80 replies to this topic

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

I don't know why you guys are even arguing about UAC5 vs. RAC5. They're two fundamentally different weapons that need different playstyles.

Yeah, obviously UAC5 is going to be better for poking because it frontloads the damage, but you're totally out of touch if you don't see the advantage of RAC5s over UAC5s in flat ground engagements that are far more common post-CW.

Poking meta? Does the poking meta even exist anyone?

Clan mechs and O-Gens alike are evaporating under the hailstorm of MRMs/RACs/UACs in Faction Play. An organized wave of MRM80 assaults will simply evaporate anything they look at, regardless of how well it twists- sustained DPS has jumped from 5-6 on Assaults to 8-10, while peak DPS has jumped a full 10-15 points or so.

Maulers are topping out at around 25-30dps when they were at 15-20 before. Maybe at top 0.1 percentile of competitive, PPFLD still rains supreme, but that is not the state of the meta down here in QP. But then, as far as I can tell MischiefSC doesn't even play anymore.

The nerf to Gauss/PPC and the addition of RACs, MRMs, UAC20s, twin LB20X/HGauss (as good/bad as they may be)- which all have incredibly high burst damage potential has fundamentally changed the meta. Suggesting UAC5s completely trump RAC5s because they frontload the damage, at the expense of raw burst damage seems really premature to me.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 24 July 2017 - 05:06 PM, said:

Nope. youre completely wrong with your binary black and white thinking. There are a multitude of different situations can occur in a game which might affect how you fire your UAC.

UAC can poke/snapfire, where you just doubletap two shots, then immediately duck back into cover

UAC can ultramode dps where you repeatedly double tap at the fastest rate of fire for maximum dps

UAC can single shot dps, in situations where you absolutely need consistent/reliable damage and cant risk the chance of jamming.

None of those are defeating the point of the UAC.

Considering that you're investing 1 ton and 1 crit slot, on the off chance you wanna stare people to death, no i have to disagree. It's defeating the point, because you are not using the weapon to it's fullest extent, considering you paid for it.

Even if it's an option, you are trading what could have been another more reliable laser for better alpha - maybe another ER-ML for guaranteed + 5 damage, heatsink, or ammo per ton, or a weapon system that would actually do it better. I agree that it's great that you could just pepper enemies to death, or poke them, so long as the situation demands it is okay. But if that's your only playstyle -- poking, you are defeating the purpose of the UAC.

That's like using SRMs at 300m when they could not harm anything outside of 270m. Of course as an SRM user, you need to get in range, with skill and experience. Just as the RAC user would need to skillfully get safe face-time.

If you think that its great that it has options, that's on you. But if you're limiting the weapon to the role it was not intended such as poking only, when there are weapons best suited for the role it's actually trying to do, then you ARE defeating the point of the weapon, its a waste of what you paid for. It's inefficient.

Khobai, on 24 July 2017 - 05:06 PM, said:

Its the fact the UAC has all those different options that makes it such a great weapon.

I never said that the UAC is a bad weapon. I just said that it would be defeating the point, at least the upgrade from the AC5.

Khobai, on 24 July 2017 - 05:06 PM, said:

The RAC5 by contrast is very limited in how it can be used. It doesnt get all those different options that the UAC gets. It really only has one role: facetime dps. And it doesnt deliver enough damage in that role to be worth it.

Yes, the RAC is very limited. Placement wise, the RAC5 is actually too powerful, while the RAC2 is actually abhorrently weak. Let me be clear, i don't think that UAC is worse than RAC -- that it would out-play it in a match. However as demonstrated, the RAC5 is much more powerful than the UAC5, in terms of damage.

As for whether you think the damage output is worth it, that's on your own subjective view. There are people who could actually make RAC5 work, and their subjective opinion would be just as valid as you if you don't have an objective proof such as math calculations backing your claims up.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 July 2017 - 05:43 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Considering that you're investing 1 ton and 1 crit slot, on the off chance you wanna stare people to death, no i have to disagree. It's defeating the point, because you are not using the weapon to it's fullest extent.

and youre wrong.

because risking jamming is not always a good thing

there are clutch moments when a UAC jamming can get you killed. and if you single shotted you wouldve lived.

yes you invested 1 ton and 1 crit for the ability to doubletap. it doesnt mean its always advantageous to doubletap. because sometimes its not. thats why the UAC5 doesnt automatically doubletap every time you pull the trigger. it gives you the option to single tap or doubletap. because the latter is not always better.

so again its not defeating the point. there are times to doubletap. and there are times not to doubletap. that is the point.

