My way of avoiding the majority of the AC Nerf. Takes 2 Minutes and 3 seconds to overheat. 10 DPS for essentially forever and a decent alpha to boot. Take it or leave it. Extra ammo version: Less Suppresion, added Lasers:
Interesting build tr0unce! It's weird to hear you say 'DPS for forever' instead of 'fire for 5 seconds and you will overheat but the enemy is dead' AC2s are better than AC5s as long as you're using a somewhat shorter range build imo. They have the same DPS but weigh 2 tons less, so the 'more ammo version' could mount an xl280 with the same DPS, and more screen shake! The downside is projectile speed difference, quite some more heat buildup and the fact that they drop off harder after optimal range. If you get somewhere ~450 m and blast it all into a unlucky enemy that probably makes very little difference, and the heat is still really good, 59% without lasers. And since it's so cool (and I don't really use 60 shots with only 1 AC10) I'm thinking about doing this variant and using my XL260 that's laying around, it's an extra 10 alpha/2.5 DPS when you need it in exchange for some heat you'll never reach otherwise anyway: Though changing armor to their original values with an XL255 to mount one more ton of AC2 ammo (unlikely to use it all with the new cooldowns) can also be done.
Stopped reading at "AC2's are better at close range than AC5's." Lower alpha, higher heat, smaller shake- absolute nonsense. The entire point of using the UAC5 is to dodge the nerf bat that lowered AC5 and AC2 DPS by firing faster with a chance to jam- the UAC was nerfed a bit too, but due its double tap mechanic it's dps is effected less than the other small ACs. More over, chainfiring dual UAC5's or UAC/AC5 combo is in a sense even more suppression because the explosion is bigger, the shake more extreme and with the AC10 folded in is plenty continuous. Now saving the weight does make sense, because the medium lasers are a nice addition. I am however, quite partial to the XL255 and if I'm gonna put lasers into it, the ac2 is counter productive due to heat. To get the 2 lasers in I'd do this: http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=67&l=e0e61f1c43de7e74a0e352560d5e8f3e2f1f1591 This actually uses the synergy of an ultra cool build to free up the mediums instead of sticking a counter productive ac2 in it. It lacks the suppression of the UAC variants which absolutely crush when chain fired as so(something I have to point out since I know you can't wait to throw out a meaningless suppression argument): U17Q0fVzego Thanks for the input anyway, made me come up with a decent laser variant- not that I use it anyway since I love my UACs- but still it certainly has its merits. p.s. Your remark about the AC10 ammo shows how far off base you are. Perhaps it's play style, perhaps the jamming cause you to cover so that the ac10 and uacs are being fired in similar rates, perhaps the focus on shooting the more important AC10 fires it first when lined up, perhaps your just saying stuff with little regard to its verity... But 100% of the time I've run out of AC10 before UAC5 Ammo in spite of the counter intuitiveness of the reality. But why think or try when you can make errant assumptions AMIRITE?
Right back at you with the errant assumptions, tr0unce dear. Somehow you always try to assume you're in a superior position over anyone who tries to make a comment or alteration to your build. Even if you don't agree I hope you at least have the decency to cut out the snide remarks that you love to give people from now on. I still prefer the 2UAC5 version, however of I want more ammo I will stay at the AC2 instead of regular AC5. Same dps (more dps between 620 and 800m), less alpha, less tonnage, more hps, more rof. Same dps for less tonnage make it a weapon with better dps per tonnage ratio, which is in my opinion therefore a better weapon. More accurate than only comparing tonnage at least, just like you should not compare builds only by the amount of damage they do. Less alpha is indeed something to consider, though that only really has an effect on the first shot (of you're taking many 'first shots' for example by retreating constantly behind a hill). As you are talking about sustained fire I find that this argument only accounts for a possible 0.5s decrease in time to kill. More heat is not relevant as you still have 59 percent efficiency and who will actually be able to fire for 2 minutes straight anyway? In the end you have 2 tons to spend as you please for the same dps but a slightly lower ttk, which is in my opinion well worth it. That's my argumentation for AC2 over AC5 for the more ammo build only. Why throw in an alpha argument when you talk about chainfire right after? That is basically the opposite of alpha by spreading out your firepower. When linkfiring uac5/ac2 you have more alpha than chaining AC5 variants. The ac2 has less shake per shot. It still fires almost three times as fast. Combined with the desynchronisation with AC5 and UAC5 weapons you will have a lower amplitude but a higher frequency of shake. That is in my experience more useful because the shake recovery time doesn't differ a whole lot, bit of you prefer a heavy slower shake, be my guest. It's a sidegrade and a matter of preference. Ac2 is counterproductive when you mount lasers yes, but having at least 1 UAC5 increases your continuous fire and temporary DPS long enough for me to make this paradoxale consideration as the ML are back-up rather than a continuous weapon (also due to the range on them).
