does allow for significantly longer bursts. There is still a 4.5s leeway before jamming, but with the afore mentioned significantly reduced Jam Chance, the previous estimated average jumps up to 59.78 shots, 27.02 shots of which come from riding the jam gauge.
https://mwomercs.com...-time-with-rac/

RAC2
Listed DPS = 5.82
39.42 59.78 x .8 = 31.53 47.82 / 5.91 8.21 = 5.33 5.82
39.42 59.78 x .8 = 31.53 47.82 / 15.91 18.21 = 1.98 2.62 DPS

RAC5
Listed DPS = 10.91
39.42 59.78 x 1.5 = 59.13 89.67 / 5.91 8.21 = 10.005 10.92
39.42 59.78 x 1.5 = 59.13 89.67 / 15.91 18.21 = 3.71 4.92 DPS

For Reference:
AC2 = 2.78 DPS
AC5 = 3.01 DPS
AC10 = 4 DPS
AC20 = 5 DPS

The listed DPS is only possible if one ignores the .5s spin up and their weapon never jam Apparently the Listed DPS is far more accurate than anticipated though it does require one to fire until jamming each and every time to average out; the second line represents peak damage including spin up, but ignoring jam; the final line represents average DPS including spin up and jam.

Will expand upon this later when I am not yawning.

Edited by KageRyuu, 08 October 2017 - 11:24 AM.

[Crimson Fenris]

Actually I like the R-AC 2, using them by 3 on my MAD-3R they're effective enough as a supression weapon.

The DPS is not as great as 3x UAC2 (which are a very viable alternative), and the projectile speed is too low IMO (1500m/s against 2000 for the regular AC2). But with a bit of training, leading a target with a trail of bullets is doable even a long ranges.

The drawback of Rotary is that's not a pinpoint weapon anymore, except against slowest mechs, and the instant damages are (most of the time) not enough to blow off an intact component, even from back.
But the weapon himself got an incredible psychological impact on opponents, and the satisfaction to get ones to cover after being blinded by your fire is incredibly satisfying to watch ^^.

Of course I would like them to do more damage over time, reduce the spin delay and projectiles being as fast as regular AC's, but then it may result on a "super ballistic laser", wich may make R-ACs too powerful, so just one small buff should be enough (projectile speed or RoF maybe ?).

[KageRyuu]

Continuing where I left off, one can easily see that over the course of a match unless one consistently peeks, the RAC2 will under perform when compared to even the AC2, while the RAC5 will be out performed by the AC10 out perform the AC10, but fall short of the AC20 by a non-insignificant ammount, but what about the UACs?

Well with an average of 6.66 "bursts" before jamming, and 3.5s unjams for UAC2 , 6 for UAC5, and 7.5s for both UAC10 and 20, while the UAC10 and 20 have short durations, as far as I have been able to surmise they are .1 second for each additional round beyond the first during the initial burst which postpones the weapon's cooldown, so UAC10 has a .1 duration, while the UAC20 has a .2 duration, as such the following can be calculated.

UAC2
Listed DPS = 2.78
6.66 x 2 x 2 = 26.64 / (6.66 x .72 = 4.79) = 5.56
6.66 x 2 x 2 = 26.64 / ((6.66 x .72 = 4.79) + 3.5) = 3.21

UAC5
Listed DPS = 3.01
6.66 x 2 x 5 = 66.6 / (6.66 x 1.66 = 11.05) = 6.02
6.66 x 2 x 5 = 66.6 / ((6.66 x 1.66 = 11.05) + 6) = 3.90

UAC10
Listed DPS = 4
6.66 x 2 x 10 = 133.2 / (6.66 x (2.5 + .1) = 17.31) = 7.69
6.66 x 2 x 10 = 133.2 / ((6.66 x (2.5 + .1) = 17.31) + 7.5) = 5.36

UAC20
Listed DPS = 5
6.66 x 2 x 20 = 266.4 / (6.66 x (4 + .2) = 30.63) = 8.69
6.66 x 2 x 20 = 266.4 / ((6.66 x (4 + .2) = 30.63) + 7.5) = 6.98

The listed DPS amusingly enough does not account for the double tap, while the second line accounts for both the double tap and short durations present on the UAC10 and 20, while the third shows the Average DPS.

