Jump to content

Laser Rifle Charging Mechanics


Breaking Point

Recommended Posts

It's more like the numbers they show in the Garage indicate max charge. You're better off fully charging every shot.

 

I know the damage level is the fully charged amount, but you are definitely not better off charging every shot. It depends greatly on the laser rifle, but some (like LRA-229) can do 2x or 3x DPS by not charging them all the way because their reload time is so much shorter than their charge time.

 

Since most ACs online have either 2500+ TE defense, or under 1500, it makes sense to charge these rapid fire laser rifles only to the extent that they do effective damage.

 

Looks like I'll have to just do some testing myself with the damage formulas and figure out how much a 50% charged shot does, to see what the trade-off for charge time and damage is.

Edited by Breaking Point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go do that.

 

Or just equip one of the three Sawas like everybody else.

 

This place is clearly not an armored core forum. It looks like an Armored Core forum but must not be.

 

Also, I see a good variety of laser rifles online, LRA-222 is probably just as common as K29.

Edited by Breaking Point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are an armored core forum, but we don't dwell on talking about ACVD over and over again. For a lot of us Armored Core is currently a dead franchise, so we talk about plenty of other stuff as well. That isn't to say we still can't have fun with Armored Core from time to time. The bulk of the current ongoing ACDC is here at ACU. There's a wealth of LR vids and other AC media here at ACU too, just not much for VD.

 

ACU is primarily a community driven forum, so come in chat once in a while and get to know people, make internet buddies, talk about other stuff besides Armored Core. That's what ACU is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This place is clearly not an armored core forum. It looks like an Armored Core forum but must not be.

I used to think the way you thought once but I decided to not saying out loud and be happy with it...because...I think people who play games are much important than just talking about the game (ACVD for current AC game) too much, and that's seems to be too boring for me.

 

back to the topic, does it matter to know damage rate of laser rifle? since it's seems like almost every laser rifle had a full-charged time just about 1-2 sec (including KARASAWA)...well, I dunno about UNAC that much but I think there is no way to make UNAC do things you want to. (incomplete-rapid shot, like people do)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to think the way you thought once but I decided to not saying out loud and be happy with it...because...I think people who play games are much important than just talking about the game (ACVD for current AC game) too much, and that's seems to be too boring for me.

 

back to the topic, does it matter to know damage rate of laser rifle? since it's seems like almost every laser rifle had a full-charged time just about 1-2 sec (including KARASAWA)...well, I dunno about UNAC that much but I think there is no way to make UNAC do things you want to. (incomplete-rapid shot, like people do)

 

It totally does. For example, LRA-222 might have a charge time of ~80 units, but a reload time of ~15 units. Say damage is 2500.

 

If you charge it fully, you do 2500 damage for every 95 units of time, or 26 damage per unit.

 

But if laser rifles, when not charged, still do some damage, so we know there's a baseline damage for non-charged rifles.

 

If they start off at, say, 20% power and charge linearly up to 100%, then if you charged it for 20 units (25% charge) you'd do 500 (base) + 500 (charge) for a total of 1000 damage in 35 units, or 28.5 damage per unit.

 

If you charge it for only 10%, you'd do 700 in 23 units. Or 30 damage per unit of time.

 

This means that in this example alone, by charging it up for only 10%, if you keep firing, you can do 15% more damage. I think the real gain is closer to 30 or 50%.

 

I think the starting damage is probably higher, and I think the charging benefits more for the first half than the second half, but I haven't had time to test it accurately yet. It seems to me that you can do ~50% more damage by firing rapidly than by charging all the way, if and only if you charge enough to break their TE defense.

 

"Tap firing" is a common tactic, and I've seen it used instead of pulse machine guns as a way to do good damage against low-TE defense in close range, where you charge up for only a fraction until it breaks their TE defense, but no longer so you can rapid fire the rifle.

 

As for UNACs, it's totally easy to make them incomplete rapid shot. Just spend some time in the programming screen, it's very obvious how to do it and programming them isn't hard at all. Any decently-built and programmed UNAC is still better than ~70% of the players online, and the only things they really "can't" do is keep turning while HBing, drift, CQC, Glide boost around enemies, or seek cover. Otherwise, they can do about everything a human can and sometimes better.

 

On a side note, ACVD is keeping this franchise alive. It's different stylistically and aesthetically than prior games, but it's still one of the best-balanced, most engaging games with the highest replay value. There's a reason that it's online play internationally is still better than AC4, FA, or ACV was a year after it's release. I think it's the first game that's actually expanded the fanbase since Last Raven. In terms of gameplay, it actually feels more like Last Raven than it does ACV, even if the mechanics are the same as ACV's.