Quote

However as demonstrated, the RAC5 is much more powerful than the UAC5, in terms of damage.

that statement means absolutely nothing. thats like saying an lrm20 is more powerful in terms of damage than an ISLPL. its true. but when it comes time to put down, the LRM20 just isnt delivering the goods. While the ISLPL is one of the top 3 weapons in the game.

Quote

There are people who could actually make RAC5 work

Im sure there are. But I dont care about them.

To get ME to use RACs they need shorter spoolup, more dps/better consistency, and higher velocity.

My opinion is that they need to be better. Your opinion is that theyre fine. Agree to disagree.

Edited by Khobai, 24 July 2017 - 05:51 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 24 July 2017 - 05:36 PM, said:

I don't know why you guys are even arguing about UAC5 vs. RAC5. They're two fundamentally different weapons that need different playstyles.

Because the other two were treating the RAC as you would with the UAC. Their metric of what is good is a small facet of the UAC, a small facet that the UAC isn't even the optimal choice of weapon.

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 24 July 2017 - 05:36 PM, said:

Yeah, obviously UAC5 is going to be better for poking because it frontloads the damage, but you're totally out of touch if you don't see the advantage of RAC5s over UAC5s in flat ground engagements that are far more common post-CW.

Kinda really the issue with the two. As if the game is built only for poking. Yes poking yields better result, but again that would be defeating on a weapon of a different niche.

Khobai, on 24 July 2017 - 05:41 PM, said:

and youre wrong.

because risking jamming is not always a good thing

there are clutch moments when a UAC jamming can get you killed. and if you single shotted you wouldve lived.

Sure risking a jam isn't necessarily a good thing. But it is exactly the thing where the UAC5 gets it's EDPS. I never said that double tapping is always advantageous, i just said that it would be defeating.

You are wasting the weapon system, you're better off with another ER-ML, as it would give you better alpha and sustainability. Sure it's hot, but then you dealt more upfront damage and you didn't even jammed.

Khobai, on 24 July 2017 - 05:41 PM, said:

yes you invested 1 ton and 1 crit for the ability to doubletap. it doesnt mean its always advantageous to use that ability. because sometimes its not. thats why the UAC5 doesnt automatically doubletap every time you pull the trigger. it gives you the option to single tap or doubletap. because the latter is not always better.

I never said that it's always advantageous. But the double tap is why it has better DPS versus the non UAC counter part, and exactly what you paid for. And considering the better option in achieving poking, this is a dreadfully inefficient use of the weapon, peppering enemy is it's niche.

Khobai, on 24 July 2017 - 05:41 PM, said:

that statement means absolutely nothing. thats like saying an lrm20 is more powerful in terms of damage than an ISLPL. its true. but when it comes time to put down, the LRM20 just isnt delivering the goods. While the ISLPL is one of the top 3 weapons in the game.

Yes it does. It means that it does damage better than the UAC5. That means on the peppering role that the UAC5 would do otherwise, the RAC doing it better would make it a different choice. Not a "good" choice, but its a choice.

Whether it means that it's a better weapon system over the UAC5, no it does not, it's merely better at a specific situation. Specific situations equivalent to SRM brawlers needing to get in range. That means you have to treat the weapon differently, as you would with the UAC5 to get the optimal result. Playstyle that which you are adamantly forcing over the RAC5.

Khobai, on 24 July 2017 - 05:41 PM, said:

Im sure there are. But I dont care about them.

To get ME to use RACs they need shorter spoolup, more dps/better consistency, and higher velocity.

My opinion is that they need to be better. Your opinion is that theyre fine. Agree to disagree.

And that's what i've been doing, disagreeing. And yes, i agree to what the RAC needs. Better velocity, shorter spool up, more dps and better consistency.