Now as can more readily see the poor RACs mentioned before are comparable to the UAC10 and 20 respectively if one is using them to peek, while being worse than the AC2 and AC10 AC20 in an extended brawl, ontop of which essentially locking the mech's torso forward for the 4.5+s 8.21+s duration. But how much so?

Well, during the 5.91s 8.21 average duration, both will fire the afore mentioned 39.42 59.78 shots resulting in 31.536 and 59.13 47.82 and 89.67 damage respectively, comparing that to the UAC's above we get the following.

RAC2 = 47.82

RAC5 = 89.67

UAC2 = 5.91 8.21 / .72 = 8.20 11.40 x 2 x 2 = 45.6
UAC2 = 6.66 x 2 x 2 = 26.64

UAC5 = 5.91 8.21 / 1.66 = 3.560 4.94 x 2 x 5 = 35.6 49.4

UAC10 = 5.91 8.21 / 2.5 = 2.364 3.28 x 2 x 10 = 47.28 65.6

UAC20 = 5.91 8.21 / 4 = 1.4775 2.05 x 2 x 20 = 59.1 82

As you can now see, the RAC2 is slightly worse off than the UAC2 assuming the UAC2 could fire continuously for 5.91s, which it usually cannot, but is noticeably worse off than the UAC5, which in the TT it should be able to exceed. While the RAC5 is comparable to the UAC20, an admirable claim given that the UAC20 was about 33% more powerful in the TT.

So, we have a rather unique weapon that doesn't fit into many play styles very well, one with an exceedingly long optional-duration and unoptional-cool down that all but forces staring and riding the jam probability to be of any significant use, and a spin up that further penalizes torso twisting.

The only play style this could possibly work with, that is also exceedingly rare because it's risks tend to out weigh the benefits, is skirmishing ie Hit and Run, however when pitted against clan tech, maintaining enough mobility to skirmish effectively usually precludes the use of most ballistics, including the RAC2.

NOW THEN! How to fix them?

1) Get rid of the spin up, this more than anything else forces the weapon into such a narrow niche that it cannot compete with the far more effective generalist UACs.

1A) Or at the very least get rid of the jam gauge fill on spin up.

2) Increase the damage or ROF of the RAC2 so that it can properly compete with the UAC5 at it's peak. This should only require at most a 13% 24% improvement to either, I would personally favor ROF, or some combination of reduced damage and significantly increased ROF, possibly .6 damage and 10.97 12.03 ROF while increasing it's ammo per ton to 375.

2A) One could even reduce the RAC5's power so that it more definitively bridges the gap between the UAC10 and UAC20 as it did in the TT. To this end, it should only require reducing it's ROF or Damage by up to 18%, preferably just ROF, effectively reducing it to 5.96.

3) Additionally, reduce the Jam duration for both so that the Average DPS of the RAC2 competes with that of the AC5, and the same with the RAC5 and the AC10. At the very least this would require reducing the RAC2's jam by 6s 1s down to 4 9 and the RAC5's by 1.5s .5s down to 8.5 9.5s.

Other than that it would require rebuilding them off the existing UAC designs, which I may discuss later.

Edited by KageRyuu, 08 October 2017 - 01:26 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

KageRyuu, on 05 October 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

--

You lost me at assuming that it's at 15% jam chance, it's actually at 3.7% as said by the API.

Been done before; https://mwomercs.com...-time-with-rac/, and i also used actual sources to get my stats. The API for weapon stats: http://static.mwomer.../list/full.json

The6thMessenger, on 20 July 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

> Shooting responsibly -- that is stopping immediately when the gauge is full, the RAC5 does 3.41 DPS, the RAC2 does 1.9097 DPS, with full 6s of firing + spin-time.

> At 3.7% jam chance, has average of 27 shots over red before jamming

> RAC5 does monstrous EDPS ("effective DPS" which accounts jam), at 4.82 - so much higher over AC10 despite 2-tons lighter

> RAC2 does little EDPS, at 2.64 - even lower than AC2 despite being 2-tons heavier

> RACs now have global 0.5s spin up, both RAC2 and RAC5 only have 0.5s spin up

> New setup has 100% jam chance on filled gauge, and shoots at fixed 5.0s - that means it spins for 0.5s, shoots for 5.0s, and instantly jams at the end, having continuously shot for 5.0s.