 

 

 

I'm not saying that this place isn't a good forum, but there's a growing community that enjoys ACVD and actively seek out to improve their playing in the game. I've been around since MoA, but most of the PS2 games have been played out. Just about everything that can be studied, understood, and done in them has been. ACVD is still uncharted territory, and to not examine it closer like we do the previous games is a disservice to the franchise.

Edited by Breaking Point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, ACVD is keeping this franchise alive. It's different stylistically and aesthetically than prior games, but it's still one of the best-balanced, most engaging games with the highest replay value.

 

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

 

There's a reason that it's online play internationally is still better than AC4, FA, or ACV was a year after it's release. I think it's the first game that's actually expanded the fanbase since Last Raven. In terms of gameplay, it actually feels more like Last Raven than it does ACV, even if the mechanics are the same as ACV's.

The reason why people are still playing it on INT is because Bandai Namco actually didn't segregate all of the non JP player bases this time around. It still doesn't compare to the amount of people that played at the launch of ACV. The only reason why the game lost all it's momentum was because of the lack of timely balance patches (shoutouts to Bandai Namco).

 

VD is a lot less active than what ACV was on JP; a lot of the ACV veterans saw through all of the bullshit in VD and quit after the first couple months. The only reason why people are still playing at this point is because there's no other game like it, and despite all it's significant flaws, it's better than 99% of other games out at the moment.

Edited by Intalus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of us would argue that AC is pretty much dead, and ACVD is too little too late.

 

NX was the first dagger, NB made was the second dagger, LR tried to give CPR but the AC was already dead.

AC4 dug the grave, ACFA put the corpse in the grave.

ACV covered the grave, ACVD attempted to dig up the grave but got arrested by cops before it could even pull the shovel out.

 

ACVD surely did not expand the AC fanbase, look at its sale numbers compared to the previous AC games. As someone who's supposedly been around since MOA you should know this very well.

Edited by POSTER X
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, ACVD is keeping this franchise alive. It's different stylistically and aesthetically than prior games, but it's still one of the best-balanced, most engaging games with the highest replay value.

infinite gliding by SUZUMUSHI+BA-309, HWB had lower AP than MWB (I'm talking about all of competitive meta designs), many GGs are useless, most rifles are useless, most BRs are useless, KE cannon aren't useful as before, a lot of people are using HRJ, LRJ, quad so much than any other AC types, PMGs are useless, and you called it "one of the best-balanced" ?...c'mon, I'm totally disagree.

 

(if you'd ever play VD for JP site since the day that released and also saw what happened to their patches as I saw and I'd feel........you'll see how much different between before and after. and for me, I decided to-not-played VD because of that too much changing......to be most boring things that FROM ever made)

 

edit : for me, LR is the "best balanced"

Edited by Taurus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of us would argue that AC is pretty much dead, and ACVD is too little too late.

 

NX was the first dagger, NB made was the second dagger, LR tried to give CPR but the AC was already dead.

AC4 dug the grave, ACFA put the corpse in the grave.

ACV covered the grave, ACVD attempted to dig up the grave but got arrested by cops.

 

ACVD surely did not expand the AC fanbase, look at its sale numbers compared to the previous AC games. As someone who's supposedly been around since MOA you should know this very well.

 

ACVD expanded its fanbase from where it was after V (which I admit, was very unbalanced and had none of the original spirit). Sure, it's not as big as AC2, but it's actually growing for once in the last 5 years. There will never be another AC2, we have to accept that. In fact, if AC2 was released nowadays (having never exited before) with good graphics and even an online arena mode it would probably be critically panned and never make any traction. The thing is, major game budgets have blown up 10-100x since those days and development is far, far more expensive than it used to be. We'll probably hit an economic game bubble in the next few years.

 

 

I'll put it this way: If you're a fan of old-school armored core, but not a fan of highly customizable strategic robot combat with beautiful aesthetics and gritty apocalyptic political stories, then yeah, you won't like anything after LR.

 

But if you are fan of highly customizable strategic robot combat with beautiful aesthetics and gritty apocalyptic political stories, then on paper, there's no reason not to play and enjoy ACVD. It's different but it's still got all of the parts that made the old armored core games enjoyable. In fact, it's actually probably even more unique since it's actually less of a rip off of prior mech media. there's a lot of new things, but they aren't bad, but most importantly, there's nothing missing.

