141 replies to this topic

[Horseman]

Guys. Screwing with equipment tonnage / size isn't going to happen and shoul never happen. Don't suggest that even in a joke.

[R Valentine]

IS UAC/10s have always been too hot. One shell less in the burst doesn't make up for that. I'd always take clan UACs over IS, and there are more clan mechs that can run 4 ballistic than there are IS mechs. Some can even run 5.

[VonBruinwald]

Horseman, on 23 May 2019 - 07:30 AM, said:

Guys. Screwing with equipment tonnage / size isn't going to happen and shoul never happen. Don't suggest that even in a joke.

Whilst I do agree in principle. The LBX-20/H.Gauss are a pain without crit-splitting, reducing them to 10 slots is an exception I'm ok with.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 22 May 2019 - 06:06 PM, said:

no. the problem isnt that the IS UAC10 generating too much heat.

Actually it is, because as Ash pointed out at the bottom of the first page both builds rely entirely on engine-slotted heatsinks which occupy the same space between both factions (none at all).

SLEIPNIR
vs
MCII-B

No level of external DHS buff would help that Sleipnir that only equips 10 engine DHS to begin with. Reducing IS UAC/5 heat to 1.5-ish and IS UAC/10 heat to 2.75-ish, however, would help it at least somewhat.

Khobai, on 22 May 2019 - 06:06 PM, said:

besides lowering heat on the UAC10 only helps the UAC10. it doesnt fix all the other IS weapons that get screwed because ISDHS are worse than CDHS.

buffing ISDHS fixes the problem across the board for all IS loadouts.

That's why I think most IS weapons should have their heat bumped down, not just the UAC/10. Weapon heat and heatsink balance are directly intertwined because more heat output means you need more heatsinks to handle that heat. By reducing weapon heat you effectively reduce the tonnage and slot requirements for a bunch of builds by letting them mount fewer heatsinks.

Edited by FupDup, 23 May 2019 - 10:10 AM.

[MechaBattler]

2xUAC10s is hot for either faction honestly. But that's because they're so damn good.

[Catnium]

Willard Phule, on 23 May 2019 - 04:09 AM, said:

So...using a Clan XL400 (lighter and less spaces than any 400 the IS can field) and having all heatsinks internal to the engine doesn't make a difference. I see. Better go back and look at how sinks work again.

I just said it does..and that's why the kodiak runs pretty cold despite the hot loadout.
For Innerspire mechs they'd need to spend a literal boatload more skill nodes in operations and offence heat nodes JUST to make the build semi workable.. and you'd be eating cool shots like skittles... meanwhile my kodiak doesn't even have a cool shot in the loadout because it doesn't really need it.
A problem that's not only limited to uac10/5 combo builds for IS..


I think you got me all wrong.

Edited by Catnium, 24 May 2019 - 06:13 AM.

[Horseman]

It seems there are a lot of apples vs oranges comparisons being made here

• Thanks to their lower jam rates and jam durations, IS UACs have better DPS across the board than Clan UACs. This is 7% for UAC20, 10% for UAC2 and UAC10, 14%(!) for UAC5
  
• Sleipnir is not IS's answer to Kodiak. You want an IS dakka assault, go for an Annihilator with its' 10% Ballistic Heat reduction and (on the 1A and 1X) massive cooldown quirks. Fully skilled for cooldown, these mechs will out-DPS you without any need to use UACs in the first place.

[The6thMessenger]

Horseman, on 24 May 2019 - 07:56 AM, said:

Thanks to their lower jam rates and jam durations, IS UACs have better DPS across the board than Clan UACs. This is 7% for UAC20, 10% for UAC2 and UAC10, 14%(!) for UAC5

Oh, okay. Right, 15% jam chance means 6.66667 shots before jamming, which incurs 7.5s to unjam a UAC10, and 6.5s to unjam a UAC5.

iUAC5 = (10 x 6.6667) / (((6.6667 x 1.66) + 6.5) = 66.6667/ 17.5667 = 3.7951 EDPS.
iUAC10 = (20 x 6.6667) / (((6.6667 x (0.22 + 2.5)) + 7.5) = 133.3333 / 25.6333 = 5.20156 EDPS.

The Clan UAC however, has 17% chance to jam, 6.5s for UAC5 and 8s for UAC10.