But if you're so close-minded, that you don't even consider opinions of others, why should we consider your opinion? Why would we grace hearing and considering what you have to say, when you won't consider what we have to say.

Do onto others what you want others to do to you. If you're not gonna grace us with an open discussion, then we're just wasting time responding to you, as you are to us. Reason only works to those willing to listen.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 July 2017 - 06:10 PM.

[C4NC3R]

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

However since the RACs are operating at the safe level, what about their jam? According to math, there should be 27.027027 with fixed chance jamming right? That meant that the RAC did 21.6216216 extra damage, and the RAC5 dealt 40.5405405 damage yes? Additional 3.715055257731959s each at a total of 19.71505525773196 s.

RAC5 = 95.1030405 / 19.71505525773196 = 4.82387897252796 EDPS
RAC2 = 52.1766216 / 19.71505525773196 = 2.646536919014573 EDPS

Taking account of the Enchanced RAC/UAC of 15%, the jam duration/dissipation would have been reduced to 8.5s.

RAC5 = 95.1030405 / 18.21505525773196 = 5.22112281046364 EDPS
RAC2 = 52.1766216 / 18.21505525773196 = 2.864477810346031 EDPS

We clearly see that math wasn't your favorit study dude, cause...

With UAC/RAC Enchancement RAC5 do just... 57.3 DMG.

[The6thMessenger]

C4NC3R, on 25 July 2017 - 06:53 AM, said:

We clearly see that math wasn't your favorit study dude, cause...

With UAC/RAC Enchancement RAC5 do just... 57.3 DMG.

How did you conclude? Show us your solution.

Here's mine.

6s of JamRampUp -- rather that's your jam-gauge minus 1s of spin-up time, times 7.275 which is your rate of fire, that is 36.375 shots. With 3.7% chance of jam over the red-line, that is + 27.02702702702703 average maximum shots before jamming. That is a total of 63.40202702702703 shots before jamming, multiplied by per-shot damage of the RAC5 of 1.5, that is 95.10304054054055 damage.

Simmilarly, the RAC2 with 0.75s of spin-up, that would be 5.25s of firing, or 38.19375 shots. + the 27.02702702702703 average maximum shots over the red line, that is 65.22077702702703 shots total. Multipled by RAC2 damage of 0.8, that is 52.17662162162162 damage.

Quote

UAC Jam Chance > Enhanced UAC / RAC
UAC Jam Chance Nodes have been replaced with Enhanced UAC/RAC Nodes. Rather than reducing the chances of incurring a weapon jam, these Nodes will now instead reduce the Jam Duration for UACs and improve the dissipation rate of the Jam Gauge for RACs.

https://mwomercs.com...14126-18jul2017

That means as opposed of 10 seconds for the jam-gauge to clear when full or when jammed, it only takes 8.5 seconds. Because 15% of 10 seconds is 1.5 seconds, and that is subtracted to 10 seconds. No it does not affect your damage.

Now having that, the divisor is less 1.5s. So as opposed of 19.71505525773196, which is comprised of 10s of jam time + 6s of JamRampUpTime which is basically the jam gauge, + 3.715055257731959s of average maximum firing time derived from 27.02702702702703 average shots before jam over red-line calculated from 3.7% jam chance, and is divided by the rate of fire which is 7.275.

Now the new divisor is 18.21505525773196, accounting for the jam time being at 8.5s as opposed of 10 seconds.

And thus my conclusion is:

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

RAC5 = 95.1030405 / 19.71505525773196 = 4.82387897252796 EDPS
RAC2 = 52.1766216 / 19.71505525773196 = 2.646536919014573 EDPS

Taking account of the Enchanced RAC/UAC of 15%, the jam duration/dissipation would have been reduced to 8.5s.

RAC5 = 95.1030405 / 18.21505525773196 = 5.22112281046364 EDPS
RAC2 = 52.1766216 / 18.21505525773196 = 2.864477810346031 EDPS

Looks like someone just got served.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 25 July 2017 - 02:29 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Looks like someone just got served.

im convinced this thread isnt even about RAC5s anymore, its just about this guy trying to grow his math epeen.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 25 July 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

im convinced this thread isnt even about RAC5s anymore, its just about this guy trying to grow his math epeen.

