219 replies to this topic

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Damocles69, on 18 April 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

yes. they are a garbage weapon now. no reason to ever use.

on the plus side, the ac10 is now only the second worst ac...yay

Does that mean the LBX10 is better than the AC10?

[DONTOR]

They arent useless they are just less efective than they were. I would say get rid of the ghost heat, and chain fire nonsense, and that could make up for the difference. That will undoubtably take a long time though.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

DONTOR, on 18 April 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

They arent useless they are just less efective than they were. I would say get rid of the ghost heat, and chain fire nonsense, and that could make up for the difference. That will undoubtably take a long time though.

Get rid of Ghost Heat? INSANITY!

[BLACKFIRE]

I for one took all my AC2 off I cried as I did so.. my favorite suppression weapon now USELESS, Completely to me now. People who cried its because you like to stand still and let them hit you to many times learn to play better.

[Damocles69]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 18 April 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

Does that mean the LBX10 is better than the AC10?

i dont even count the LBX 10 as a weapon lol

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Damocles69, on 18 April 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

i dont even count the LBX 10 as a weapon lol

haha!

[Charons Little Helper]

Damocles69, on 18 April 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

yes. they are a garbage weapon now. no reason to ever use.

on the plus side, the ac10 is now only the second worst ac...yay

It's about the same as the gauss rifle. Only time gauss is better is when you can take 2.

Oh - and on the LB10 - if they just dropped its cooldown to 2.2 or so it'd be viable.

Edited by Charons Little Helper, 18 April 2014 - 12:54 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Charons Little Helper, on 18 April 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

3rd - you forgot about the LB10.

Beat you to that

[AssaultPig]

I'm honestly having a tough time coming up with any build that uses AC2s, which wouldn't be immediately improved by just swapping them out for 5s.

The only ones I can think of are mechs with 3+ ballistic slots in one section, such that the AC5s literally won't fit. BLR-1D, BNC-3E, think that's it. And even in those edge cases, you're probably better off just using one less AC5 and saving the tonnage elsewhere.

[Charons Little Helper]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 18 April 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

Beat you to that

Yep - I saw after my initial post (hence my edit).

[Wraith 1]

Tried my favorite AC/2 build post-nerf, felt like I was throwing pebbles at the enemy. Sold my AC/2s when I needed money for airstrikes.

Maybe 3~4 AC/2 builds are okay, but my 2xAC/2 Centurion now has less DPS than a 6xMG Jagermech. I just don't understand why PGI feels the need to nerf already underperforming weapons.

[Davers]

Damocles69, on 18 April 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

yes. they are a garbage weapon now. no reason to ever use.

on the plus side, the ac10 is now only the second worst ac...yay

So it's kinda like an AC/10 buff?

[Deathlike]

Mechs I had with AC2 before Ghost Heat -> 0
Mechs I had with AC2 after Ghost Heat -> 0
Mechs I had with AC2 after AC2 nerf -> 0

Now, although my stat is technically "inaccurate" (I did dabble with AC2s while grinding other mechs), none of the mechs I house on a permanent basis are using them... and for the foreseeable future.

[Trauglodyte]

Ultimately, people need to stop comparing the AC2 to the AC5 and start comparing it to the UAC5. 3 ACs = 2 UAC5s in weight, criticals be damned, and the heat is about the same. The problem here, and I refer back to my comment that PGI is grouping ACs by their intended use/vision (both the AC2 and the UAC5 are dps ACs), is that the UAC5 still has 3x its effective range while the AC2 only has 2x that range. SO, the AC2 is great out to 720m and pathetic at 1440m but the UAC5 is great out 600m and pathetic at 1800m. The UAC5 needs to have its range reigned in to 1200m so that we can have an apples to apples comparison. At that point, you're in a good spot making the comparison.

3x AC2s over 17s = 25+1x3 shots fired which equates to 156 damage done and 78 points of heat built
2 UAC5s over 17s = 10+1x2x2 shots fired, assuming no jams, which equates to 220 damage done and 44 points of heat built

This is also where the heat issue comes to light. While the tonnage is the same, one system is doing 41% more damage done for 56% of the heat and greater range. Jams will occur, of course, which will greater diminish the total damage done but it also reduced the heat built over that same time.

So, I get the change but more work needs to be done.