Well this is starting well... a non argument followed by a straw man argument, followed by an insult to my decency. While you might consider this to have weight in a logical discussion, the reality is it does not. We're discussing merits, not your take on my personality(regardless of how remarkable you find it.) I don't assume anything, the merits of what you said were considered and generally do not make sense. I call a spade a spade as I see it, this is a linchpin of logical reasoning which I believe supersedes demands for political correctness. I'll take honesty over a smile, every. single. time. [quote author=SubjectSeven link=topic=6346.msg41486#msg41486 date=1397739327] I still prefer the 2UAC5 version, however of I want more ammo I will stay at the AC2 instead of regular AC5. Same dps (more dps between 620 and 800m), less alpha, less tonnage, more hps, more rof. Same dps for less tonnage make it a weapon with better dps per tonnage ratio, which is in my opinion therefore a better weapon. More accurate than only comparing tonnage at least, just like you should not compare builds only by the amount of damage they do. Less alpha is indeed something to consider, though that only really has an effect on the first shot (of you're taking many 'first shots' for example by retreating constantly behind a hill). As you are talking about sustained fire I find that this argument only accounts for a possible 0.5s decrease in time to kill. More heat is not relevant as you still have 59 percent efficiency and who will actually be able to fire for 2 minutes straight anyway?[/quote] More heat is relevant since the only reason you'd put a worse weapon on is to make room for the medium lasers that do overheat you. You're also miscalculating the effect of alpha, its 5dmg at 0 seconds, 10 dmg at 1.58 seconds- even without considering the burst of a UAC. Compare this to the AC2: 2dmg at 0 seconds, 6 Dmg at 1.58 seconds. You're not doing 3 less damage in that amount of time, you're doing 4 less damage in that amount of time. Damage at various intervals: AC5 does 5 DMG @ 0 seconds. +3 DMG AC2 Does 2 DMG @ 0 seconds AC5 does 10 DMG @ 1.58 seconds +4 DMG AC2 does 6 DMG @ 1.58 seconds AC5 does 15 DMG at 3.16 seconds. +5 DMG AC2 does 10 DMG at 3.16 seconds. AC5 does 20 DMG @ 4.74 seconds. AC2 does 16 DMG @ 4.74 seconds. ****THERE IS NO TIME INTERVAL THAT FAVORS THE AC2 EVEN UNDER CONSTANT FIRE.**** In fact because of the AC2 nerf, IT NEVER CLOSES THE GAP and remains behind(effectively ALWAYS doing LESS DPS.) We can completely ignore the fact that you have to hide between shots which only skews the balance extremely heavily in favor of the ac5- we can ignore the ac2's useless heat, and gimped max range. Or that every SINGLE TIME you stop firing the AC5 pulls further ahead. I don't even need to bring it into the discussion because even in the most favorable of circumstances: The AC2 is still A WORSE WEAPON. Deal with it. [quote author=SubjectSeven link=topic=6346.msg41486#msg41486 date=1397739327] In the end you have 2 tons to spend as you please for the same dps but a slightly lower ttk, which is in my opinion well worth it. That's my argumentation for AC2 over AC5 for the more ammo build only. Why throw in an alpha argument when you talk about chainfire right after? That is basically the opposite of alpha by spreading out your firepower. When linkfiring uac5/ac2 you have more alpha than chaining AC5 variants.[/quote] Misleading nonsense. An AC2 in any setup will not have pinpoint dmg with the AC5 due to the speed variance. It's also not doing the same DPS, EVER- as the damage intervals above show it is always doing less over the time that is spent firing. If you alpha fire the AC2 and UAC together, then it only makes sense to compare it to another alpha opener. The only reason chain firing is brought up is to cancel the possibility of claiming its superiority in suppression as the sole criteria for choosing an ac2(even chain firing the ac5 pulls ahead in damage at .5 seconds and never looks back.) It doesn't suppress better, it doesn't do damage better, AND it produces more heat which makes the extra weight it provides nearly useless(2 tons in heatsinks doesn't make up for the loss in heat efficiency and 2 lasers can't be used regularly because your normal use of the ballistic weapon systems pushes you past being able to use the 2 mediums.) As mentioned earlier its counter productive, and in any scenario, a worse weapon. [quote author=SubjectSeven