CUAC5 = (10 x 5.8824) / (((5.8824 x (0.22 + 1.66)) + 6.5) = 58.8235 / 17.5588 = 3.35 EDPS.
CUAC10 = (20 x 5.8824) / (((5.8824 x (0.33 + 2.5)) + 8.0) = 117.6470 / 24.9412 = 4.717 EDPS.

Well, you're not wrong. But the kicker is that, even if it has better Effective DPS, would it have the dissipation to bear it? Sleipnir with 10 DHS would have 2.2 HPS dissipation and 35 heatcap, while the MCII would have 16 DHS that would have 3.52 HPS dissipation and 38 Heat Cap.

iUAC5 = (3.32 x 6.6667) , ((6.6667 x 1.66) = 22.1334 heat under 11.0667s, 2 HPS.
iUAC10 = (7 x 6.6667) , ((6.6667 x (0.22 + 2.5)) = 46.6666 heat under 18.1333, 2.5735 HPS.
CUAC5 = (3.32 x 5.8824) , ((5.8824 x (0.22 + 1.66)) = 19.5294 heat under 11.0588s, 1.766 HPS.
CUAC10 = (7 x 5.8824) , ((5.8824 x (0.33 + 2.5)) = 41.1764 heat 16.9412s, 2.43 HPS.

This means that with 2x UAC5 + 2x UAC10 builds, the Sleipnir with 2.2 Dissipation and 35 heatcap would have to deal with 9.147 HPS, meanwhile the MCII-B would with 3.52 dissipation, 38 heatcap, would have to deal with 8.392 Heat/second.

Sleipnir = 35 / (9.147 - 2.2) = 5.0382s before OH, 90.6539 Dmg before OH, 24.052% efficiency, or 4.3277 S-EDPS.
MCII-B = 38 / (8.392 - 3.52) = 7.7997s before OH, 125.8404 Dmg before OH, 41.94% efficiency, or 6.7676 S-EDPS.

So yeah, over the course of the game, the MCII-B will do a lot more Damage. It's not like a laser-vomit that you could just hide most of the game to cool off, point of dakka is to pummel enemies, and even if you are more reliable, the hotter build will still make you lose on DPS.

Horseman, on 24 May 2019 - 07:56 AM, said:

Sleipnir is not IS's answer to Kodiak. You want an IS dakka assault, go for an Annihilator with its' 10% Ballistic Heat reduction and (on the 1A and 1X) massive cooldown quirks. Fully skilled for cooldown, these mechs will out-DPS you without any need to use UACs in the first place.

Well, we are competing Sleipnir vs MCII, or at least i was before. Simmilarly, we are talking about IS UACs, not the standard ACs.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 May 2019 - 08:43 PM.

[VonBruinwald]

The6thMessenger, on 24 May 2019 - 03:51 PM, said:

Snip...

Your point is spot on, but DUDE, work to 2 decimal places and close those brackets!

Please.

[- World Eater -]

S L E I P N I R

[Horseman]

The6thMessenger, on 24 May 2019 - 03:51 PM, said:

Well, we are competing Sleipnir vs MCII, or at least i was before.

Let me spell this out for you: Sleipnir isn't - nor was ever meant to be - a direct competitor to MCII, much less the Kodiak. In both cases the competing dakka boat is actually the Annihilator.

Quote

Simmilarly, we are talking about IS UACs, not the standard ACs.

And thus missing something big: with the cooldown quirks on the two ANH variants I've mentioned, UAC10s lose in DPS to the corresponding weapon (either AC10 or LB10) and only have an advantage in burst damage.

Edited by Horseman, 25 May 2019 - 12:29 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Willard Phule, on 23 May 2019 - 05:44 AM, said:

So, the whole concept of the Clans continuing to improve technology while the Inner Sphere beat itself back to the stone age really doesn't matter, huh?

Now you're getting it

Horseman, on 23 May 2019 - 07:30 AM, said:

Guys. Screwing with equipment tonnage / size isn't going to happen and shoul never happen. Don't suggest that even in a joke.

It certainly *should* happen, but I agree that it won't.

[B0oN]

All I´m reading in here is "Clams OP, gimme back my EZ mode ! "

[The6thMessenger]

Horseman, on 25 May 2019 - 12:29 AM, said:

Let me spell this out for you: Sleipnir isn't - nor was ever meant to be - a direct competitor to MCII, much less the Kodiak. In both cases the competing dakka boat is actually the Annihilator.