Why, because you couldn't do it properly? Because C4NC3R didn't have the necessary faculties to understand why he was wrong.

Not really no.

However, it's frustrating that I'm trying my best to frame my point with all that math, to argue from an objective standpoint that would ultimately lead to a better RAC. But so far there are people trying to argue otherwise by simply dismissing my work, instead of doing math of their own, showing the miscalculations that should prove me wrong.

Besides, he started with that high-and-mighty comment.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 25 July 2017 - 04:02 PM.

[C4NC3R]

The6thMessenger, on 25 July 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

Why, because you couldn't do it properly? Because C4NC3R didn't have the necessary faculties to understand why he was wrong.

Not really no.

However, it's frustrating that I'm trying my best to frame my point with all that math, to argue from an objective standpoint that would ultimately lead to a better RAC. But so far there are people trying to argue otherwise by simply dismissing my work, instead of doing math of their own, showing the miscalculations that should prove me wrong.

Ololololo... to every your false statement. Simply cause... I run dual-RC5 on WHM-6R, and largest number to direct section of the mech before one of two RAC's5 get jammed never exceded the 103 DMG... mostly they got disabled spiting out just 90.5-93.1 DMG, and now devide theese numbers on 2. Than you'll get a real DPM/DPS of the RAC5. And all this with full-open FIREPOWER skill tree.
As I said even if by the full staistics number you are right, when it goes from theory to practice.. Your Math are WRONG.
Like it or not, it's just how it is. Single RAC5 DPM is 48.5-50.1 DMG with fully open "firepower" skill tree. .

Edited by C4NC3R, 25 July 2017 - 04:05 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

C4NC3R, on 25 July 2017 - 04:03 PM, said:

Ololololo... to every your false statement. Simply cause... I run dual-RC5 on WHM-6R, and largest number to direct section of the mech before one of two RAC's5 get jammed never exceded the 103 DMG... mostly they got disabled spiting out just 90.5-93.1 DMG, and now devide theese numbers on 2. Than you'll get a real DPM/DPS of the RAC5. And all this with full-open FIREPOWER skill tree.
As I said even if by the full staistics number you are right, when it goes from theory to practice.. Your Math are WRONG.
Like it or not, it's just how it is. Single RAC5 DPM is 48.5-50.1 DMG with fully open "firepower" skill tree. .

I might as well say damage is actually 500, because i can boat 4 RAC5s with my urbanmech.

You do know what does Jam Chance do right? You think just because you were unlucky enough that your RAC5s jam, that's representative of every other players using the RAC5?

Sorry, you didn't do any math. Like it or not, you have no grounds in stating those as "facts".

Show us your solution, cause until then that's just irrelevant, subjective, anecdotal evidence. Like it or not, that's just how it is.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 25 July 2017 - 04:17 PM.

[C4NC3R]

The6thMessenger, on 25 July 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

I might as well say damage is actually 500, because i can boat 4 RAC5s with my urbanmech.

Only 189 DMG... sorry but it how it's work. And work untill you got RAC-enemy with quirks or Dual-HPPC monster that'll shot-off your Urbie under your seat.

[The6thMessenger]

C4NC3R, on 26 July 2017 - 03:08 AM, said:

Only 189 DMG... sorry but it how it's work. And work untill you got RAC-enemy with quirks or Dual-HPPC monster that'll shot-off your Urbie under your seat.

Lol, just lol.

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 July 2017 - 04:18 AM.

[MischiefSC]

The6thMessenger, on 23 July 2017 - 06:30 PM, said:

So does of my friends named Eric Cartman, DarkMatter2525, thatguyonkoontzstreet, BallsBallsBalls. And we agreed unanimously that we can snipe a locust going 300 kph, using an RAC5 from 2000 meters away.

I did tested it too, and i actually found success despite all of your complaints. I mean really how powerful is seeing things for yourself more than people telling you what is?

See how words aren't really getting us anywhere? The problem there is Subjectivity.