 

Shadowy political organization in the background driving the plot? Check.

Absurdly complex customization and variety in weapons? Check.

Difficult-to-use but incredibly rewarding movement and combat mechanics? Check.

Strong supporter who becomes a memorable antagonist, with a legendary combat ability? Check.

Cover, EN management, defense management, and other strategic gameplay? Triple check. (ACVD probably is the game you have to thin the most about to be good at, and that's why the online is actually good enough for me to keep playing it, it requires me to try and think critically about the gameplay to win)

Ever-increasing skill cap? Check.

Multiple design types with distinct, yet not restrictive play styles? Check.

Awesome CQC combat? Yes.

 

Yes, they replaced bazookas with battle rifles, got rid of the heat system, won't allow vertical flight, added a third weapon damage type, added wall-jumping and removed back missiles, but at the end of the day, it's still closer to what games like AC2 were trying to do than I think most people give it credit for, and most importantly, it's actually got a well-designed online gameplay.

 

EDIT: Since someone else posted...

 

There hasn't been a patch in a long time on the international server (I can't speak for the JP server) and it's very balanced. There isn't a single weapon (even rail cannons) that I haven't seen some use in, and even ultimate weapons are used occasionally. KE cannons are one of, if not the, most common tank weapons. I haven't seen any evidence that says this game is unbalanced.

 

Most of the entry-level weapons aren't used (were they ever, in any AC game?) but every category has at least 3-4 usable weapons with different statistics and uses. PMGs are definitely not useless, even howitzers see some use. I am completely serious when I say that the game is very well balanced for online play right now, and there are very few weapons AND builds that aren't successful. You can beat any other player with about any class of weapon with any build, provided you're skilled enough. There are some easier builds that stand out as 'common' but there are definitely more blurred lines than 'tiers'.

 

The only class of weapons that I can think of that doesn't see much use are KE or CE rockets, which sounds a lot like most AC games. Likewise, lightweight players (both RJ and BP) are just as common now as HWBPs (which used to dominate) and tanks. Midweights are arguably the least used leg type, but I still see them on a regular basis. Just because there's bias toward certain play types doesn't mean it's not balanced, where certain play style would be completely impossible.

Edited by Breaking Point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shadowy political organization in the background driving the plot? Check.

Absurdly complex customization and variety in weapons? Check.

Difficult-to-use but incredibly rewarding movement and combat mechanics? Check.

Strong supporter who becomes a memorable antagonist, with a legendary combat ability? Check.

Cover, EN management, defense management, and other strategic gameplay? Triple check. (ACVD probably is the game you have to thin the most about to be good at, and that's why the online is actually good enough for me to keep playing it, it requires me to try and think critically about the gameplay to win)

Ever-increasing skill cap? Check.

Multiple design types with distinct, yet not restrictive play styles? Check.

Awesome CQC combat? Yes.

make things fun as MoA or LR?

NO.

edit : why no? 'cuz the most important of any game(s) is fun-to-play and FROM has been lose it already.

Edited by Taurus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

make things fun as MoA or LR?

NO.

edit : why no? 'cuz the most important of any game(s) is fun-to-play and FROM has been lose it already.

 

I love AC2, MoA, and a lot of the classic games. They're the only reason I keep around old consoles, and I still go back and play/watch aspects of them and their story. But in terms of what gives me more fun? I've played those game through and through and there's nothing surprising, new, or challenging with them. It's like playing tetris or playing with a rubick's cube. It's fun, but once you figure it out, you have to handicap yourself to get anything new out of it, and even then, it's still the same game.

 

ACVD's online play right now has a clearly moving metagame, and I've never played a video game that rewards strategic thinking more than it, or a game that has a higher and higher skill cap. The more effort I put into it, the more reward I get out of it, the more skill is required, and the more I feel like I've accomplished something. I like when games give me challenges to overcome, requiring me to use the same tools in new ways. It may not be your bag of fun, but if given the option, I just don't see a replay value in the old AC games so long as they've been mastered. Playing the older AC games is like roleplaying yourself back when you first found the game, but ACVD still provides constant challenges.

 

I keep waiting for the day that I get bored with ACVD, but it's not coming. There's no "Well, I can set this game down now, I've done what I need to do." Just when I think I've figured it out, either I'll encounter new play styles or builds that require me to go back to the drawing board, or I'll be presented with a new, higher goal to reach. Once you reach 136% completion on other AC games, all you can do is just replay the same stories in a different way for nostalgia's sake.