And thus missing something big: with the cooldown quirks on the two ANH variants I've mentioned, UAC10s lose in DPS to the corresponding weapon (either AC10 or LB10) and only have an advantage in burst damage.

No, let ME spell it out for you. "IS Inner-Sphere UACs hot?", that is in the title, and that is the topic. We're using the example ton-for-ton to make a case based on the shortcomings of UACs.

Why ton-for-ton? Because UACs as a single weapon could still be used with other mixed builds, just as they could be used in the basic dakka configuration. That and to show the issue of the techbase itself by revealing the disparity of effectiveness across many different dimensions. And finally, if it's just the 10% ballistic heat from the anni, guess what, not every mech has those.

So I don't know what you are arguing to, or where are you arguing from, but it's certainly not related to this case if you're talking about standard ACs, or something like the cooldown quirks. The cooldown quirks, if anything, would just aggrevate the situation with increased Heat/Sec, which the IS dissipation is already having problems because they can't mass as much heatsinks.

Ah yes the Anni, okay I'll bite, what build? Is it 5x UAC5? Is it 2x UAC10 + 2x UAC5? Or shall we go deeper than that with say 6x AC5 ANH-2A? So you got 1.26 heat/shot, doing 0.759 HPS, which on a 6x rig, that is 4.55 HPS but 4.917 with GH, with 2.64 dissipation, or 58% heat efficiency or 53.69%, this means that it has 10.4748 SDPS or 9.6957 SDPS with GH. It's impressive considering that the MCII-B has 6.7676 SEDPS.

For posterity, lets also add 5x UAC5 build? Well you got 9 HPS or 9.65 with GH, with 2.42 dissipation, and that is 26.89% efficiency or 25.0762% with GH, or the SEDPS of 5.1023, or 4.7583 with GH.

Okay, now the Anni has superior SDPS using 6x AC5 versus MCII-B that uses 2x UAC5 + 2x UAC10, that being said the 5x UAC5 build for the Anni only gets 4.7583 SEDPS, which is way less than that of the MCII-B.

What if we used 4x AC10 ANH-1A instead? 19.753 DPS, 4.8889 HPS, 2.42 Dissipation, 49.5% Efficiency or 9.777735 sustained DPS -- wow. But realistically with GH, that is 10.3911 HPS, 23.2892% efficiency, 4.6 SDPS.

What about ANH-2A 2x UAC10 + 2x UAC5? 17.99332 EDPS, 8.2323 HPS, 2.86 Dissipation with 3 DHS, 34.74% heat efficiency, or 6.251 SEDPS, which I gotta say, in the ballpark. That just means you need 10 more tons, and have about 12 KPH less forward-speed.

Where does that lead us in the discussion? Is the IS-UAC not too hot or what? AC10 and AC5 ain't Ultra ACs, so do you think that address the topic as it is on the title?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 25 May 2019 - 04:02 AM.

[Snowhawk]

Lol... I've found a Little gemstone!

The Is uac-tens were even hotter when they were introduced. Strange, isn't it?

Quote:

"Posted 20 July 2017 - 12:53 PM - So the IS UAC10 is 4 heat, versus the Clan UAC10 at 3 heat. This is a pretty significant disparity."

[Horseman]

The6thMessenger, on 25 May 2019 - 02:22 AM, said:

No, let ME spell it out for you. "IS Inner-Sphere UACs hot?", that is in the title, and that is the topic. We're using the example ton-for-ton to make a case based on the shortcomings of UACs.

You're expecting a weapon-based parity, when the damn-things do not exist in vacuum.

Quote

And finally, if it's just the 10% ballistic heat from the anni, guess what, not every mech has those.

Not every mech has quad ballistic hardpoints either. If you want to compare the meta, you compare the META, not picking suboptimal builds that are crippled from the get-go for that particular comparison (which 2xUAC5+2xUAC10 Sleipnir most definitely is, due to being burdened with a Standard engine) on one side and comparing them with full meta on the other side.

Quote

What if we used 4x AC10 ANH-1A instead? 19.753 DPS, 4.8889 HPS, 2.42 Dissipation, 49.5% Efficiency or 9.777735 sustained DPS -- wow. But realistically with GH, that is 10.3911 HPS, 23.2892% efficiency, 4.6 SDPS.

If you're going to compare ghost heat, then you should take into account that the dakka madcat and kodiak can't fire a full burst without GH either - and more severe at that, given that they will receive a penalty for firing two UAC10 shots and one UAC5 shot above the limit.

