80 replies to this topic

[Scratx]

The6thMessenger, on 22 July 2017 - 03:26 PM, said:

I was thinking, could we stand to increase the GH limit, even remove it?

The 4x RAC2 could do 128 damage for 5 seconds, as opposed of the 4x AC5 doing only 60, 120 with 4x UAC5 without jamming. But that's 4-tons heavier and would actually require luck.

Oh god, no. Something like an Annihilator with quad RAC5 would just melt everything that didn't run away into cover immediately.

Two RAC5 alone are already murderous. Three or four? *shudders*

[Y E O N N E]

MischiefSC, on 22 July 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

Here's the thing. Your math is great - exactly what we needed to see. However the problem with RACs runs deeper. With the spin up and bad accuracy anyone who's even passable at the game can build a UAC version of the same mech that will play better.

Happy to test it with you if you want. Puck a mech, make a RAC5 build, I'll make a UAC build and we can 1 v 1.

UAC2s are indeed, even worse.

Build a Mauler MX90 with two RAC/5 and three AC/5. Allows you to snap-fire, gives you insane enough DPS if the target lingers in your line of fire. It's a little hot, but whatever was in front of you is now dead.

[Khobai]

why not just use something like three AC/5 and two LPL instead, then everything is basically snapfire, and you dont have to stand there like a potato getting wrecked in your CT because of a poor life choice to use RACs.

dont get me wrong, i love the idea of a facetime weapon like the RAC. but its just not delivering the goods. the rewards dont outweigh the risks of having to give up all that facetime. like ive said, the maths check out if it was a snapfire weapon, but the maths dont take facetime into account. when a weapon has to give facetime like that, its subject to a whole different set of maths.

Edited by Khobai, 22 July 2017 - 05:57 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 22 July 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

why not just use something like three AC/5 and two LPL instead, then everything is basically snapfire, and you dont have to stand there like a potato getting wrecked in your CT because of a poor life choice to use RACs.

dont get me wrong, i love the idea of a facetime weapon like the RAC. but its just not delivering the goods. the rewards dont outweigh the risks of having to give up all that facetime. like ive said, the maths check out if it was a snapfire weapon, but the maths dont take facetime into account. when a weapon has to give facetime like that, its subject to a whole different set of maths.

Well, the go-to on the MX90 is 2x UAC/5 and 3x AC/5 for 25 PPFLD at >600 meters, with some extra DPS if you need it. That, along with 5x or 6x AC/5 or 4x UAC/5 have been the competitive-grade builds on it. Swapping the two UAC/5 for twin RAC/5 tilts it away from PPFLD a little more in favor of DPS. I dunno. It's really just a thought experiment at this point; I need to battle test the idea, but the 2x3 UAC version was rock-solid. Whether or not the delayed DPS from the RAC/5 makes up for the loss of pinpoint remains to be seen.

All that said, I do agree that RAC are extremely inconsistent performers. I also wouldn't say that RAC are too good, because it does require a long exposure. It's the type of exposure time that only works in a full team push, because the gun can't respond fast enough for power-position or trading, you just end up wasting armor if RACs are all you have.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 22 July 2017 - 04:10 PM, said:

Except due to spin up, bad accuracy plus weapon size/weight in all actual in game practice the UAC5 wins. Even 1 to 1.

MischiefSC, on 22 July 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

However the problem with RACs runs deeper. With the spin up and bad accuracy anyone who's even passable at the game can build a UAC version of the same mech that will play better.

Since we're just going all anecdotal evidence, I'm getting consistent 700 - 800 damage from the RAC5, while i have to work hard for the UAC5 to get it up 500. If i'm getting better scores at RAC5, wouldn't that make it better? It's not my fault people couldn't make it work.

Spoiler

Really, what would the world be if we couldn't fact-check? Then we'd only have rocks for computers. This is why we appeal to something objective, say math?

To be fair the 5 PPFLD wins the UAC5 due to meta. But again as numbers shown you, by objective fact, that RAC5 would win over UAC5 over what it was trying to do, and that's pepper people to death. So what if there's still 0.5s? The immense upfront DPS of the RAC catches up to that over the long run, over the course of the game.

