Jump to content

The Great Rotary Cannon Thread


88 replies to this topic

#1 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 6,284 posts
  • Locationinside a K9, punishing lowlifes

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:00 PM

So, what's the verdict with the RACs. Are they powerful? Are they weak? Any Improvements?

Lets talk about RACs here.

EDIT:

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 18 July 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

So having tried it, RAC sucks ***. Never mind the damage output, the slow-*** projectile of the RAC5, i could barely hit moving targets, hell RAC2 could hit fairly well but it barely does any damage.

Add in the spin system. Realistically, we ought to minimize our shooting, so when target is going cover to cover, naturally we cease firing to save ammo, and then continue once our target is out, or when we briefly switch target. But that only fills up the jam bar even more due to it filling the gauge preemptively when just spinning up.

And then the RNG screwing me over, you think i'd get to pepper a target for long to deal adequate, but no I couldn't even do that. As if that's not bad enough, jam dissipation and duration is at 10s - 9s, that means not only my burst could be short, i could only do so rarely.

At 1 tons of ammo + magazine nodes, it's actually enough to last the match but then there's a lot of missed shots out there.

Having tried the RAC at a 12v12, i can pretty much say with confidence that this is a god-damn failure of implementation. We need WAAAY more velocity for the RAC5 and RAC2, 1650 and 2000 respectively, so we can actually hit people at range.

Also remove the RNG aspect, and turn it into fixed 5s shooting, lower the spin-up and spin-down time to 0.5s and just have the bar only fill up when shooting, but will heat up even when just spinning up or spinning down, and finally just 4s of jam dissipation / jam duration.


Please make this happen PGI. Your current implementation sucks.

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 20 July 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

Spoiler

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 July 2017 - 11:38 PM.


#2 Dracol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Steadfast
  • The Steadfast
  • 2,539 posts
  • LocationSW Florida

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:10 PM

Been fun running em All located in the same arm helps with tracking: no convergance and faster movement than torso weapons.

The sounds is meh. Triple ac2 sequencially fired sound better.

#3 Red Shrike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 1,042 posts
  • LocationThe Rock

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:15 PM

Doing alright with them. If anything, they're fun.

Spoiler


#4 Tyroki

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 109 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:22 PM

Better, more consistent damage in weapons of the similar tonage.

Requires too much face-time to do any damage worth a damn.

You have to push them in to the red zone and keep them there to make them worthwhile, where they're likely to jam. Arguments for the RAC fall apart, as they they have the same problems as UACs. Personally? I'd rather use the UACs. At least they do their damage per projectile, allowing you to pull away if needed (before or after jam.)

Weight is horrible for the damage it 'puts out'.
Slots are also horrible for the same reason.

RAC5's at least do SOME damage for their massive amounts of negatives.
RAC2's have the same negatives, do next to no damage for the time spent firing, and you can only ever fire 2 at once. You want to fire 3 at once in a King Crab? Tough. 4? Tough.

I'm still unimpressed :\

#5 Athom83

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • The Death Wish
  • 2,460 posts
  • LocationTFS Aurora, 1000km up.

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:27 PM

View PostTyroki, on 18 July 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

Better, more consistent damage in weapons of the similar tonage.
Requires too much face-time to do any damage worth a damn.
You have to push them in to the red zone and keep them there to make them worthwhile, where they're likely to jam. Arguments for the RAC fall apart, as they they have the same problems as UACs. Personally? I'd rather use the UACs. At least they do their damage per projectile, allowing you to pull away if needed (before or after jam.)
Weight is horrible for the damage it 'puts out'.
Slots are also horrible for the same reason.

"Proper" implementation to lore would make them way OP. Around 16-18 DPS per RAC when adjusting "lore" to MWO stats. And thanks to CCT, they were reduced heavily from that on initial release on the PTS. Even buffing the current ~10 DPS of the RAC/5 is decent on paper, and very powerful for a single weapon. However, that doesn't take into account its drawbacks, tactics, counters, and other.