Quote

Where does that lead us in the discussion? Is the IS-UAC not too hot or what? AC10 and AC5 ain't Ultra ACs, so do you think that address the topic as it is on the title?

I think the topic is a moot point because it's based on a flawed premise.

Edited by Horseman, 25 May 2019 - 04:37 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Horseman, on 25 May 2019 - 04:33 AM, said:

You're expecting a weapon-based parity, when the damn-things do not exist in vacuum.

Sure we have to take account the builds, but then there's tech-base inequality in the first place either, that you could put less DHS considering worse engine and heavier ACs overall. So yeah.

Horseman, on 25 May 2019 - 04:33 AM, said:

Not every mech has quad ballistic hardpoints either. If you want to compare the meta, you compare the META, not picking suboptimal builds that are crippled from the get-go for that particular comparison (which 2xUAC5+2xUAC10 Sleipnir most definitely is, due to being burdened with a Standard engine) on one side and comparing them with full meta on the other side.

We aren't comparing meta builds, we are comparing what the specific weapons could do. Quirks are there to give flavor, and at a lesser degree address mech-specific flaws such as hitboxes (which PGI messed up by using it to balance tech-disparity). We're not discussing the disparity of IS Dakka builds vs Clan Dakka builds, we are discussing the IS UACs specifically. Why is that hard to understand?

Also, so what if the other build is sub-optimal? That was exactly the god damn point, that it is sub-optimal despite supposedly near similar build, on a near-similar platform, with near-similar or even more investment, and it is sub-optimal because the IS equipment is just worse, that IS UAC is worse than Clan UAC.

And if you still don't get it, it should be better, more optimal, and that was the argument -- that we want it buffed enough to the point that it could be "meta" -- to bring up the under-performing builds to the level that is acceptable, with reference to what is meta.

That's not really a hard concept, is it?

Horseman, on 25 May 2019 - 04:33 AM, said:

If you're going to compare ghost heat, then you should take into account that the dakka madcat and kodiak can't fire a full burst without GH either - and more severe at that, given that they will receive a penalty for firing two UAC10 shots and one UAC5 shot above the limit.

GH only works under 0.5s between shots, so if you double-tap with 0.5s you won't trigger it, and consider that CD of UAC5 is at 1.66 and UAC10 is at 2.5, so yes they can fire full-burst without GH. Even then, the IS and the Clan UACs would still have near similar gaps. Associative Property of Multiplication after all.

2x iUAC5 = (6.64 x 6.6667) , ((6.6667 x 1.66) = 44.26667 heat under 11.0667s, 3.99 HPS.
2x iUAC10 = (39.20 x 6.6667) , ((6.6667 x (0.22 + 2.5)) = 261.3333 heat under 18.1333, 14.4117 HPS.

2x CUAC5 = (7.04 x 5.8824) , ((5.8824 x (0.22 + 1.66)) = 41.4117 heat under 11.0588s, 3.7446 HPS.
2x CUAC10 = (39.20 x 5.8824) , ((5.8824 x (0.33 + 2.5)) = 230.5882 heat 16.9412s, 13.6111 HPS.

iUAC30 = 18.40176 HPS - 2.2 dissipation = 16.20176 HPS
CUAC30 = 17.3557 HPS - 3.52 dissipation = 13.8357 HPS

Well considering GH on both builds, it's still worse. But the trend is still there, the Clan is still better in terms of heat generation. What were you trying to achieve?

We're you ansy about that 4.6 SDPS? Well guess what, the circumstances of UACs are kind of easier considering that it's a matter of simply properly partitioning your shots, 4x AC10 on the other hand, you have to chain-fire it which kind of spreads the damage around, defeating the point.

Horseman, on 25 May 2019 - 04:33 AM, said:

I think the topic is a moot point because it's based on a flawed premise.

No, you just don't get it. To make it easier to you. We don't deal with "Sleipnir isn't equal to MCII-B" or "MCII-B is equal to Anni", rather we ask "why wouldn't Sleipnir be equal to MCII-B"? After all, they are both 90-tonners, equipped with both 2x UAC5 + 2x UAC10.

If we just process with what is meta, then we won't go anywhere cause it's just a handful of already okay builds on the ceiling. You won't bring up the under-performing builds that supposed to be better than what they are, considering the investment.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 25 May 2019 - 05:53 AM.