But that really defeats the purpose now doesn't it? Why bring UACs if you're just going to poke. That's like brining UAC5 when you're not double-shooting, then what the hell is the god damn point if you're not double shooting? That's what you took 1 tons for.



Non sequitur to the UAC5 *can* sustain. But i agree that PPFLD is good, just does not follow.



Then why bother? The removal of the spin-up time doesn't change the fact that it does 1.5 damage 7.275 times each second, as opposed to 5. You're approaching the problem wrongly here. Even then, the UAC5 needs to stare to actually do good damage, so not really that of a step up above the RAC5.



How would a 1v1 be representative of a 12-v-12, which is supposed to be real-world performance. If the UAC5 is better than the RAC5, then amount of equipped weapons wouldn't matter cause the number would retain the same proportion above the RAC5.

And again, i'm willing to try. But ultimately moot.

"Not as good" isn't the same as "is unable to do damage". Even a terrible build can do damage.

It's a matter however of which is *better*. The UAC5 will beat the RAC5 by a combo of better quick burst damage, snap shots, poking, better functional range and accuracy along with the smaller size meaning it fits better in a lot of build options, making 3xuac5 far more viable than 3xRAC5, or a 2x for that matter.

I want it to stay a DPS weapon, to do what it already does - it just needs to be better to be viable vs the UAC5.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 26 July 2017 - 06:47 AM, said:

"Not as good" isn't the same as "is unable to do damage". Even a terrible build can do damage.

And?

MischiefSC, on 26 July 2017 - 06:47 AM, said:

It's a matter however of which is *better*.

Well, like i've been saying this entire time, this only deals with the damage output. Not which would work better, at least in our current meta. However, you did gave me a window time to calculate, which is 2 - 4s, therefore I am able to make calculations and then a comparison.

MischiefSC, on 26 July 2017 - 06:47 AM, said:

The UAC5 will beat the RAC5 by a combo of better quick burst damage, snap shots, poking, better functional range and accuracy along with the smaller size meaning it fits better in a lot of build options, making 3xuac5 far more viable than 3xRAC5, or a 2x for that matter.

And i would say that the SRM would beat the UAC5 at close range via extreme bursts of damage. Likewise i would say that the ERLL would beat the UAC due to immense long range capability and hit-scan. And I say that RAC5 would beat the UAC5 by sheer sustained damage on a staredown, also having better damage-output/ton over UAC5s at a staredown the single RAC5 is a lot more accessible over 2x UAC5.

Weapons have their roles, they fill in a niche, and those are based over their mechanics. The game isn't just built on 2-seconds or 0.5-seconds. Or just 270-meters or even 700-meters. You can always tilt the game in your favor when you have a glaring disadvantage, such as SRM brawlers getting closer. Whose to say an RAC user couldn't flank and get an angle that will give him a good and safe stare time?

The RAC5 being beaten by poking, is no different than SRMs being beaten by out-ranging.

MischiefSC, on 26 July 2017 - 06:47 AM, said:

I want it to stay a DPS weapon, to do what it already does - it just needs to be better to be viable vs the UAC5.

And I do too. The problem is that you're thinking of "better" in a sense the two aren't even supposed to be good at -- which is poking. If you're just gonna poke with the UAC5s, just bring AC5s or AC10s and a bunch of lasers.

It's funny how you want it to stay as a DPS weapon, yet your metric measuring it as a good weapon is by virtue of poking. If you want it measuring up with the poking weapons as a DPS weapon, it could end up too powerful to it's actual role.

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 24 July 2017 - 05:36 PM, said:

I don't know why you guys are even arguing about UAC5 vs. RAC5. They're two fundamentally different weapons that need different playstyles.

This ^.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 July 2017 - 02:34 PM.

[MischiefSC]

The6thMessenger, on 26 July 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:

And?



Well, like i've been saying this entire time, this only deals with the damage output. Not which would work better, at least in our current meta. However, you did gave me a window time to calculate, which is 2 - 4s, therefore I am able to make calculations and then a comparison.