> RACs now only have 4.5s of jam dissipation / duration -- how long the jam clears, or the jam-bar to fully dissipate from full. That means if you only shoot for 2.5s, you only need to wait 2.25s for the jam meter to fully recover.

> RAC2 now have 2000 velocity, 10 shots/sec, 0.7 damage/shot, 7.0 DPS, 3.5 Effective DPS (accounting jam), 340 ammo/ton to taste, 2.4 heat/sec

> RAC5 now have 1650 velocity, 8 shots/sec, 1.1 damage/shot, 8.8 DPS, 4.4 Effective DPS (accounting jam), 220 ammo/ton to taste, 3 heat/sec

I will give you this though, i was only thinking of the RAC5. Yes the RAC2 needs damage buff.

I also provided a complete set of rework that not only would address the stare problem, but also bring the damage potential in line with others. It would have fixed shooting time, and fast jam duration/dissipation, so that one doesn't feel the need to maximize and over extend.

The UAC2, having 15% chance jam, with 3.5s to unjam, would result to jam every 6.666666666666667 double-shot, dealing 26.66666666666667 damage and incurring cumulative 4.8s of cooldown + 3.5s jam, and would have effective DPS of 3.21285140562249.

The UAC5, having 15% chance jam, with 6s to unjam, would result to jam every 6.666666666666667 double-shot, dealing 66.66666666666667 damage and incurring cumulative 11.06666666666667s of cooldown + 6.0s jam, and would have effective DPS of 3.906249999999999.

The UAC10, having 15% chance jam, with 7.5s to unjam, would result to jam every 6.666666666666667 double-shot, dealing 133.3333333333333 damage and incurring cumulative 16.66666666666667s of cooldown + 7.5s jam, and would have effective DPS of 5.517241379310344.

My rework would put the RAC2 at 3.5 EDPS, which beats the AC5 and UAC2's EDPS, while still below the UAC5's EDPS. The RAC5 at 4.4 EDPS would be above the AC10 and UAC5's EDPS, but still below UAC10's EDPS.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 October 2017 - 04:56 PM.

[Akillius]

KageRyuu, on 04 October 2017 - 11:01 PM, said:

Except that's the reason why they doubled the armor and structure, except for the head which they multiplied the structure by 5. Additionally, the RAC is far from pin point due to the slow projectile speed and the ability to torso twist, which is also funny enough present in the TT, albeit to a lesser degree.

meh
Point is I agree with OP and suggested a fix based on reality but only because of previous poster with youtube clip of another game that shall remain nameless because of its attempt to base itself with real world weaponry... (au faux est)

Edited by Max Rickson, 05 October 2017 - 06:52 PM.

[KageRyuu]

The6thMessenger, on 05 October 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

My rework would put the RAC2 at 3.5 EDPS, which beats the AC5 and UAC2's EDPS, while still below the UAC5's EDPS. The RAC5 at 4.4 EDPS would be above the AC10 and UAC5's EDPS, but still below UAC10's EDPS.

Thanks for the info, finding anything in these Forums has been a nightmare since day 1, over 4 years ago.

As for your recommendations I would argue that the RAC2 should out damage the UAC5 as is the case in the TT, I would say by at most 20% though as low as 10% would be fine as the UAC5 can still effectively torso twist increasing the RAC2's spread somewhat, while the RAC2 cannot which would give skilled mechwarriors with UAC5s the advantage.

Additionally the RAC5 should have an effective DPS somewhere between the UAC10 and UAC20 which is where it was in the TT.

Edited by KageRyuu, 08 October 2017 - 11:49 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

KageRyuu, on 08 October 2017 - 10:41 AM, said:

Thanks for the info, finding anything in these Forums has been a nightmare since day 1, over 4 years ago.

As for your recommendations I would argue that the RAC2 should out damage the UAC5 as is the case in the TT, I would say by at most 20% though as low as 10% would be fine as the UAC5 can still effectively torso twist increasing the RAC2's spread somewhat, while the RAC2 cannot which would give skilled mechwarriors with UAC5s the advantage.

Additionally the RAC5 should have an effective DPS somewhere between the UAC10 and UAC20 which is where it was in the TT.

... right well, thanks for the input, but I'm really skeptical about this. So what if it does so in TT? It's not TT, it's MWO, being different with mechanics demands different application.