[Horseman]

Quote

rather we ask "why wouldn't Sleipnir be equal to MCII-B"?

Because the hardpoint locations on that chassis mean that using 2xUAC5+2xUAC10 forces you to use a Standard Engine, in turn forcing you to either use Endo or heavily limit your engine rating, costing you both space and tonnage that otherwise could have gone into heat sinks. Your Cyclops will never have the MCII-B's speed, much less the ease of targeting provided by the MCII-B's arm mounts.

This applies to the Sleipnir as much as to Maulers 1P, 1R and MX90 (which have similar tonnage and hardpoint config).

Fafnir 5 and 5E suffer from that less, as they have the tonnage to make space for about 15 heat sinks total (if you skimp on the armor), ie about as many as can be crammed onto the chassis, and benefit from a 10% heat quirk.

There are only four IS mechs that can carry 2xUAC5+2xUAC10 without that compromise: Nightstar 9P and Annihilators 1X, 1A and 2A, of which both 1X and 1A have options that provide same or better DPS for lower tonnage and less slots.

[panzer1b]

The combo of IS DHS being too many slots coupled with endo/ferro slots and the fact that IS UAC10/5 isnt even cooler then clam versions makes anything beyond 2x10+1x5, or 3x5+1x10 run so hot its completely unpractical in serious games as anything but single exposure gameplay (which UACs arent really good at anyways).

If you want to replicate the clam MCII-B on IS, forget about it. It can be done on a few mechs, but nomatter what, you are sacrificing some sustained DPS and crapload of mobility to run it. If you want to dakka on IS, you use massed UAC5s, AC5s, AC10s, and if the mech has few ballistic but many energy you can aiugment with a PPC or 2 to boost the exposure damage. Trying to copy a paste a clam meta build onto IS isnt going to work very well, so take advantage of the IS's unique builds that work better.

That said, and a bit off topic, but the MCII-B really has no match or effective counter. It combines the best of everything in a well armored, fast, reasonably agile, and insanely heavily armed platform. As much as i love my own MCII-B in QP games, it really could use a minor nerf.

[The6thMessenger]

Horseman, on 25 May 2019 - 11:27 AM, said:

Because the hardpoint locations on that chassis mean that using 2xUAC5+2xUAC10 forces you to use a Standard Engine, in turn forcing you to either use Endo or heavily limit your engine rating, costing you both space and tonnage that otherwise could have gone into heat sinks. Your Cyclops will never have the MCII-B's speed, much less the ease of targeting provided by the MCII-B's arm mounts.

This applies to the Sleipnir as much as to Maulers 1P, 1R and MX90 (which have similar tonnage and hardpoint config).

Fafnir 5 and 5E suffer from that less, as they have the tonnage to make space for about 15 heat sinks total (if you skimp on the armor), ie about as many as can be crammed onto the chassis, and benefit from a 10% heat quirk.

There are only four IS mechs that can carry 2xUAC5+2xUAC10 without that compromise: Nightstar 9P and Annihilators 1X, 1A and 2A, of which both 1X and 1A have options that provide same or better DPS for lower tonnage and less slots.

Again missing the point, that's just an explanation (how), not a justification (why). You might as well argue drugs should be illegal, because they are illegal.

Why couldn't we buff the IS tech to be near -- if not exactly capable as the clan dakka? I mean the Sleipnir may not have the same forward speed, but at least it should have the same output damage as the Clan equivalent if it's able to bring it.

panzer1b, on 25 May 2019 - 12:46 PM, said:

If you want to replicate the clam MCII-B on IS, forget about it. It can be done on a few mechs, but nomatter what, you are sacrificing some sustained DPS and crapload of mobility to run it. If you want to dakka on IS, you use massed UAC5s, AC5s, AC10s, and if the mech has few ballistic but many energy you can aiugment with a PPC or 2 to boost the exposure damage. Trying to copy a paste a clam meta build onto IS isnt going to work very well, so take advantage of the IS's unique builds that work better.

You're just ignoring the problem for work arounds. We aren't discussing builds here, of how to utilized what hand we were given best, we are quite literally discussing the balance.

Even if we ought to have our own builds, the UAC -- specifically UAC10 is still too hot for effective use regardless, and whether you are trying to copy-clam, or have your own builds, it's still be too hot for it's own good.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 25 May 2019 - 03:23 PM.