#6 Red Shrike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 1,042 posts
  • LocationThe Rock

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:29 PM

Well, I suppose the game rewarding the least amount of facetime contributes to the RACs being less than great.

Out of the, I don't know, 10 games or so I played this night, 8 or 9 of them were nothing but ridgeline poking. Brawling only started happening once the score was already 9 vs 3 and the brawl was really only people rushing in to get the kill or at least some extra damage.

Edited by Red Shrike, 18 July 2017 - 05:30 PM.


#7 GrimRiver

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 1,306 posts
  • LocationIf not here and not there, then where?

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:36 PM

They're ok, but running 2 is better than 1 that's for sure.

They have too much face time in anything under 300m, so it's best to hang at 450-500m.

Better used as a suppression weapon.

#8 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 6,284 posts
  • Locationinside a K9, punishing lowlifes

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:38 PM

View PostTyroki, on 18 July 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

Better, more consistent damage in weapons of the similar tonage.

Requires too much face-time to do any damage worth a damn.

You have to push them in to the red zone and keep them there to make them worthwhile, where they're likely to jam. Arguments for the RAC fall apart, as they they have the same problems as UACs. Personally? I'd rather use the UACs. At least they do their damage per projectile, allowing you to pull away if needed (before or after jam.)

Weight is horrible for the damage it 'puts out'.
Slots are also horrible for the same reason.

RAC5's at least do SOME damage for their massive amounts of negatives.
RAC2's have the same negatives, do next to no damage for the time spent firing, and you can only ever fire 2 at once. You want to fire 3 at once in a King Crab? Tough. 4? Tough.

I'm still unimpressed :\


I have yet to try it out cause I'm still updating.

Although i figure as much, cause all that stare-time is quite unhealthy. And with the good DPS hinging on burning the weapon way beyond the jam-meter, I'm pretty sure it fails cause it's so unreliable that way. Hell even just not shooting beyond red and maintaining space for the gauge, it has even lesser EDPS than the weapons with equivalent tonnage.

Why would anyone even replace AC5s with RAC2s?

View PostAthom83, on 18 July 2017 - 05:27 PM, said:

"Proper" implementation to lore would make them way OP. Around 16-18 DPS per RAC when adjusting "lore" to MWO stats. And thanks to CCT, they were reduced heavily from that on initial release on the PTS. Even buffing the current ~10 DPS of the RAC/5 is decent on paper, and very powerful for a single weapon. However, that doesn't take into account its drawbacks, tactics, counters, and other.


Yeah, lore iteration is ridiculously powerful, and at the same time would need to be even more unreliable. It's also unreliable already.

PGI should have just stuck with basic archetypal MG that guaranteed jam/stalling on the filled gauge, then balanced the effective damage/second there. It's so much easier that way both to balance, and for the user to use than going out of our way to extend our stare on the chance that we do even more damage, while we ourselves are gravely endanger by staring and we have to do it for a prolonged time.

Supposed that we get lucky, even with the UAC, imagine not jamming for around 10 double shots, now imagine not jamming for a whole 10 seconds. Now that's 109.1 damage for a single RAC. As if long periods of UAC not jamming wasn't already ridiculously lucky enough, but then being lucky with RAC is even more ridiculous.

What should have happened is 5s firing for 40/50 damage, 4s jam duration/dissipation, and 0.5s for spin-up + 0.5s spin down, that would have consistent 4/5 EDPS, then just tweak the damage/shot and rate of fire, like 0.8 damage/shot 10 RPS for RAC2, and 1.25 damage/shot 8 RPS for the RAC5. It's just way way mathematically feasible.

But not having tried this yet, it's all math for me so far.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 July 2017 - 05:48 PM.


#9 Rouken

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:50 PM

View PostRed Shrike, on 18 July 2017 - 05:29 PM, said:

Well, I suppose the game rewarding the least amount of facetime contributes to the RACs being less than great.