link=topic=6346.msg41486#msg41486 date=1397739327] The ac2 has less shake per shot. It still fires almost three times as fast. Combined with the desynchronisation with AC5 and UAC5 weapons you will have a lower amplitude but a higher frequency of shake. That is in my experience more useful because the shake recovery time doesn't differ a whole lot, bit of you prefer a heavy slower shake, be my guest. It's a sidegrade and a matter of preference. Ac2 is counterproductive when you mount lasers yes, but having at least 1 UAC5 increases your continuous fire and temporary DPS long enough for me to make this paradoxale consideration as the ML are back-up rather than a continuous weapon (also due to the range on them). [/quote] If you don't install the lasers then the weight you saved is for nothing. Install 2 heat sinks? Still a worse weapon in every way than the AC5 WITHOUT 2 heat sinks. It's not paradoxical if the build has any synergy then the heat of the medium lasers should either be considered in your weapon load out and used regularly- or discarded. Compounding the issue is that with an AC2 the medium lasers gets less use, so you do less dps on top of the fact that the AC2 does less damage to begin with. And we'll just ignore that swapping in an AC2 makes it takes 30 seconds to fill your heat bar with no heat sinks to help you dissipate it for the rest of the match you'll spend fighting it. This could be forgivable if it provided any benefit, but it doesn't. It just makes it worse. As for increase shake being a side grade: at least this admits some short shortsightedness on your part. You go on to say that somehow your experience with shooting AC5's at people tells you they are less supressive than shooting AC2's at people. This is subjective nonsense and has no place in a logical discussion. The fact that the AC2 shoots faster cannot be denied, however if you bothered to do the math you'd see that an UAC5, AC5, and AC10 already on average shoot once every .66 seconds when combined. So why the AC2? A large shake every .66 seconds isn't enough? Really need that extra .02 second decrease in interval? That's what your arguing about... alrighty then. You're also miscalculating the weapon cool downs: AC5 with fast fire is 1.58 second cool down, the AC2 is .64 seconds cool down, AC 10 2.38. Not that this is essential, but a discussion of the real numbers is nice since theory crafting is mostly math. At the end of the day, I know no one wants to be wrong. But I've shown how the AC5 is better in nearly every way. I've shown its damage and effective DPS is higher than the ac2 even in the unrealistic fire forever scenario, that it continually gains ground over the AC2 every time you stop firing, and the AC2 Never catches up since its pure dps is equal(ac2 is actually .02 less but whatever that's negligible.) I've explained how the weight saved does not benefit the build because you cannot make up the heat efficiency with heat sinks and makes medium lasers you could install instead not regularly use-able since the ballistic load out can over heat you quickly enough and more efficiently without the use of lasers. I've shown the difference in suppression interval is .66 vs the .64 of the ac2... with dramatically more shake which logically leads to the build is better at suppressing with an AC5 than an AC2. I imagine only a person utterly petrified of being wrong could argue that .66 second intervals in ac5 and ac10 bullets is not excellent suppression. And I've tried to highlight the difference between genuine logical argumentation and just typing words to fill an argument. I've made no attacks on character, only on the points that are made- and the method in which the conclusions must have been drawn. While I would love to waste an entire day with this quasi-intellectual hobnobbery, I believe I've said all that I can- I can not break it down any further, cannot explain it any clearer. If there is a difference of opinion after reading the superiority of basic mechanics on damage, suppression, heat efficiency, alpha, pin point, weapon load out synergy and matching weapons speeds- then no agreement could be reached by any amount of discussion. So I happily rest my case as further discussion would only serve to raise tension and has no hope of changing anyone's mind whose already read what I've said. Either what I said is enough, or nothing would have been- an in either scenario there is little point to wasting more time, energy or forum space on this specific point.