I agree, the accuracy is part of the problem, therefore faster velocity. But then there's you again saying something without proof -- mathematical proof, that's why you tread to "not even wrong". As the math shown, the RAC5 can in fact out-stare the UAC5, I would even say that it's pretty ******* overpowered for it's current place. While i get that UAC5s could win because it need not to stare, but realistically you are throwing away the primary use of the UAC5, and that is to dakka people to oblivion.

Look, snap-shooting isn't that big of a deal. The Gauss Rifle has 0.75s of charge time and we can manage it, the one i suggested is 0.5s which is even shorter so it should be even more managable. We can pre-charge it without actually being on target or out of cover, and we're able to time that as we get in get out of cover, all we need to do with the RAC is to just prolong the stare than just snapping in and out.

The UAC5s has a tendency to stare when used -- this is why dakka-people are a bit easier to get cored. The RAC only makes staring that much more effective, while granted it's not PPFLD so UAC5 wins at poking, but barreling down an enemy by firing shells every 0.83 seconds, we run on the same issue as with the RAC5 staring just so the UAC5 could do good damage at a short duration, so eventually the RAC5 would actually out damage it over the course of the match, as the EDPS comparison shows.

Isn't that the point of UAC5? to pepper your enemy? If you're looking to poke than to dakka, why the hell bring UAC5 anyways? You wanna poke? Bring Gauss and/or PPC.

Are you saying that you can literally go in and out of cover, or side-shield every 0.83 seconds? What the RACs couldn't stop shooting to go behind cover? You know we RAC users can also stop shooting right? You also know that like Gauss Rifle, we can pre-spool and then we snap on to target?

I will give you this though, the 2x UAC5s could do instant 20 damage under 2 seconds, but the game is more than just 2 seconds of window times, the game isn't just built on 2-seconds.

There's also difference in roles and playstyles; as the weapon demand immense face-time, then we adjust our playstyle to get moar face-time -- safely, just as we adjust our playstyle as brawlers to get close to the enemy without being killed, or to get locks when we have weapons that require locks. As sniper, we get our distance so we can snipe safely.

That's why i said that:

The6thMessenger, on 21 July 2017 - 01:05 AM, said:

Even then there's also difference in intended effect such as suppression, as well as considering damage dealt over the course of a long period like overtime at the course of a match as opposed of simple fleeting moments.

As opposed of looking for making the weapon fit your playstyle, hows about you adjusting for the weapon itself? There are people who are managing to use it, so it's possible with enough practice right? It's not a UAC, it's an RAC, there are differences in mechanics and how they could fit in the game. You say that the UAC5 would win in actual practice, of course it would if you're playing it (the RAC) as a UAC than an RAC.

MischiefSC, on 22 July 2017 - 04:10 PM, said:

Happy to test it with you if you want. Puck a mech, make a RAC5 build, I'll make a UAC build and we can 1 v 1.

If you're looking for a "trial by combat", doesn't really work that way. Two people, playing at a poorly constructed environment, wouldn't be representative to what actually happens out there. I have math on my side though, so i have something going for me.

Though I would, I had an Urbie that i could get consistent 700 - 800 damage out of RAC5, but then i realize that it would be a moot exercise. Not only there's ping difference, there's also skill difference and build difference that would make it hard to isolate the effects of RAC because there are many other factors that would contaminate the play. Ask someone on your same region though.

MischiefSC, on 22 July 2017 - 04:10 PM, said:

UAC2s are indeed, even worse.

You mean RAC2.

Khobai, on 22 July 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

why not just use something like three AC/5 and two LPL instead, then everything is basically snapfire, and you dont have to stand there like a potato getting wrecked in your CT because of a poor life choice to use RACs.

dont get me wrong, i love the idea of a facetime weapon like the RAC. but its just not delivering the goods. the rewards dont outweigh the risks of having to give up all that facetime. like ive said, the maths check out if it was a snapfire weapon, but the maths dont take facetime into account. when a weapon has to give facetime like that, its subject to a whole different set of maths.

The DPS is actually good considering the face time. You stare with UAC5s as well, so really the concern for the face-time of the RAC5 is moot. Yes not that long, but you know you could also stop mid-stare with the RAC5 as well.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 July 2017 - 03:43 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

RACs are cool weapons. I like their design. However, from a gameplay pov they are lacking.

