28 replies to this topic

[LT. HARDCASE]

SOL Ranger, on 30 July 2017 - 07:27 AM, said:

I believe largely if PGI doesn't agree with the identified problematic areas we are attempting to solve our efforts are largely futile and wasted.

Sorry but this is the tale which spans the entire existence of MWO. The community gathers reasoned opinions and hard data, then PGI either disagrees or ignores it entirely, while going in a different and largely peculiar direction that solves nothing or even makes things worse.

Our efforts are largely futile and wasted, because PGI has an embedded culture of feeling they know better than us. It starts at the very top, with Russ Bullock, so we are screwed.

[The6thMessenger]

LT. HARDCASE, on 31 July 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

Our efforts are largely futile and wasted, because PGI has an embedded culture of feeling they know better than us. It starts at the very top, with Russ Bullock, so we are screwed.

Well, that culture of arrogance is something that needs to be shat upon. But to be fair, they were listening, even on some small parts.

[SOL Ranger]

MechaBattler, on 31 July 2017 - 10:10 AM, said:

Doesn't matter how 'neutral' your thread is, you don't call out devs. Everyone thinks their opinion and thread warrants a dev response. But that's not realistic. Chris has actually chimed in on a few threads to clear up misconceptions. But you can't expect them to respond to a thread specifically calling them out. Because then everyone would start doing it.

You wanna raise RAC awareness, then just make it about RACs without calling out the devs to respond.

Do you know Einsteins definition of insanity? Making more identical RAC threads that we've been doing since PTS and expecting something to change.

I ask these questions because we need developer feedback, I have no qualms about doing that, it is quite the reasonable thing to ask for at this point.

ForceUser, on 31 July 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

No matter how rosy your prose or how earnest your claims to the contrary sound, the objective of this thread is as transparent as your feign of innocense. You are trying to call out a dev response and thats against the rules of the forum and it wont result in a response. Heck, that might even be the aim, nicely 'ask' for a reply from the devs and get indignant when a mod 'unjustly' closes it down. Fo' shame. To the point however, a weapon system that has a wide and mixed reception across the community, as most of the civil war weapons have had, is exactly what should happen and i honestly did not expect. I expected at least some universally trash or universally op weapons but overall they have been remarkably balanced. There are weapons that are slightly better but for the most part those are the fill in weapons like erml and uacs and thats expected because parity. however the new mechanic weapons or unique variants are all extremely balanced in that there are builds or playstyles that make them perform very well without invalidating existing weapon systems. That is the single most surprising thing about the update, that and the fact that many trash tier mechs are suddenly very viable without pushing previously viable mechs into OP territory. tldr; you just dont know how to use racs.

You're just being rude and insulting, what your motivation is for doing so is the question.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

RAC5s seem strong within a specific niche- 55-65t mechs with high and tight ballistic hardpoints, where you have enough tonnage to carry two and enough ammo to feed them, but are still fast enough to pull off the flanking attacks that they require.

I think that's o-kay. They're specialized weapons that fill a single role well, without invalidating all the existing weapons. Even if they're not ideal, it's a matter of tweaking rather than just throwing them out and trying again.

[The6thMessenger]

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 31 July 2017 - 05:53 PM, said:

Even if they're not ideal, it's a matter of tweaking rather than just throwing them out and trying again.

True. They don't need to recode the weapon, they just need to ditch that red-line shooting spree -- make guaranteed jam on red-line, and then balance the weapon around that instead of pushing the weapon over the red-line, with the dissipation/jam time too long that we're forced to get the most out of a single stare. Really really stupid and counter productive.

[DaZur]

SOL Ranger, on 31 July 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

Why are you sorry, you jump in here head first insulting me of having some elaborate plan of pushing my bias when I am trying to ask PGI for their official stance on the state of the RAC so we don't have to keep iterating endless threads with suggestions they will never adhere to in any way.

Yet you are then here pushing your own subjective opinion blatantly in our faces as if it were law, where I have said nothing of it. How about you step back and rethink that one.

Read paragraph two if you are confused further.

Meant no offense or insult intended. That said, it's you who is prefacing that you're stating an unbiased opinion seeking acknowledgment and affirmation by PGI as to their stance. By issuing an opinion (Not necessarily in your opening post but in response further down to be fair) you negate any inference of being unbiased... Just stating the obvious.

The6thMessenger, on 31 July 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

Lol no. Their downsides aren't worth their upsides right now. They are an example of those weapons that failed to live up to expectation, pretty much a lot of other Civil War tech.

Preconceived notions of prowess does not make for a failed iteration of a weapon. All that means is folks imagination and expectations exceeded the real value of the weapon.

This playerbase has patterned history of agitating their own overreaching perceptions of a host of MWO implementations, mechs and what not... Why would new tech be any different?

Edited by DaZur, 31 July 2017 - 07:13 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

DaZur, on 31 July 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

Preconceived notions of prowess does not make for a failed iteration of a weapon. All that means is folks imagination and expectations exceeded the real value of the weapon.

And the real value is figured out by comparing them to existing weapons. To which we concluded that as with the current weapon's set up, there is work needed to be done. RACs are fun, but in terms of practicality, balance-wise, they come too short.

Granted RACs offer something different. But that "different" is not good enough, or done well enough to provide a good choice over UACs. Yes they must be compared, because these equipment are competing for their place in our builds, in the mech's hardpoints.

DaZur, on 31 July 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

This playerbase has patterned history of agitating their own overreaching perceptions of a host of MWO implementations, mechs and what not... Why would new tech be any different?

And is that bad? Is expecting a weapon to be different, to fit a niche properly, to hold out on it's own bad? After years of exactly the same tech, now we got new ones, but balance-wise there's isn't much reason to pick the new ones over the old, besides shits and giggles.

Please don't defend mediocrity. That is how our standards fall, those who aren't open in accepting criticisms fail to improve themselves.

[DrSaphron]

RACs are FUN weapons, and once they get into the right position under the right circumstances they can really put the hurt on but the tonnage, slots, heat, and damage that spreads like butter as well as the face time required to actually put them to work all put them at a GROSS disadvantage when compared to literally ANY other IS ballistic weapon! You can EASILY get better results out of a single UAC10 over 2 RAC5s any day of the week, load up on 2 UAC10s and you're golden!

With that said I have found a select few builds that will actually dissipate heat when firing a single RAC5 on Tourmaline Desert while walking, but it's a gimmick meant for fun and lolz.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

DrSaphron, on 31 July 2017 - 10:43 PM, said:

RACs are FUN weapons, and once they get into the right position under the right circumstances they can really put the hurt on but the tonnage, slots, heat, and damage that spreads like butter as well as the face time required to actually put them to work all put them at a GROSS disadvantage when compared to literally ANY other IS ballistic weapon! You can EASILY get better results out of a single UAC10 over 2 RAC5s any day of the week, load up on 2 UAC10s and you're golden!

With that said I have found a select few builds that will actually dissipate heat when firing a single RAC5 on Tourmaline Desert while walking, but it's a gimmick meant for fun and lolz.

I don't think exaggeration or misrepresentation helps anyone.

Twin RAC5s on something like a Bushwacker is substantial. Way more dangerous than a UAC10 and whatever secondaries you might put on it, because it's fast enough to hit from oblique angles and then fade away before you can direct accurate return fire on such a slender frontal torso.

They aren't a comfortable weapon to use, since you can get poked down easily and have to deal with both the spin up, and jam bar, but they are easily one of the most effective weapons for putting someone in a crossfire.

People are overusing RACs on heavies and assaults, but they're strong on these faster. RAC2s are garbage.