I'm a little hesitant in posting here... but I'll go ahead and give my two cents Disclaimer: I am in no way "Elite" or "Super awesome buildmaster", so take what I say with a grain of salt... Now that that's out of the way, I gave both of your guys' builds a try, and noticed a few things. I have the worst luck/skill with UAC5s. I don't know what it is, but no matter what, I keep jamming. I think it may have something to do with my mouse randomly double clicking sometimes (I need to buy a new one :/), but either way, I had poor luck with inopportune jamming. That being said, I did like Tr0unce's AC5 AC10 ML build for a steady layer of damage to the enemy. On the other hand, I took a recent liking to the AC2 shortly before the nerf, and I want to at least give it a little more time before I make my own opinion regarding it's usefulness (or lack thereof). It makes me less nervous when firing the UAC5, because I know at the very least, I can have a quick AC2 shell disrupting aim and dealing some damage at mid range. Once again, I am in no way an "elite" player, so this may just be what happens in whatever ELO I am in, but I haven't noticed any real difference in the effectiveness of the builds. If anything, the last build SubjectSeven posted worked a little better FOR ME (not necessarily anyone else), most probably because of: A) People not noticing what weapons is being fired, just seeing a Jager with a high Rate of Fire, and running B) I was able to keep that DPS/Screen Shake/Disruption going on with the AC/2 when the UAC5 Jammed, vs the slightly slower 2AC5s, or my horrible luck with 2UAC5s jamming (I really need to buy that mouse soon) That's just my experience with the mechs, and I do enjoy having a use for the AC10 that was sitting in my mechbay gathering dust. For the casual observer, go ahead and try both, see how they work for you, and if you have the same UAC problems, I recommend either Tr0unce's last build, or any of SubjectSeven's, as they have the AC2 to give you something to shoot during a weapon jam. I don't bring any numbers, just what I observed in the game. Good day to you both, and I will see you on the battlefield [size=8pt]Please don't hurt me hear:
To each his own, my man. I love everyone. The way you put things is exactly how you should put something you don't have evidence for. You don't make subjectivity become a basis for false factual statements- there is nothing to argue with. There are people who understand the difference in a subjective opinion and objective analysis and those that state baseless opinions as facts. Only one of these people make a disagreeable, disputable point. It's not a reason to dislike someone, just a reason to explain why they are objectively wrong.
I agree with Trounce that the AC2 is now clearly inferior to the AC5 after Nerf. Though i have a different calculation, but still the same resulting fact: Based on Patch notes AC2 (pre-Patch): 2 @ 0s 4 @ 0.52s 6 @ 1.04s 8 @ 1.56s 10 @ 2.08s 12 @ 2.6s 14 @ 3.12s 16 @ 3.64s 18 @ 4.16s 20 @ 4.68s 22 @ 5.2s 24 @ 5.72s 26 @ 6.24s AC5 (pre-Patch): 5 @ 0s 10 @ 1.5s 15 @ 3s 20 @ 4.5s 25 @ 6s AC2 (post-Patch): 2 @ 0s 4 @ 0.669s 6 @ 1.338s 8 @ 2.007s 10 @ 2.676s 12 @ 3.345s 14 @ 4.014s 16 @ 4.683s 18 @ 5.352s 20 @ 6.021s 22 @ 6.69s AC5 (post-Patch): 5 @ 0s 10 @ 1,66s 15 @ 3.32s 20 @ 4.98s 25 @ 6.64s For Damage, Range and sDPS reasons I would suggest to always load AC5s instead of AC2s if Tonnage allows. Only the higher Screenshake rate is something that is superior with the AC2, but Heat Production rate limits it's DPS Power (the only reason pre-Patch to go AC2 imo).