Con:
1. Spin up
2. Low accuracy
3. Heat
4. A long facetime

For all these drawbacks, especially the required facetime, the DPS is simply too low. Such a weapon should make you scramble for cover. Yet, once you understand that the only intimidating thing is the sound and visual effects, you simple move a bit and then blow up the enemy with precise volleys while he sandblasts your mech.

Actually I wouldn't even re-design the weapon. As I initially said, it is a cool designed weapon. All it needs is some serious bite. Therefore I'd ramp up its DPS slowly over some patches and see how it pans out

The6thMessenger, on 23 July 2017 - 02:55 AM, said:

The DPS is actually good considering the face time. You stare with UAC5s as well, so really the concern for the face-time of the RAC5 is moot. Yes not that long, but you know you could also stop mid-stare with the RAC5 as well.

I tend to disagree. People can break LoS and fast mechs circle behind you. Then you need to stop firing which forces you to spin up again. If an enemy is clever, he will use this spin up time again you...time and again.

Edited by Bush Hopper, 23 July 2017 - 04:46 AM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 July 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

Well, the go-to on the MX90 is 2x UAC/5 and 3x AC/5 for 25 PPFLD at >600 meters, with some extra DPS if you need it. That, along with 5x or 6x AC/5 or 4x UAC/5 have been the competitive-grade builds on it. Swapping the two UAC/5 for twin RAC/5 tilts it away from PPFLD a little more in favor of DPS. I dunno. It's really just a thought experiment at this point; I need to battle test the idea, but the 2x3 UAC version was rock-solid. Whether or not the delayed DPS from the RAC/5 makes up for the loss of pinpoint remains to be seen.

All that said, I do agree that RAC are extremely inconsistent performers. I also wouldn't say that RAC are too good, because it does require a long exposure. It's the type of exposure time that only works in a full team push, because the gun can't respond fast enough for power-position or trading, you just end up wasting armor if RACs are all you have.

I came up with an entirely heat neutral build for once... waitaminute, smurfy reads RAC5s at no heat, nevermind

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...7fe1f8f52ee0a4e

Max size LFE since I sold all my STD engines and refuse to use them in builds now, 2 RAC5s since we're looking for RAC builds, 2 AC5s because they fit and give good DPS and add a little bit of frontloaded damage in.


Probably ends up about equal to quad UAC5.

Edited by Dakota1000, 23 July 2017 - 04:56 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Bush Hopper, on 23 July 2017 - 04:42 AM, said:

I tend to disagree. People can break LoS and fast mechs circle behind you. Then you need to stop firing which forces you to spin up again. If an enemy is clever, he will use this spin up time again you...time and again.

That assumes a 1v1 environment, and a faster mech. Not every RAC user are slow as hell, likewise always the one being flanked.

That is if enemy is clever, but of course doesn't mean you can't out-play your enemy.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

The6thMessenger, on 23 July 2017 - 04:57 AM, said:

That assumes a 1v1 environment, and a faster mech. Not every RAC user are slow as hell, likewise always the one being flanked.

That is if enemy is clever, but of course doesn't mean you can't out-play your enemy.

Its somewhat hard to outplay your enemy when your weapon requires constant face time to get your damage in. Its much easier to outplay an enemy when you can pop out, do like 60-80 damage, disappear, pop up behind them, repeat, etc.

[The6thMessenger]

Dakota1000, on 23 July 2017 - 05:02 AM, said:

Its somewhat hard to outplay your enemy when your weapon requires constant face time to get your damage in. Its much easier to outplay an enemy when you can pop out, do like 60-80 damage, disappear, pop up behind them, repeat, etc.

The RAC5 can do that to, we can pre-spool the RACs even when not on target, even when not out of cover yet. Achieving 70 damage is basically 6.4147s for a single RAC5, or just 3.2073s, versus 5.8139s of the 2x UAC5 that didn't even jam.

Of course yes the spin-up time would be a hindrance considering that you need to do so every time you would restart the stream versus, the UAC5 that could shoot on demand + actually the range and the ppfld damage. But then again both have face-time element, so that's not really that bad, you just have to adjust for the spin-time, and we can already do so.