I suppose we could modify the RAC2 EDPS to UAC5, and the RAC5 over UAC10, but i fear that could be too much EDPS for such light weapons. I mean the RAC2 is at 8 tons, while the UAC5 is at 9 tons. While the RAC5 is at 10 tons, where the UAC10 is at 13 tons. Wouldn't the heavier weapons do deserve better performance?

But then considering how weak the mechanics of the RACs, maybe they need such a boost exactly. Could we compromise as equal EDPS instead? That the RAC5 would be at 5.5 EDPS, while the RAC2 would be at 3.9 EDPS

Quote

> RAC2 now have 2000 velocity, 9.686 shots/sec, 0.775 damage/shot, 7.507 DPS, 3.951 Effective DPS (accounting jam), 310 ammo/ton to taste, 2.4 heat/sec

> RAC5 now have 1650 velocity, 7.750 shots/sec, 1.35 damage/shot, 10.4625 DPS, 5.507 Effective DPS (accounting jam), 178 ammo/ton to taste, 3 heat/sec

[KageRyuu]

The6thMessenger, on 08 October 2017 - 04:38 PM, said:

... right well, thanks for the input, but I'm really skeptical about this. So what if it does so in TT? It's not TT, it's MWO, being different with mechanics demands different application.

First and foremost MechWarrior including MWO has and will forever remain a Battletech spinoff, so the stats and lore present within Battletech are just as important to the feel of this game as anything else. Secondly the RAC's singular issue stems entirely from PGI's decision to include variable ROF for each class of weapon, regardless of the effect it might have on said weapons. So unable to present a RAC2 or 5 that fires 3 times faster than UACs, we get the cobbled together mess we all agree is broken, but can't agree on how to fix. Now had they decided long ago that all weapons would be balanced around 5s cooldowns/segments of time, the RACs and every other weapon would have been far simpler to port over, however they did not. Rant over.

Moving on, as for suggestions, I would increase the heat of both to be more in line with the UAC's DPH as RACs were always intended to be moderate heat, high damage, low mass ballistics. Additionally I would reduce ammunition counts to 200 and 100 respectively to bring their DPTA in line with the majority of other ballistics.

Edited by KageRyuu, 08 October 2017 - 11:53 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

KageRyuu, on 08 October 2017 - 11:52 PM, said:

First and foremost MechWarrior including MWO has and will forever remain a Battletech spinoff, so the stats and lore present within Battletech are just as important to the feel of this game as anything else.

But it's not Table-Top Turn-Based.

Fact is, it's Real-Time, it's FPS with pinpoint aim. Whereas damage at a component is random at BT, here you can put an unhealthy amount of damage at one spot, that TTK is currently unhealthy. Among other many changes like we don't give each other turns.

If you want TT balance, then you should go HBS Battletech. Cause TT balance won't work well here.

KageRyuu, on 08 October 2017 - 11:52 PM, said:

Secondly the RAC's singular issue stems entirely from PGI's decision to include variable ROF for each class of weapon, regardless of the effect it might have on said weapons. So unable to present a RAC2 or 5 that fires 3 times faster than UACs, we get the cobbled together mess we all agree is broken, but can't agree on how to fix. Now had they decided long ago that all weapons would be balanced around 5s cooldowns/segments of time, the RACs and every other weapon would have been far simpler to port over, however they did not. Rant over.

Do you know how insanely powerful simple 3x UAC rate of fire? or 6x AC rate of fire? That in itself would have been an even bigger problem with the balance. Imagine 5 PPFLD, shot every 0.2767s, basically 18.0722891566265 DPS, and then you can put that on the CT, and with 128 armor you can core it at 7.082666666666669s. A UAC20, at 15 tons, does 20 damage every 4s and can double shot, at 10 DPS max, needing it at 12.8 seconds of firing to core someone. The RAC5 at -33.34% of the tonnage, but would have 80.72% increase in DPS, and could do so at a better range -- that's just too powerful considering that you can also have the option of focusing down a component.

At TT it would have been fine, cause damage goes at semi-random components, not here, not with the PPFLD.