And i would say that the SRM would beat the UAC5 at close range via extreme bursts of damage. Likewise i would say that the ERLL would beat the UAC due to immense long range capability and hit-scan. And I say that RAC5 would beat the UAC5 by sheer sustained damage on a staredown, also having better damage-output/ton over UAC5s at a staredown the single RAC5 is a lot more accessible over 2x UAC5.

Weapons have their roles, they fill in a niche, and those are based over their mechanics. The game isn't just built on 2-seconds or 0.5-seconds. Or just 270-meters or even 700-meters. You can always tilt the game in your favor when you have a glaring disadvantage, such as SRM brawlers getting closer. Whose to say an RAC user couldn't flank and get an angle that will give him a good and safe stare time?

The RAC5 being beaten by poking, is no different than SRMs being beaten by out-ranging.



And I do too. The problem is that you're thinking of "better" in a sense the two aren't even supposed to be good at -- which is poking. If you're just gonna poke with the UAC5s, just bring AC5s or AC10s and a bunch of lasers.

It's funny how you want it to stay as a DPS weapon, yet your metric measuring it as a good weapon is by virtue of poking. If you want it measuring up with the poking weapons as a DPS weapon, it could end up too powerful to it's actual role.



This ^.

It's not that it needs to be good at poking, it's that it has to be good enough to make up for being bad at poking. So 0 spin up still won't make it poke as well - but it'll at least equate to SOME snapshot damage. If repositioning lets you grow that into a solid hit, awesome. If not at least you're not getting hammered while unable to respond.

It's a similar concept to a 0 damage min range. It means there are as many or more situations that can come up where you're unable to shoot back at all.

So no spool up, a bit longer time you can shoot before jam, maybe it's worth the tradeoffs.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 26 July 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

It's not that it needs to be good at poking, it's that it has to be good enough to make up for being bad at poking. So 0 spin up still won't make it poke as well - but it'll at least equate to SOME snapshot damage. If repositioning lets you grow that into a solid hit, awesome. If not at least you're not getting hammered while unable to respond.

It's a similar concept to a 0 damage min range. It means there are as many or more situations that can come up where you're unable to shoot back at all.

I agree that Spin-Up is a problem, but not to remove it entirely. Like what you said, that's similar to a 0 damage min range -- there are give and takes. And what LRMs make up for that minimum range is it's indirect-fire and long-range capability, and likewise they are designed not to be effective close range.

The RACs need something such as their spin-up time to deter reactivity, obviously it was meant to be a weapon for prepared position, while at the same time it pays for it by a massive upfront DPS.



You want some snapshot damage? Why is the performance of the weapon hinged on the snapshots or poking? Stop calibrating the weapon for poking.

It's supposed to hose people and provide astounding DPS, not to poke people to death. Eliminating the spin-up just turns the weapon into another MG but for long range, turns it into another auto-cannon for poking, that good upfront DPS wouldn't have any reason to be there. Leaving it to no spin-up would make people poke instead of hosing people like it seems to be supposed to, that they will value the stare less.

MischiefSC, on 26 July 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

So no spool up, a bit longer time you can shoot before jam, maybe it's worth the tradeoffs.

0.5s Spool-up, 5s fixed shooting time, 4.5s jam-time/dissipation. A proper RAC.

But you know what, okay lets remove the spin-up. But the RAC fires slow, and then speed up. It takes 1s for the RAC to reach it's maximum ROF. That way it has some poking potential, but the max DPS can only be attained by actually hosing.

The6thMessenger, on 19 July 2017 - 02:20 PM, said:

Currently, I found that the RAC spin-up is outright problematic, especially in our peekaboo meta. What if we could shoot the RAC immediately, but at a slower rate of fire but then speeds up. This way it could even keep a high amount of spin-up duration and high amount of rate of fire, but at the same time solves the peekaboo for RAC users.

Vote here: https://mwomercs.com...-spin-up-tweak/

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 July 2017 - 06:17 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

You think we could also have an RAC10?