And out-playing them could be just as simple as out-flanking them, that would give you enough time to spin and loose a stream since you're not really in sight of your enemy, or even just have it pre-spooled. As opposed of a 1v1, you could be in pairs or a single lance, or even an entire 12-man group.

Why narrow the combat to that?

[Yellonet]

Seems to me that you want to make RAC more in line with other ballistic weapons, I kind of like that it's different, and it should have a high dps, possibly even higher than today to balance the face time and spread.

[MischiefSC]

The6thMessenger, on 23 July 2017 - 02:55 AM, said:

Since we're just going all anecdotal evidence, I'm getting consistent 700 - 800 damage from the RAC5, while i have to work hard for the UAC5 to get it up 500. If i'm getting better scores at RAC5, wouldn't that make it better? It's not my fault people couldn't make it work.

Spoiler

Really, what would the world be if we couldn't fact-check? Then we'd only have rocks for computers. This is why we appeal to something objective, say math?

To be fair the 5 PPFLD wins the UAC5 due to meta. But again as numbers shown you, by objective fact, that RAC5 would win over UAC5 over what it was trying to do, and that's pepper people to death. So what if there's still 0.5s? The immense upfront DPS of the RAC catches up to that over the long run, over the course of the game.

I agree, the accuracy is part of the problem, therefore faster velocity. But then there's you again saying something without proof -- mathematical proof, that's why you tread to "not even wrong". As the math shown, the RAC5 can in fact out-stare the UAC5, I would even say that it's pretty ******* overpowered for it's current place. While i get that UAC5s could win because it need not to stare, but realistically you are throwing away the primary use of the UAC5, and that is to dakka people to oblivion.

Look, snap-shooting isn't that big of a deal. The Gauss Rifle has 0.75s of charge time and we can manage it, the one i suggested is 0.5s which is even shorter so it should be even more managable. We can pre-charge it without actually being on target or out of cover, and we're able to time that as we get in get out of cover, all we need to do with the RAC is to just prolong the stare than just snapping in and out.

The UAC5s has a tendency to stare when used -- this is why dakka-people are a bit easier to get cored. The RAC only makes staring that much more effective, while granted it's not PPFLD so UAC5 wins at poking, but barreling down an enemy by firing shells every 0.83 seconds, we run on the same issue as with the RAC5 staring just so the UAC5 could do good damage at a short duration, so eventually the RAC5 would actually out damage it over the course of the match, as the EDPS comparison shows.

Isn't that the point of UAC5? to pepper your enemy? If you're looking to poke than to dakka, why the hell bring UAC5 anyways? You wanna poke? Bring Gauss and/or PPC.

Are you saying that you can literally go in and out of cover, or side-shield every 0.83 seconds? What the RACs couldn't stop shooting to go behind cover? You know we RAC users can also stop shooting right? You also know that like Gauss Rifle, we can pre-spool and then we snap on to target?

I will give you this though, the 2x UAC5s could do instant 20 damage under 2 seconds, but the game is more than just 2 seconds of window times, the game isn't just built on 2-seconds.

There's also difference in roles and playstyles; as the weapon demand immense face-time, then we adjust our playstyle to get moar face-time -- safely, just as we adjust our playstyle as brawlers to get close to the enemy without being killed, or to get locks when we have weapons that require locks. As sniper, we get our distance so we can snipe safely.

That's why i said that:


As opposed of looking for making the weapon fit your playstyle, hows about you adjusting for the weapon itself? There are people who are managing to use it, so it's possible with enough practice right? It's not a UAC, it's an RAC, there are differences in mechanics and how they could fit in the game. You say that the UAC5 would win in actual practice, of course it would if you're playing it (the RAC) as a UAC than an RAC.



If you're looking for a "trial by combat", doesn't really work that way. Two people, playing at a poorly constructed environment, wouldn't be representative to what actually happens out there. I have math on my side though, so i have something going for me.

Though I would, I had an Urbie that i could get consistent 700 - 800 damage out of RAC5, but then i realize that it would be a moot exercise. Not only there's ping difference, there's also skill difference and build difference that would make it hard to isolate the effects of RAC because there are many other factors that would contaminate the play. Ask someone on your same region though.



You mean RAC2.