We've seen in the past that high facetime/high dps builds can be good if they can sustain, but RACs don't seem cross that threshold yet.

#10 Red Shrike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 1,042 posts
  • LocationThe Rock

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:52 PM

View PostRouken, on 18 July 2017 - 05:50 PM, said:


We've seen in the past that high facetime/high dps builds can be good if they can sustain, but RACs don't seem cross that threshold yet.

That's usually something for the mechs that can tank the return fire.

#11 Bersercker

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 24 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 06:18 PM

Too unreliable for brawling due to jams, and at medium range people usually will just take cover after shooting while the rac spins up, not to mention not so stellar accuracy.

So imo in their current state racs would only be good on some fast mediums that provide fire support to friendly assaults and run at the first sign of trouble. But then almost any weapon would do in such situation.

#12 Shadowomega1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 987 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 06:25 PM

Ran 2 RAC5s on my Atlas D DC only issue I had with it is allies hugging my RACs or hugging the enemy I am trying to fill with hot metal.

#13 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,363 posts
  • LocationStranded on Isla Nublar

Posted 18 July 2017 - 06:28 PM

RACs are still way too RNG. You should not have to pray to RNGjesus just to do more dps than an AC5.

#14 Snazzy Dragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 2,912 posts
  • LocationRUNNING FAST AND TURNING LEFT

Posted 18 July 2017 - 06:31 PM

They're not great, but they aren't completely terrible, if you're shooting a potato

#15 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 6,284 posts
  • Locationinside a K9, punishing lowlifes

Posted 18 July 2017 - 06:50 PM

View PostSnazzy Dragon, on 18 July 2017 - 06:31 PM, said:

They're not great, but they aren't completely terrible, if you're shooting a potato


But then we're not supposed to balance by potato do we?

#16 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,363 posts
  • LocationStranded on Isla Nublar

Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:00 PM

Quote

But then we're not supposed to balance by potato do we?


better than letting comp players balance the game

then wed only have 3 different weapons

#17 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 6,284 posts
  • Locationinside a K9, punishing lowlifes

Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:03 PM

View PostKhobai, on 18 July 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:

better than letting comp players balance the game

then wed only have 3 different weapons


I want you to consider what you just said. It's okay to balance by idiot pilots, versus what-i-assume-to-be-one-trick pony pilots that chances are knows how to play the game better even non-meta builds over potatos.

#18 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,363 posts
  • LocationStranded on Isla Nublar

Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:05 PM

Quote

I want you to consider what you just said. It's okay to balance by idiot pilots, versus what-i-assume-to-be-one-trick pony pilots that chances are knows how to play the game better even non-meta builds over potatos.


yes. remember when PGI had all their secret meetings with top comp players on how to balance the game? remember how that turned out? lol... comp players arnt any better at balancing this game than potatos. because it turned out comp players had their own agendas for balancing. go figure.

potato balancing is the way to go. its funny as hell seeing all the comp players cry about their toys getting taken away to make the game more potato friendly. and potatos dont have agendas other than being potatos. they just want to brawl other potatos all day long using whatever weapons they feel like. they dont want to turn the game into a metasniping cesspool where only a few weapons and builds are viable.

Edited by Khobai, 18 July 2017 - 07:13 PM.


#19 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • WC 2018 Top 12 Qualifier
  • WC 2018 Top 12 Qualifier
  • 17,982 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:11 PM

View PostKhobai, on 18 July 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:


better than letting comp players balance the game

then wed only have 3 different weapons



Comp players want more variety


It just so happens PGI fails to balance, and only a handful are viable at any given time
So, those are used

#20 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,363 posts
  • LocationStranded on Isla Nublar

Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:18 PM

Quote

Comp players want more variety


no comp players want whatever will give them an advantage over other players

potatos dont care about being better than other players. they just want to be potatos.
.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users