PS> Oh, and get rid of ghost heat on the AC2. If you can't match up an equal tonnage of AC vs AC, then something has to give.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 18 April 2014 - 02:37 PM.

[Coralld]

Out side of the reduced range I really have not noticed a difference in my 2x AC2 2x AC5 Phract. Still cuts people in half just as good as before. The very slight rate of fire has helped actually by keeping the heat under control. I really think people are over reacting.

But I must agree that ALL ACs should have at least their max ranges reduced from 3x to 2x like the AC2.

[Rizzelbizzeg]

Gyrok, on 18 April 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

I would, except I learned a long time ago to never sell anything...(except the stock engine from the locust...and the command console...)

That was the correct answer, carry on. Still kicking myself for selling and then re-buying that Awesome 8Q...

[mack sabbath]

Rather than change the PPC, these brilliant Devs, who clearly must not play their game, continue to try and "balance" all the other ballistic weapons around it.

real men of brilliance, this bunch.

[Captain Stiffy]

Funky Bacon, on 18 April 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

getting hit by the equivalent of a pea shooter at 2km was too scary for some people so they had to nerf that

Is this a joke? A troll? I bet ANYTHING that if you started getting slammed by autocannons and couldn't tell the direction you would cover, too. That and THE WHOLE THREAD IS ABOUT THE DPS NERF.
QQ HARDER

Edited by Captain Stiffy, 18 April 2014 - 03:10 PM.

[Revorn]

Playing AC2 without its Range? No way.

I stripped them form my Cents and drive the Classc-Loadout, AC 10, LRM 10 and 2 Meds. But Hell, i miss that Long-Range-Dakka.

Edited by Revorn, 18 April 2014 - 03:19 PM.

[Spades Kincaid]

Trauglodyte, on 18 April 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

Ultimately, people need to stop comparing the AC2 to the AC5 and start comparing it to the UAC5. 3 ACs = 2 UAC5s in weight, criticals be damned, and the heat is about the same. The problem here, and I refer back to my comment that PGI is grouping ACs by their intended use/vision (both the AC2 and the UAC5 are dps ACs), is that the UAC5 still has 3x its effective range while the AC2 only has 2x that range. SO, the AC2 is great out to 720m and pathetic at 1440m but the UAC5 is great out 600m and pathetic at 1800m. The UAC5 needs to have its range reigned in to 1200m so that we can have an apples to apples comparison. At that point, you're in a good spot making the comparison.

3x AC2s over 17s = 25+1x3 shots fired which equates to 156 damage done and 78 points of heat built
2 UAC5s over 17s = 10+1x2x2 shots fired, assuming no jams, which equates to 220 damage done and 44 points of heat built

This is also where the heat issue comes to light. While the tonnage is the same, one system is doing 41% more damage done for 56% of the heat and greater range. Jams will occur, of course, which will greater diminish the total damage done but it also reduced the heat built over that same time.

So, I get the change but more work needs to be done.



PS> Oh, and get rid of ghost heat on the AC2. If you can't match up an equal tonnage of AC vs AC, then something has to give.

One of those things does not wash with the other.

It doesn't matter which you want to compare it to. Comparing it to the AC5 as fitting in with other standard AC's and fitting into the role of long range suppression fire. Or comparing it to UAC5 and the role of mid-range or less burst and this 'vision' you're claiming PGI has. The changes made fail in either regard.

Take those numbers a step further to really drive it home. 3 AC2's vs 2 UAC5's : For the same tonnage, if you do account for some jamming (which makes more sense) over those 17s doing the same ~156 damage, the dual UAC's would generate 31 heat.

78 vs 31. We won't ignore the criticals and consider that the triple AC2's allow for adding 2 more double heatsinks. And it's still going to be more than double the heat efficiency. The heat isn't even close to 'about the same'.

I don't care which role they want to make it fill, I don't care which you want to compare it to. They screwed it up for either.

Changing the ranges on the UAC5 would do nothing to fix that. It would be okay for the AC2 to be a lighter, less bursty, more sustained and slightly shorter range alternative to the UAC5. If the heat profiles were similar. Drop AC2 heat to .5 Now you have an argument to make for it fitting that 'vision'.

Edited by Spades Kincaid, 18 April 2014 - 03:19 PM.