The DPS is actually good considering the face time. You stare with UAC5s as well, so really the concern for the face-time of the RAC5 is moot. Yes not that long, but you know you could also stop mid-stare with the RAC5 as well.

High damage /= better. Usually = worse for match score. RACs do high damage because they spread damage more.

Ping in a duel is only marginally relevant unless you're rubberbanding all over. Trial by combat is relevant because a weapon that's only good when shooting bads standing in the open focused on someone else isn't a good weapon.

You want to equalize for skill why not ask any of the top tier players - without question they've been testing the new weapons among themselves and that does a good job solving for skill variance.

Except they've already weighed in and said they're bad.

Trial by combat is the only metric that matters. Which is better at wining matches. I get great damage and payout with LRMs and ATMs but win/loss suffers - in the long run my 3A Roughneck earns more because it drives over a 2.0 w/l in QP.

RACs are a spud farming weapon. It's a waste.

[Beaching Betty]

This is why I never pass my Mathematics in class...

TOO CONFUSING! for me

[roboPrancer]

RAC5's are in a really good place in my opinion. I put some on my annihilator mixed in with some cool running lb10's and they work like a dream. Seems like half my games are over 1k dmg, and constantly top damage on my team.

A slow mech isn't as worried about spin up time since you know well in advance when you will be in targeting range. And you are always commiting to a hard poke of at least 5 seconds when you do poke in that mech.

One thing I notice about them though is that they are a very offense oriented weapon. If enemies are doing quick pokes or you cant get enough facetime to open up on somebody it is pretty hard to punish them.

And as for damage spread, an unwieldy assault is going to take whatever it can get, if you are softening up every target on the field you can afford to let the others be the ones to get the finishing blow.

So RAC5's yeah? Pretty damn good? Use em, git gud with em.

[MischiefSC]

Will issue same challenge I've issued to everyone else - you build a RACbuild, I'll build UACs. I'll smash you at least 2 out of 3 matches if not more regardless of skill.

Because RACs are good on paper, weak in practice.

[Bandilly]

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

Because RACs are good on paper, weak in practice.

I thought the point was they weren't that good on paper.

In practice I find the cool down time on RACs is spent behind cover, just like any other weapon. The big advantages are high burst and enemy blindness. You can push a RAC2 user until they jam, at which point you have the advantage, you can't do that with a RAC 5 user unless you have a heck of a lot of armor.

[MischiefSC]

Bandilly, on 23 July 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

I thought the point was they weren't that good on paper.

In practice I find the cool down time on RACs is spent behind cover, just like any other weapon. The big advantages are high burst and enemy blindness. You can push a RAC2 user until they jam, at which point you have the advantage, you can't do that with a RAC 5 user unless you have a heck of a lot of armor.

A UAC5 is about 10 damage in 0.5 seconds, 20 damage after 1.5 seconds. Over two/four PPFLD projectiles. With less tonnage and one less slot - which is critical as 5 slots vs 6 is a huge deal for what does and does not fit with it in an arm or torso.

Again, I'll play anyone, same mech (that we both have but I have most) that's ballistic focused you take RAC I'll take UAC. In practice UAC is better.

Edited by MischiefSC, 23 July 2017 - 10:34 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I thought the point was they weren't that good on paper.

they look great on paper

theyre not good in practice because of the huge amount of facetime you have to give while using them

because that massive downside is not something that gets quantified on paper

but its one of the most important non-quantifiables, because the best weapons in MWO are generally the ones that require the least amount of facetime.

Quote

You can push a RAC2 user until they jam, at which point you have the advantage, you can't do that with a RAC 5 user unless you have a heck of a lot of armor.

Why would you ever push an RAC user? Thats the dumbest thing you could do.

What you actually do if you see someone using RACs is you play peekaboo with them. And you laugh at them because theyre utterly helpless to retaliate against you. every time you pop out of cover youre doing your full damage to them and theyre doing nothing or very little damage in return, because by ducking in and out of cover, youre preventing them from fully engaging their RACs and keeping them on target.

And you force them to push into you because if they dont youll snipe them to pieces. And when they push into you theyll likely die because youll have your buddies backing you up and theyll be giving a whole lot of facetime for you and your buddies to kill them.

