137 replies to this topic

[WolvesX]

http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

At first, thank you PGI for trying to address some balance isseus!

BUT...

Paul stated:

AC/5
After reading my last post, dunno where my head was when I said AC/5 damage would be changing. AC/5 damage is NOT changing. Their range however is increasing from 540m out to 620m.

Full 80m, leaves me thinking that 80m doesn't make up the serious DPS / Alpha disadvantage.

As you might have not known, AC5s got a lower DPS than AC2. -> http://mwo.smurfy-ne...eapon_ballistic

Come on, this thing needs a higher RoF! 4 DPS as every other AC, or like 3.5 + the range buff.

Whats your thought on this?

The WolvesX

Edited by WolvesX, 11 May 2013 - 09:50 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

ONE POINT FIVE ROF or STRIKE!

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

See the AC section of my post here: http://mwomercs.com/...ool-down-rates/

AC dps should be regularized around the 5 dps point. AC20s are there already with 20 damage every 4 seconds. AC10s would need to be sped up to 10 damage every 2 seconds, and AC5s moved to 5 damage every 1 second. The AC2 would be the odd weapon out, at its current 0.5s cool down, giving it only 4 dps, but considering its absurd range profile and super high velocity projectiles I'd be fine with that slight discrepancy.

Of course, all this assumes that ACs are being balanced not just with each other but with other weapon systems, with the idea being to give each class of weapon its own role and flavor.

Edited by Levi Porphyrogenitus, 11 May 2013 - 08:12 AM.

[WolvesX]

Ok, after 8 yes, there is one no. Please explain your opinion.

[Stonefalcon]

I have no issue mounting AC/5's on my Cataphract paired with AC/2's it works treat. No issue here move along.

FYI i voted no.

Edited by Stonefalcon, 11 May 2013 - 08:14 AM.

[WolvesX]

Stonefalcon, on 11 May 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

I have no issue mounting AC/5's on my Cataphract paired with AC/2's it works treat. No issue here move along.

FYI i voted no.

Could you please be a bit more specific? I mean... well see that numbers.

Thank you for posting.

Edited by WolvesX, 11 May 2013 - 08:15 AM.

[Stonefalcon]

WolvesX, on 11 May 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Could you please be a bit more specific? I mean... well see that numbers.

Thank you for posting.

HUH? English please.

[WolvesX]

Stonefalcon, on 11 May 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

HUH? English please.

I'm not a native speaker, so sry if you have problems understanding me.

My point is: Its got the lowest DPS, a low Alpha and compared a high weight.

All ACs seem to be better, if fact I think only the MG is worse, the stats on the page I linked, are my basis.

[IdolElite]

I haven't looked into it any, but i can say that in game they do feel a bit slow with the ROF. Also, i had a friend recently start playing and for his first mech try the 4 AC/5 Cataphract, however he felt the ROF was too slow so changed his build.

[Stonefalcon]

WolvesX, on 11 May 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

I'm not a native speaker, so sry if you have problems understanding me.

My point is: Its got the lowest DPS, a low Alpha and compared a high weight.

All ACs seem to be better, if fact I think only the MG is worse, the stats on the page I linked, are my basis.

AC/5's might be a bit weak for what they offer, but consider that they use less ammo than AC/2's, hit 2.5 times harder than an AC/2 and will soon have a very similar range then the AC/2. I think buffing their ROF is just gonna create more "Weapon is OP, Nerf Weapon" threads.

You are also assuming mechs were designed to boat a single weapon, matter of fact they never were, only a very few select designs were weapon boats, most designs use multiple different weapons, and when the AC/5 is used in conjunction with other weapons it combos very well with them. I'm very happy with my current builds that use the AC/5 and like i've said earlier there is no reason to create more OP weapon thread.

best let PGI buff the range and leave it at that.

[Zyllos]

Spot on, range is not what AC/5 needs. It's the RoF equal to the UAC/5.

[Alistair Winter]

NO!!!

The AC5 is in desperate need of a buff, but rate of fire is not the solution. I mean, the UAC5 is basically an AC5 with higher rate of fire, at the cost of potentially jamming and a few other things. The more you reduce the difference between these weapons, the less need there is to have both in the game.

In other words, the solution should be to increase range further, maybe reduce heat some more, maybe give more ammo per ton, or do other things that make the AC5 an interesting addition to the MWO arsenal. I vote for extra range. Some AC5 snipers would be a welcome change from gauss snipers and PPC snipers. It would actually have a function that isn't already available: long range suppression fire. The ability to hose down the enemy with 3 or 4 AC5s at, say, 800 meters range and do damage would have a completely different disruptive effect compared to sniping people with a gauss.

[Deathlike]

The ROF of the AC5 should be closer to matching the 4 DPS for the other ACs, outside of the AC5.

Even if the AC5 is not going to be having a DPS of 4, at best some additional benefit should be given to it, like probably a lower heat output and maybe a range increase. A straight range increase by itself has no real benefit at this point in time.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Alistair Winter, on 11 May 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

NO!!!

The AC5 is in desperate need of a buff, but rate of fire is not the solution. I mean, the UAC5 is basically an AC5 with higher rate of fire, at the cost of potentially jamming and a few other things. The more you reduce the difference between these weapons, the less need there is to have both in the game.

