The Lighthouse, on 18 November 2017 - 08:09 AM, said:
Actually it is biased against normal ACs for two critical reasons.
1) Firing mech was stationary, thus it can dissipate heat faster than when it moves. How many time do you see an competent player standing still unless during early game?
2) No change of mech customization for both UAC and AC, which means when mech was equipped with ACs, it was heavily under-tonned. Again how many times do you see mechs that are under-tonned in higher tier games?
Of course, the second argument only works when we do not talk about weapons in vacuum.
And not sure cooldown favors AC more than UAC, since BOTH AC and UAC does get cooldown reduction, just not jam duration reduction. But in the end cooldown quirks makes both weapons fire faster regardless.
1) Since this applies to both weapons and movement heat is quite low it should not make that much of a difference given the conditions of the test. The overall test setup (fighting multiple targets without pause) influences the result much more than this parameter. Heat is no big deal if you play along the strenghts of the UACs (which your scenario ignores).
As a side-note: In a real fight you often have to move between firing phases which allow to cool down and unjam the UACs. This effect is much more valuable than the tiny reduction of heat-dissipation hurts while moving. Those firing-interruptions are not reflected in your test scenario as well which also favors the cooler and non-jamming weapon.
2) I think what you try to say is simply that IS-UACs need more tonnage and slots.
True, it may be that the UAC does not need the extra weight and slot requirements and that the additional heat is sufficient to balance them. But they can still be worth their weight in heavier mechs who can more easily afford a few extra tons and slots.
High tonnage requirements do not kill a weapon, it only shifts their usefulness to heavier mechs.
Regarding the cooldown: You forget that jammed weapons don't profit from cooldown reduction because they simply can't fire. Regular ACs can trigger the cooldown reduction much more often, especially in longer engagements where jams happen more often.
The Lighthouse, on 18 November 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:
For sustained fire and/or brawling purpose, UAC is just terrible deal folks.
If you would have made this statement right at the start of your OP, we probably would not have this discussion. You are right, UACs are worse then regular ACs in sustained fire and/or brawling. You did not even had to test this, it's obvious just by looking at the heat-numbers.
The mistake you did was to extrapolate this onto every other situation and playstyle the UACs could be used. In the title you wrote "Don't use UAC, ever" and in the conclusion you suggested to "not even bother about ANY of UACs".
But your test has not proven this claim. You only tested the sustained brawling capabilities, that's not enough to condemn the weapon class entirely. And it does not help to leave out the UAC10 and UAC20 which enforce much different playstyles as the AC2.
The Lighthouse, on 18 November 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:
We 'feel' UAC seems stronger weapons due to double-tap nature (ooo MOAR bullets! So more damage?) and myth of burst damage stuffs... but in reality UAC just works so poorly that is actually inferior to ACs for almost all aspects.
They why don't you test those other aspects?
Start with this typical situation you see all day long: An enemy assault pokes for only a few seconds and then get's back into cover. Which weapon punishes this harder, ACs or UACs?
And which of the two weapons will kill a light or medium daring to stand still for only a mere second? What about a fast mech zipping in front of you? Will an AC20 shot be enough to kill it's leg before he's in cover again, or does it need double the damage?
Edited by Daggett, 18 November 2017 - 10:05 AM.
5