KageRyuu, on 08 October 2017 - 11:52 PM, said:

Moving on, as for suggestions, I would increase the heat of both to be more in line with the UAC's DPH as RACs were always intended to be moderate heat, high damage, low mass ballistics. Additionally I would reduce ammunition counts to 200 and 100 respectively to bring their DPTA in line with the majority of other ballistics.

Intended at TT, not here. Not only the RAC here is bad, you want it to be unbearable. As it is already, it's pretty hot.

And putting their DPTA in line with other ballistics would be a complete disservice, as it's basically a direct-fire LRM, cause it spreads so much. So what if it does a lot of damage? It's spread around the mech, that maximized it's durability due to damage spreading.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 October 2017 - 05:59 PM.

[KageRyuu]

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

...

Don't know why this didn't occur to me sooner, but DPS doesn't matter as much as you or PGI seem to think it does. For instance, if you make the RAC2 a burst fire weapon, either in actuality or through it's underlying mechanics so that it will reliably deal 12 damage over the course of 2.5s, does it matter if it deals that 12 damage within .5 second or over the entire 2.5, the answer is obvious given that the UAC20 deals 40 damage within .5s of pushing the button twice yet most would claim that it has a peak DPS of 10. As such It doesn't matter how fast it can deal the damage, just how much and how often it can deal said amount again.

Additionally, if you actually make the gauge cool down different from the unjam and worth pursuing in it's own regard you can wind up making a unique weapon that can compete with both ACs of it's own weight as well of those with close to it's intended fire power, as the RAC was meant to.

New RAC2
Damage: 2
Heat: .8
ROF: 6s
DPS: 12
EDPS: 3 - 4.2
HPS: 4.8
EHPS: 1.2 - 1.68
Jam%: 16.66%
UnJam: 3.71s
Spin Up: 0s
Gauge: 1s
Cooldown: 3s
Damage / Gauge: 12
Heat / Gauge: 4.8
Damage / Jam: 24
Heat / Jam: 9.6

New RAC5
Damage: 5
Heat: 1.5
ROF: 6s
DPS: 30
EDPS: 4.28 - 6
HPS: 9
EHPS: 1.35 - 1.8
Jam%: 16.66%
UnJam: 8s
Spin Up: 0s
Gauge: 1s
Cooldown: 6s
Damage>Gauge: 30
Heat>Gauge: 9
Damage>Jam: 60
Heat>Jam: 18

These are just examples, but once you know the damage per gauge/jam and the number of "bursts" you want to commit, it's easy to adjust the numbers to fit whatever effective DPS you will. Additionally if the RACs were to evolve into weapons akin to those posted above, it would only make sense to revert the ammo counts to be more in line with the the ACs and UACs, lest we truly wind up with a pair of underweight/over fed weapons.

Edited by KageRyuu, 16 October 2017 - 12:53 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

KageRyuu, on 16 October 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:

Don't know why this didn't occur to me sooner, but DPS doesn't matter as much as you or PGI seem to think it does.

Which DPS?

KageRyuu, on 16 October 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:

For instance, if you make the RAC2 a burst fire weapon, either in actuality or through it's underlying mechanics so that it will reliably deal 12 damage over the course of 2.5s, does it matter if it deals that 12 damage within .5 second or over the entire 2.5, the answer is obvious given that the UAC20 deals 40 damage within .5s of pushing the button twice yet most would claim that it has a peak DPS of 10. As such It doesn't matter how fast it can deal the damage, just how much and how often it can deal said amount again.

KageRyuu, on 16 October 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:

These are just examples, but once you know the damage per gauge/jam and the number of "bursts" you want to commit, it's easy to adjust the numbers to fit whatever effective DPS you will. Additionally if the RACs were to evolve into weapons akin to those posted above, it would only make sense to revert the ammo counts to be more in line with the the ACs and UACs, lest we truly wind up with a pair of underweight/over fed weapons.

So basically a "magazine fed" UAC.

Their idea isn't really much of a problem is the jam duration/dissipation isn't just poorly implemented. Having a fixed damage per burst really was the guiding principle of my design. As opposed of PGI inviting us to push over redline.

KageRyuu, on 16 October 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:

Additionally, if you actually make the gauge cool down different from the unjam and worth pursuing in it's own regard you can wind up making a unique weapon that can compete with both ACs of it's own weight as well of those with close to it's intended fire power, as the RAC was meant to.

Well, yeah. Unfortunately they didn't.