In other words, the solution should be to increase range further, maybe reduce heat some more, maybe give more ammo per ton, or do other things that make the AC5 an interesting addition to the MWO arsenal. I vote for extra range. Some AC5 snipers would be a welcome change from gauss snipers and PPC snipers. It would actually have a function that isn't already available: long range suppression fire. The ability to hose down the enemy with 3 or 4 AC5s at, say, 800 meters range and do damage would have a completely different disruptive effect compared to sniping people with a gauss.

UAC5 should not have a base rate of fire higher than the AC5. The UAC5's dps advantage should come solely from its double-fire mode. This should be a toggle, and it should only ever jam when in double-tap mode. This makes the AC5 and UAC5 both have a role on the battlefield, whereas now the UAC5 is just better (even if you never double-tap).

[Zyllos]

Alistair Winter, on 11 May 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

NO!!!

The AC5 is in desperate need of a buff, but rate of fire is not the solution. I mean, the UAC5 is basically an AC5 with higher rate of fire, at the cost of potentially jamming and a few other things. The more you reduce the difference between these weapons, the less need there is to have both in the game.

In other words, the solution should be to increase range further, maybe reduce heat some more, maybe give more ammo per ton, or do other things that make the AC5 an interesting addition to the MWO arsenal. I vote for extra range. Some AC5 snipers would be a welcome change from gauss snipers and PPC snipers. It would actually have a function that isn't already available: long range suppression fire. The ability to hose down the enemy with 3 or 4 AC5s at, say, 800 meters range and do damage would have a completely different disruptive effect compared to sniping people with a gauss.

Extra range means nothing...

The difference between a UAC/5 and AC/5 should 100% be the double rate of fire with a chance of jamming for 1.0 ton and 1 critical slot.

The jamming rate between the UAC/5 needs to be lowered but increase in time so that it doesn't just constantly jam trying to do short quick bursts.

Heck, maybe even completely change the jam mechanic with a jamming bar that if it fills up, it jams.

[Lefty Lucy]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 May 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

See the AC section of my post here: http://mwomercs.com/...ool-down-rates/

AC dps should be regularized around the 5 dps point.

Why should an 8 or 6 ton weapon have the same DPS as an AC20? I understand that faster firing rate is not necessarily a straight-forward buff because alpha damage is often more important than damage over time, but I also don't see any reason why an 8 ton weapon with much better range and shot velocity should have the same DPS as a 14 ton weapon. It does need a faster firing rate, but IMO not that much.

[Huntsman]

This sudden tcry re ac5s is kinda confusing. While I'm not much of a ballistics user in general, when you compared the ac5 to other ballistics in terms of range, dps, hps, weight etc, its a pretty good weapon.

I like it better than the unreliable, and heavier both in weapon and ammo weight UAC on many builds.

Compared to the ac2 it has a better damage to weight ratio and its HPS is far superior. While the ac2 has a better effectie range, the ac5s range is more than ample in the vast majority of situations.

The ac10 is the worst of the bunch obviously.

While the ac20 is impressive for its massive single hit, and it certainly a good weapon, put 4 ac5s onto a 4x and in alphastrike you're dishing out that 20 damage every 1.7 seconds rather than every 4 seconds and you can stick 2 ml in there to boot along with max engine.

Edited by Huntsman, 11 May 2013 - 08:43 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 May 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

UAC5 should not have a base rate of fire higher than the AC5. The UAC5's dps advantage should come solely from its double-fire mode. This should be a toggle, and it should only ever jam when in double-tap mode. This makes the AC5 and UAC5 both have a role on the battlefield, whereas now the UAC5 is just better (even if you never double-tap).

I don't think toggling different fire modes is going to happen any time soon. But yes, it would be nice. With that said, if the only advantage of the AC5 compared to the UAC5 is the 1 ton difference, I don't think anyone would use it. I mean, if you can just toggle an UAC5 to fire like an AC5 when you need it, and double-tap when you need it, that's pretty good. You've already put 8 tons per gun on your mech. The extra ton isn't a huge sacrifice.

Zyllos, on 11 May 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Extra range means nothing...

I think you should post less on the forum and play the game more. You've lost touch with reality.

Zyllos, on 11 May 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

The difference between a UAC/5 and AC/5 should 100% be the double rate of fire with a chance of jamming for 1.0 ton and 1 critical slot.
The jamming rate between the UAC/5 needs to be lowered but increase in time so that it doesn't just constantly jam trying to do short quick bursts.
Heck, maybe even completely change the jam mechanic with a jamming bar that if it fills up, it jams.

All I'm saying is, if that's the only difference, the UAC5 will still be king and the AC5 will still be neglected, as per today. I thought the point of the thread was to make one of the most neglected weapons in the game useful again, not pay homage to the old tabletop rules.

[WolvesX]

4 itsn't even needed as a first sped imo, 3.5 would be a start, together with the range buff of cause.

[Keifomofutu]

Lefty Lucy, on 11 May 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Why should an 8 or 6 ton weapon have the same DPS as an AC20? I understand that faster firing rate is not necessarily a straight-forward buff because alpha damage is often more important than damage over time, but I also don't see any reason why an 8 ton weapon with much better range and shot velocity should have the same DPS as a 14 ton weapon. It does need a faster firing rate, but IMO not that much.

I don't think ac5 should match ac20 dps. But I do think the ac10 should match ac20 dps. For two tons more you get twice the alpha strike on target. They should do the same dps as they weigh similar only ac10 is cheaper if you want dps.

AC5 should be normalized with the uac5 when not double firing at a rate of say 1.5. UAC5 would need a jam toggle to be worth the weight.