Spoiler

	
	"1060": {	
		"name": "RotaryAutoCannon10",	
		"category": "weapon",	
		"factions": {	
			"Clan": false,	
			"InnerSphere": true	
		},	
		"stats": {	
			"Health": 15, // from 10	
			"slots": 9, // from 6	
			"type": "Ballistic",	
			"projectileclass": "bullet",	
			"numFiring": 1,	
			"damage": 1.915, // from 1.1	
			"heatdamage": 0,	
			"heatpenalty": 6,	
			"heatPenaltyID": 11,	
			"minheatpenaltylevel": 3,	
			"impulse": 0.020, // from 0.016	
			"heat": 3.6, // from 3.0	
			"cooldown": 0,	
			"ammoType": "RotaryAC10Ammo",	
			"ammoPerShot": 1,	
			"tons": 14, // from 10	
			"duration": -1,	
			"lifetime": 4.5,	
			"speed": 1300, // from 1650	
			"volleydelay": 0,	
			"rof": 6.000, // from 8.000	
			"spread": 0.27, // from 0.23	
			"gravity": "0,0,-9.8",	
			"maxDepth": 10,	
			"rampUpTime": 0.50,	
			"rampDownTime": 1.00,	
			"jamRampUpTime": 5.375,	
			"jamRampDownTime": 4.5,	
			"JammingChance": 1.000,	
			"JammedTime": 4.5	
		},	
		"ranges": [	
			{	
				"start": "0",	
				"damageModifier": "1.0",	
				"interpolationToNextRange": "linear"	
			},	
			{	
				"start": "360",	
				"damageModifier": "1.0",	
				"interpolationToNextRange": "linear"	
			},	
			{	
				"start": "720",	
				"damageModifier": "0",	
				"interpolationToNextRange": "linear"	
			}	
		],	
		"inheritfrom": null,	
		"cost": null	
},	
	
//////// Ammo ////////	
	
	"2067": {	
		"name": "RotaryAC10Ammo",	
		"category": "ammo",	
		"factions": {	
			"Clan": false,	
			"InnerSphere": true	
		},	
		"stats": {	
			"slots": 1,	
			"tons": 1,	
			"health": 10	
		},	
		"ctype": "CAmmoTypeStats",	
		"ammotypestats": {	
			"type": "RotaryAC10Ammo",	
			"internalDamage": 1.915,	
			"numShots": 126	
		},	
		"cost": null	
	},	
	
	"2068": {	
		"name": "RotaryAC10AmmoHalf",	
		"category": "ammo",	
		"factions": {	
			"Clan": false,	
			"InnerSphere": true	
		},	
		"stats": {	
			"slots": 1,	
			"tons": 0.5,	
			"health": 5	
		},	
		"ctype": "CAmmoTypeStats",	
		"ammotypestats": {	
			"type": "RotaryAC10Ammo",	
			"internalDamage": 1.915,	
			"numShots": 63	
		},	
		"cost": null	
	},

- RAC10 have 1300 velocity, 6 shots/sec, 1.915 damage/shot, 11.49 DPS, 5.745 Effective DPS (accounting jam), 126 ammo/ton to taste, 3.6 heat/sec.

High-power version:

Spoiler

	
	"1060": {	
		"name": "RotaryAutoCannon10",	
		"category": "weapon",	
		"factions": {	
			"Clan": false,	
			"InnerSphere": true	
		},	
		"stats": {	
			"Health": 15, // from 10	
			"slots": 9, // from 6	
			"type": "Ballistic",	
			"projectileclass": "bullet",	
			"numFiring": 1,	
			"damage": 2.5, // from 1.1	
			"heatdamage": 0,	
			"heatpenalty": 6,	
			"heatPenaltyID": 11,	
			"minheatpenaltylevel": 3,	
			"impulse": 0.020, // from 0.016	
			"heat": 3.6, // from 3.0	
			"cooldown": 0,	
			"ammoType": "RotaryAC10Ammo",	
			"ammoPerShot": 1,	
			"tons": 14, // from 10	
			"duration": -1,	
			"lifetime": 4.5,	
			"speed": 1300, // from 1650	
			"volleydelay": 0,	
			"rof": 6.000, // from 8.000	
			"spread": 0.27, // from 0.23	
			"gravity": "0,0,-9.8",	
			"maxDepth": 10,	
			"rampUpTime": 0.50,	
			"rampDownTime": 1.00,	
			"jamRampUpTime": 5.375,	
			"jamRampDownTime": 4.5,	
			"JammingChance": 1.000,	
			"JammedTime": 4.5	
		},	
		"ranges": [	
			{	
				"start": "0",	
				"damageModifier": "1.0",	
				"interpolationToNextRange": "linear"	
			},	
			{	
				"start": "360",	
				"damageModifier": "1.0",	
				"interpolationToNextRange": "linear"	
			},	
			{	
				"start": "720",	
				"damageModifier": "0",	
				"interpolationToNextRange": "linear"	
			}	
		],	
		"inheritfrom": null,	
		"cost": null	
},	
	