Edited by Breaking Point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There hasn't been a patch in a long time on the international server (I can't speak for the JP server) and it's very balanced.

 

The next time I run into your team on INT, I will make it my goal to always use all of the broken shit in the game since you don't have a clue of all the BS that can happen.

 

Playing the older AC games is like roleplaying yourself back when you first found the game, but ACVD still provides constant challenges.

With none of the reward that it deserves. Why bust your balls off trying to use a manual aim tank against Sawarabi LRJs when you can hold triggers mindlessly and be much more effective. Other than making tier whores butthurt, there isn't much point.

Edited by Intalus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep waiting for the day that I get bored with ACVD, but it's not coming. There's no "Well, I can set this game down now, I've done what I need to do."

I'd also thought that way once too. (or maybe I'm just the old-fashion people)

 

anyway, had you ever tried for sniper-cannon(s) on tank yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also thought that way once too. (or maybe I'm just the old-fashion people)

 

anyway, had you ever tried for sniper-cannon(s) on tank yet?

 

You can ask "had you ever tried ____ yet?" on ACVD and the answer is yes. I'm not skilled with every build (i'm terrible with tanks and quads) but I've tried them all, and if I haven't, I've built a successful UNAC that DID use them. It's amazing what a UNAC can do with a heat howitzer.

 

In particular, I've used sniper cannon tanks off and on since ACV. If I was better with tanks (and didn't like mobility so much), I'd probably run a sniper cannon and laser cannon tank as opposed to the popular cannon / laser cannon tank. However, I've ran into a few players online who have a ~30% accuracy with accuracy-tuned sniper cannons on tank (and one player who managed to hit about 80% of the time, even at distance, it was insane). Considering their damage output, it's enough to take down a few HWBP ACs easily. But if you run one, someone on the opposing team has a light weight CQC player that will destroy you first with a Murakumo blade. Sawarabi isn't even used as the go-to CQC method anymore, and is pretty much reserved for LWRJ snipers. The heavier LWRJ legs are used instead, since they're fast enough to evade lock ons but have drastically higher defense and much better kicks.

 

1v1, most matches are probably decided before they start. But team matches, which is what ACVD was designed for (if you want to be alone, learn how to build UNACs, it's good for you) rely mostly on skill and strategy, not part choices.

Edited by Breaking Point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except well, it is. Sometimes people have snipers and murakumos on the same AC.

 

8 weeks ago, you might be right. this month, the heavier LRJs using kicks are more common as they have more weapon versatility and far better defenses. The players using sawarabi get killed far too quickly and do far to little damage to be worth one of the 4 team slots. It's not about peak speed, but evading lock ons. When players use more Hheavyweights and more close range weapons, sawarabi will come back into usage, but right now there's more of push for lock speed, mid-range combat, and heavy hitting weapons, all of which mean that LRJs should be dropping speed in favor of defense slightly, or they'll get killed on the way to attacking the tank.

 

I'm not saying that they aren't used at all, but that the metagame is constantly changing, as it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 weeks ago, you might be right. this month, the heavier LRJs using kicks are more common as they have more weapon versatility and far better defenses.

Your entire argument is based off your experience on a server where more than the majority of the people do not have a proper understanding of the game mechanics. That's exactly like basing the metagame for SC2 from your experience in fucking bronze league.

 

The players using sawarabi get killed far too quickly and do far to little damage to be worth one of the 4 team slots.

The players using those legs have no fucking idea what they are doing. If you are dying quickly with then you have zero clue on how to play the game. Those legs have a retarded amount of survivability simply because they can break lock just by jumping and cutting their boosters with just about no detriment to their energy, all while having the fastest speed of ANY legs in the game. A skilled player should be able to survive a 3v1 if not 4v1 easily with those.

 

I'm not saying that they aren't used at all, but that the metagame is constantly changing, as it should be.

They're used all the time on JP because they're difficult to kill in the hands of a skilled player. The meta has been pretty stagnant for the past few months on JP because it all comes down to several builds being better than the majority. The difference in builds is probably because players got bored of what they used before.

Edited by Intalus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you honestly think that after months of Sawarabi users spamming the entire INT gameplay that its more likely they just suddenly 'became bad' and started getting killed because INT players are idiots, than it is that all the players who were tired of fighting sawarabi players figured out how to avoid, track, and take them down quickly?