It might be possible for RACs to overcome that overwhelming weakness if PGI lowered the spool up time, increased the dps and made it more consistent and less RNG, and increased the velocity.

Edited by Khobai, 23 July 2017 - 11:24 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Beaching Betty, on 23 July 2017 - 07:56 AM, said:

This is why I never pass my Mathematics in class...

TOO CONFUSING! for me

tl;dr

Spoiler

> 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 4.0s 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 2.0s for the jam meter to fully clear.

> RAC2 now have 2000 velocity, 10 shots/sec, 0.64 damage/shot, 6.4 DPS, 3.41 Effective DPS (accounting jam), 375 ammo/ton to taste, 2.4 heat/sec

> RAC5 now have 1650 velocity, 8 shots/sec, 1.0 damage/shot, 8 DPS, 4.26 Effective DPS (accounting jam), 240 ammo/ton to taste, 3 heat/sec

tl;dr

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 07:51 AM, said:

High damage /= better. Usually = worse for match score. RACs do high damage because they spread damage more.

But hey weren't you the same guy that said that it's irrelevant to the ATM cause they're doing monstrously amount of damage anyways? UAC5 peak DPS without jamming is at 6.02, RAC5 is at 10.92.

AC20 does 20 PPFLD damage, which isn't spread. Does that mean AC20 is weak? Don't look at me, that's your logic right there.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 07:51 AM, said:

Ping in a duel is only marginally relevant unless you're rubberbanding all over.

But that's still not equal playing field. That can still contaminate the end result. Do you know how to experiment? Because that's not how you experiment.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 07:51 AM, said:

Trial by combat is relevant because a weapon that's only good when shooting bads standing in the open focused on someone else isn't a good weapon.

Non-sequitur man.

Trial by combat, 1v1 is not relevant because it's not representative of what really happens out there. Just as 4v4 isn't relevant to gauge 12v12, unless we're talking about brawling. You're ignoring what could have been teamwork.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 07:51 AM, said:

You want to equalize for skill why not ask any of the top tier players - without question they've been testing the new weapons among themselves and that does a good job solving for skill variance.

Why would I? You're the one asking for trial by combat.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 07:51 AM, said:

Except they've already weighed in and said they're bad.

Because you know, you're the 100% of the top players. *sarcasm

I've met top players that also said that they are fine, like El Bandito.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 07:51 AM, said:

Trial by combat is the only metric that matters. Which is better at wining matches. I get great damage and payout with LRMs and ATMs but win/loss suffers - in the long run my 3A Roughneck earns more because it drives over a 2.0 w/l in QP.

You do know that trial by combat is 1v1 right?

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

Will issue same challenge I've issued to everyone else - you build a RACbuild, I'll build UACs. I'll smash you at least 2 out of 3 matches if not more regardless of skill.

Because RACs are good on paper, weak in practice.

And the problem is that you keep trying to contaminate the experiment by insisting having your own build, and your own skill. And again a 1v1 isn't representative of a 12v12. Honestly what "practice" could you possibly achieve with an invalid test? Is it just to shut people up? Rub **** all over their face?

But you know what fine, if you really insist this moot 1v1 practice.

This is your build,don't you ******* deviate:
UAC5 Urbie

And this would be mine.
RAC5 Urbie

This is our skills, follow it to the last node.

Spoiler

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 July 2017 - 03:30 PM.

[MischiefSC]

So if you want to do that it needs to be a good build and good skill tree.

Also, while I <3 all Urbies I *need* to take my Deputy Dawg. Because without the sirens who is going to know to respect my authoritai?

The "Fun Police" sticker on the UAC arm is *required* for proper performance.

Trade the ERs for regular MLs and don't throw away so many points on the skill tree.

Also while So Bandito is a good player I don't think even he would call himself comp tier. Quicksilver is about the only comp player who comes to this forum to swim in the Brown Sea. A couple of the best NS players too. The rest mostly stick to Reddit - bluntly because of threads like this. Someone with a 50 win/loss on their stats (yes, 50, as in 50.0, as in 50 out of 51 matches won) says "hey this is what works and how and why" and someone who wins less than 50% of their matches argues with them based on anecdotal experience or flawed/incomplete math, they have largely buggered off. Reddit mostly.