I'm not using the strawman as an argument. The reason I say it was simply because you can be right without being an ass about it. You can be honest without being an ass about it. You can point out people are being an ass without being an ass about it (though that last one is pretty hard I admit). I have nothing wrong with you being right, but I have an issue with you insulting me once I say I prefer the AC2 myself for my own reasons (which I've already explained). The 'errant assumption' part has just as little to do with the discussion as my response to it. The ac2 in itself is a worse weapon, and I claimed it was 'better than an AC5' but that was comparable: less tonnage for more heat/firing rate and less alpha. That is a consideration I am willing to make due to the cool nature of the build of itself. Basically as a way to suppress without having to chainfire away all your upfront damage and go kinda half-way. Though, I did say that I prefer to judge weapons by a DPS per tonnage basis. For a build more focused around alpha than the one we're arguing about I would consider the higher early damage from the AC5 more valuable than I do the '3 damage up front per new engagement for 2 tons' now. ML may be hot, but they increase the slight loss in damage when needed (you could even get just one ML to do that) and with the sheer damage you're putting downrange every second those 3 damage will become progressively less valuable compared to the total. In which case it might be nice to have two more tons to spend. If you're ahead 3 damage for a whole 10 seconds of firing you've increased your overall DPS by 0.3 for 2 tons. That is in my opinion terrible value. Those 2 tons need not be used for DHS by the way; you can still fire for 38 sec - 1 minute straight. There are multiple options such as larger engine, backup weapons, more ammo, etc. that can be considered instead of the DHS. Having 2 medium lasers or even 1 as backup should not be discarded if they can't be used frequently. They have a well defined role if we're talking about back-up weapons to be used in emergencies. There are plenty of banshees with 4 backup lasers as well, while their main sauce is autocannons. It's nice to have them in case you need them, and if you can equip 2x 5 damage weapons (with increased protection vs lights) when you need it at the loss of 3 upfront damage per engagement, why not? It is a tiny bit better damage wise between 620-800m and between each 1.3 and 1.66 sec of fire. That is very little over the advantages of the AC5 but IMO they should still be pointed out in a build based on sustained fire. I still prefer UAC+AC2 over 2xAC5 from your build because the temporal DPS increase of a UAC over the AC5 is more significant than the loss in alpha from the AC2, that is my preference along with guaranteed frequent shake. You chain the UAC+AC5 for that 0.66 shake. that gives you 5 alpha instead of 7 from link firing AC2+UAC. I think those are definitely comparable if we're going to talk about suppression only, as a linkfired UAC/AC5 doesn't come even close to fulfilling the same suppression function. If we want to keep an endless stream of bullets flying then we have to spread out the upfront damage, either by chainfiring your UAC/AC5 or by swapping the AC5 for an AC2. The first delays 5 damage until 1 second later The latter 'splits' the 5 damage over the first 1.6 seconds (actually 6 damage over 2). Both are suppression and can't really be compared to firing all your bullets and waiting for the cooldown of a linked UAC/AC5. Besides the shake of the AC2 is more as it desynchronises with the UAC, so you have an irregular shaking pattern as long as both are still active, most notably after the second shot: UAC fires at 0.5, AC2 at 0.67 > merely a 0.17 second delay between shaking (not accounting for projectile speed variation, but the gap will only get closer) I said also multiple times in TS (maybe less clearly in my heated argument on the forums) that I PREFERRED the AC2 for my own reasons. A lot of points I made here are also basically smothered in 'in my opinion'. A crucial set of words which has sadly been neglected multiple times. The reasons are actually exactly the one that Sucitraf mentioned as i'll still have a constant stream of bullets when the UAC jams as opposed to one each 1.66 with an AC5. Besides that the desynchronisation is in my opinion more useful than chainfire in shaking enemies. The speed variance will be a problem at longer ranges. I don't play this build from very long ranges myself so I can get maximum damage from the AC10, so for my playstyle that point is not as important for me. I might have to work on bringing my arguments more clearly as my opinion; everything on this forum is an opinion or preference of mine (except linked fire is better than chained fire every time unless you're really going for the suppression instead of the damage due to damage at intervals, an argument you know very well), but as everyone apparently has his own way of expressing himself, I guess explaining my opinions in a way that you perceive them as facts is mine.
MOM DAD STOP FIGHTING YOU'RE RUINING MY BIRTHDAY PARTY!!! This looks like an absolutely brutal build. I'll have to give it a shot, both on the JM6 and an Ilya. I don't believe I've run an AC/10 in at least three months. Thanks for reminding me what a great addition it can be to a ballistics build.
It wrecks faces on the ilya, you also get 2 ML and an XL280 out of the larger tonnage from cataphracts. Lower hardpoints is meh. Also tr0unce, I apologize for being a bit hypocritical yesterday (as I was being just as much an ass as you were). I've edited my last post a bit to explain my views a bit better. AC2 is in my opinion a bit like half-chain firing your AC5. you still get a bit of its damage up front but you also get the constant rain of bullets (even when the UAC jams, which sucitraf managed to point out very well). of course there are a lot of downsides but in my playstyle (including that I prefer an XL280 in my jagers) I consider those to be worth the benefits. You clearly don't and that's all that sparked this.
Don't apologize, the purpose of discourse is to bring people closer to the truth. Things I didn't think of I bothered to calculate because of this thread. And I think your view of the new ac2 has expanded in some ways as well. So, in the end, we are both closer to the truth.