 

I think a lot of the problem still relies on team dynamics vs player dynamics. No part is so overpowered that a team with 4 of them can get a competitive edge. It simply is impossible. 1v1? Yeah, a sawarabi user probably is going to be a pain in the ass to deal with, but you throw a team of 4 of them against a well-balanced team of intelligent players (or hell, even UNACs) and they'll be mowed down. You put one of them on your team as support, and he'll be the first to die, unless he's running from battle the entire time, which means the rest of the team is on a 3v4 and will suffer losses as a result. Just because one part is, indeed, powerful (and sawarabi is one of the best legs) and might even be broken 1v1, does not, mean it is usable in the vast majority of team battles, especially after being used so much that everyone else has now gotten training on how to kill those builds.

 

The only possible way a skilled player could survive 3v1 using those legs is if they were a godly pile driver player and managed to hit all 3 within 30-40 seconds, which is about the time it takes for that player to get surrounded. Leg speed means nothing for evasion if the collective lock range of the entire opponent's team covers 90% of the area between you and them and they can plainly see where you are hiding. Otherwise, they'll just wait for you to run out of ammo with whatever weapons you do bring, because it's not enough.

 

You want to be successful at ACVD? You have to study and watch everyone else and know the strengths and weaknesses of not just each build, but how the builds interact on a team. There are powerful weapons, but there are no broken ones that do not require assistance or support to use without getting killed.

Edited by Breaking Point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you honestly think that after months of Sawarabi users spamming the entire INT gameplay that its more likely they just suddenly 'became bad' and started getting killed because INT players are idiots, than it is that all the players who were tired of fighting sawarabi players figured out how to avoid, track, and take them down quickly?

 

If I can solo conquest successfully with a kicking MW or kill several ACs a round with a heat pile tank on INT, then yeah.

 

I think a lot of the problem still relies on team dynamics vs player dynamics. No part is so overpowered that a team with 4 of them can get a competitive edge. It simply is impossible. 1v1? Yeah, a sawarabi user probably is going to be a pain in the ass to deal with, but you throw a team of 4 of them against a well-balanced team of intelligent players (or hell, even UNACs) and they'll be mowed down. You put one of them on your team as support, and he'll be the first to die, unless he's running from battle the entire time, which means the rest of the team is on a 3v4 and will suffer losses as a result. Just because one part is, indeed, powerful (and sawarabi is one of the best legs) and might even be broken 1v1, does not, mean it is usable in the vast majority of team battles, especially after being used so much that everyone else has now gotten training on how to kill those builds.

 

You can think whatever you want, but unless you have experience of playing this game at a high level, your opinion is next to worthless. I've showed what you've said to a few other AC players who have been playing since ACV and they can't believe the asinine shit you've been spouting.

 

You want to be successful at ACVD? You have to study and watch everyone else and know the strengths and weaknesses of not just each build, but how the builds interact on a team. There are powerful weapons, but there are no broken ones that do not require assistance or support to use without getting killed.

I didn't bother to record my footage of doing solo CQ because I felt that noobstomping on INT really wasn't worth putting up on youtube. Now I actually have a reason to go out and get footage of it.

Edited by Intalus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can solo conquest successfully with a kicking MW or kill several ACs a round with a heat pile tank on INT, then yeah.

 

 

 

You can think whatever you want, but unless you have experience of playing this game at a high level, your opinion is next to worthless. I've showed what you've said to a few other AC players who have been playing since ACV and they can't believe the asinine shit you've been spouting.

 

Then, in all your wisdom, can you tell me the damage curve for laser rifle charging? The only reason this argument about whether or not ACVD is balance or not is because no one seems to be able to answer that unless I go test it out myself. I have an idea of what it looks like, but if you don't have a formula yet then I don't know if you've actually researched this game very much either.

Edited by Breaking Point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instant charge to 33% of a weapon's charge time = 33% value for stats. I don't see how you couldn't have tested it and figured it out your self as it's pretty simple... Just compare the calculated scan mode damage value of your laser rifle to the actual damage you deal from an instant charge. Edited by Intalus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instant charge to 33% of a weapon's charge time = 33% value for stats. I don't see how you couldn't have tested it out... Just compare the damage value of your laser rifle from scan mode to the actual damage you deal from an instant charge.

 

What about from 34% to 100%? That's what I'm most concerned with. I've suspected that it is linear, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was a reverse exponential bias toward it, because it seems that cutting charges off early tend to reduce the damage by a lot less than the trade-off from charging from 33% to 50%.

Edited by Breaking Point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...