//////// Ammo ////////	
	
	"2067": {	
		"name": "RotaryAC10Ammo",	
		"category": "ammo",	
		"factions": {	
			"Clan": false,	
			"InnerSphere": true	
		},	
		"stats": {	
			"slots": 1,	
			"tons": 1,	
			"health": 10	
		},	
		"ctype": "CAmmoTypeStats",	
		"ammotypestats": {	
			"type": "RotaryAC10Ammo",	
			"internalDamage": 1.915,	
			"numShots": 96	
		},	
		"cost": null	
	},	
	
	"2068": {	
		"name": "RotaryAC10AmmoHalf",	
		"category": "ammo",	
		"factions": {	
			"Clan": false,	
			"InnerSphere": true	
		},	
		"stats": {	
			"slots": 1,	
			"tons": 0.5,	
			"health": 5	
		},	
		"ctype": "CAmmoTypeStats",	
		"ammotypestats": {	
			"type": "RotaryAC10Ammo",	
			"internalDamage": 1.915,	
			"numShots": 48	
		},	
		"cost": null	
	},

- RAC10 have 1300 velocity, 6 shots/sec, 2.5 damage/shot, 15 DPS, 7.5 Effective DPS (accounting jam), 96 ammo/ton to taste, 3.6 heat/sec

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 July 2017 - 10:57 PM.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

MischiefSC, on 26 July 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

It's not that it needs to be good at poking, it's that it has to be good enough to make up for being bad at poking. So 0 spin up still won't make it poke as well - but it'll at least equate to SOME snapshot damage. If repositioning lets you grow that into a solid hit, awesome. If not at least you're not getting hammered while unable to respond.

It's a similar concept to a 0 damage min range. It means there are as many or more situations that can come up where you're unable to shoot back at all.

So no spool up, a bit longer time you can shoot before jam, maybe it's worth the tradeoffs.

It's already strong af dude. Put two on a mech with good hitboxes for staring contests. Even incremental buffs to ease of use could turn it into the best ballistic weapon for any purpose other than 500m PPFLD or strict high alpha brawling weapons for assaults.

Getting good RNG on twin UAC5 Bushwacker is nice. Getting good RNG on a twin RAC5 Bushwacker is lethal.

IS UAC5 just isn't as dominant as it was. People are just going to soak your 10/20 damage double tap and then push you down with higher output weapons.

[The6thMessenger]

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 27 July 2017 - 04:10 AM, said:

It's already strong af dude.

Strong as in powerful damage output, and I agree, at least the RAC5, the RAC2 needs a god damn sandwich.

I just prefer a much more streamlined mechanics that would work at most parts of the game and feel easier to use.

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 27 July 2017 - 04:10 AM, said:

Getting good RNG on twin UAC5 Bushwacker is nice. Getting good RNG on a twin RAC5 Bushwacker is lethal.

Precisely the problem, we don't need more RNG ********, we're already playing a risky game by staring people to death, be it theirs or ours.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

The6thMessenger, on 27 July 2017 - 04:16 AM, said:

Strong as in powerful damage output, and I agree, at least the RAC5, the RAC2 needs a god damn sandwich.

I just prefer a much more streamlined mechanics that would work at most parts of the game and feel easier to use.



Precisely the problem, we don't need more RNG ********, we're already playing a risky game by staring people to death, be it theirs or ours.

In general I think CW weapons were implemented in the most conservative form possible.

It would make sense to decrease spool up time, but there is a very real risk of invalidating existing weapons by making the new ones too comfortable to use.