67 replies to this topic

[blinkin]

General Taskeen, on 26 February 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

Its not that its Clan Tech, I'm just saying the soonest you will see an UAC/10 or 20 is the Clan version. IS and Clan Ultra's are identical in damage, and function, except the Clan versions simply weight less and use less crit space. Only some Clan weapons have better damage, Autocannon's do not fit that category.

A current UAC/5 can shoot 2 shells that do 5 damage each (essentially making double double better fire rate, since it can dish out double damage for an even better cool down makes little sense and is also why we have a stupid design element involving a percentage chance to jam).

A UAC/10 or 20 under this design priniciple (no matter if it is IS or Clan) means a UAC/10 will fire 2 shells that do 10 damage and a UAC/20 will fire 2 shells that do 20 damage each. That is just bonkers. Just having 2 CUAC/20's on a Mech (IS or Clan) means an amazing, potential of 80 damage alpha.

no argument here. well some... often a single ton or a slot of crit space can make a huge difference to a mech design. all of my designs use all of the tonnage and most of them use all of their crit space.

but i agree very thoroughly with the rest of what you said.

[MuadXDib]

Seems interesting, though probably difficult to balance

[blinkin]

MuadXDib, on 26 February 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

Seems interesting, though probably difficult to balance

currently they are not balanced at all. UAC5 is far better than AC5 in the current system.

[Torquemada]

I have to vote no, for the simple reason that if you just have a dual-UAC5 Atlas and this was in place you could quite easily build it so it wont overheat (go above the 20% heat limit). This would then mean you would simply rip through anything in front of you until your ammo ran out. I'm afraid this change although at first glance sounds good would be a real game breaker.

Edited by Torquemada, 06 March 2013 - 01:57 AM.

[Donas]

blinkin, on 22 November 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

0-20% little or no chance of jamming
20-40% 1 in 40 chance of jamming
40-60% 1 in 20 chance of jamming
60-80% 1 in 10 chance of jamming
80-100% 1 in 5 chance of jamming

Love the idea, but I'd probably still like to see it start around 1 in 20, not 1 in 40. thats really really low.

[General Taskeen]

I would vote yes if the idea were different :\. I just don't like percentage chance of jamming at all or an Ultra Double Shot. Its like rolling a dice.

If it was like MW:LL, the jam would be purely based on skill and not rolling dice.

[Gladewolf]

This suggestion falls inline with adding heat penalties to the game, which i am very much in favor of as the best "boating" fix there is out their for most situations.

[Zyllos]

The UAC/5 jamming penalty needs to be independent of the heat mechanic (and hopefully added penalties themselves).

While I like the graduated scale of the UAC jamming mechanic, it just needs to be uncoupled from the heat mechanic.

I suggest just having it's own "heat" bar that represents a chance for the UAC/5 to jam when firing off it's CD. If a jam happens when the "heat" bar is low, the jam duration is low, and if the "heat" is high, jam is high.

I would range the chance of jamming from 5% to 20%. Based on that chance, I would range the jamming duration from 5.0s to 20.0s.

I also suggest making the UAC/5 have the same CD as the AC/5.

[blinkin]

Zyllos, on 06 March 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

The UAC/5 jamming penalty needs to be independent of the heat mechanic (and hopefully added penalties themselves).

While I like the graduated scale of the UAC jamming mechanic, it just needs to be uncoupled from the heat mechanic.

I suggest just having it's own "heat" bar that represents a chance for the UAC/5 to jam when firing off it's CD. If a jam happens when the "heat" bar is low, the jam duration is low, and if the "heat" is high, jam is high.

I would range the chance of jamming from 5% to 20%. Based on that chance, I would range the jamming duration from 5.0s to 20.0s.

I also suggest making the UAC/5 have the same CD as the AC/5.

i would be ok with having this be on it's own scale, but 20 seconds is way too long.

[blinkin]

bump

[DeadlyNerd]

The amount of necrophilia on this forum is astounding.

[blinkin]

bump

[blinkin]

ok i did some math and...

i think for my system to work at it's full potential the ROF for both the UAC5 and the AC5 should be increased.

we should buff the AC5 to bring it back in line with all of the other AC weapons. currently it is severely underpowered when compared with every other AC weapon (even without counting the UAC5).

and obviously the UAC5 should fire faster than the AC5. if this is done the system i have described should work perfectly even with 20 engine DHS.

so AC5 ROF should be increased by slightly over 33% and the same should be done to UAC5 to keep pace. THEN each UAC5 goes from 0.91 heat per second to 1.21. this means that for a mech to use two UAC5 and still remain heat neutral it would also have to mount 3 extra double heat sinks BEYOND the 10 engine DHS.

so it is possible to remain heat neutral with my system, but pilots would have to invest tonnage into heatsinks. this is tonnage that COULD NOT be used for extra ammo. so players are forced to choose between more ammo or more reliability. if 3x UAC5 are used then an extra 9 DHS would be needed so for a 3x UAC5 mech to remain heat neutral it would have to invest 12 tons into heat sinks and at least 18 crit slots (this is assuming a 400 engine, which no mech currently available can use).

this very effectively forces UAC5 boats to pay attention to their heat profile.

Edited by blinkin, 05 April 2013 - 05:44 PM.

[Capt Cole 117]

I think the jam chance should be based on how often you double shot it. A heatbased approach would reward ballistic boats and punish mixing lasers and ACs. I don't think we should ever discourage having multiple weapon types on a mech.

[blinkin]

Capt Cole 117, on 05 April 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

I think the jam chance should be based on how often you double shot it. A heatbased approach would reward ballistic boats and punish mixing lasers and ACs. I don't think we should ever discourage having multiple weapon types on a mech.

i can understand that, but at best it is difficult to properly control the double tap function. if it relys heavily on the double tap then players can easily end up being punished for either their connection or the server stuttering. it doesn't take much lag to get weapons to misfire.

[blinkin]

bump

[Prezimonto]

I like it. It would give a good reason to take an AC5 over a UAC5 in certain situations, or to stagger with one of each.

I might suggest that the second fire on the UAC5 should cost one additional heat when used.

[General Taskeen]

Saying it again. NO percentage chance to jam.

Get the rolling dice out of this game NAU and think of something else PGI. Look to MW:LL for inspiration on skill-based "jamming."

[Prezimonto]

Did MW:LL deal with it as you suggested on the last page? I think that's a fine mechanic as well.

I don't particularly care about the exact solution to anything, I care about balance and relative fun. I don't mind the random jam chance, it models a real life situation reasonably well.. no one can anticipate a jam. However, I agree that the current system is less that fun because it can and will often jam within a few rounds, and it's still OP in terms of dps compared to the other AC's.

[Bobzilla]

I like the thought of it being based off how much its fired or how many double shots, as appose to heat. Heat itself should have some penalties to all weapons, not solely this one.

Edited by Bobzilla, 23 April 2013 - 06:25 AM.