In MW 5 the ACs where in general killing weapons, but the main problem was that you could hardly have enough ammunition. In MW-4 ammunition was never a problem even with the Heavy Gauss. There the AC 5 had the nice advantage to knock down the enemy aim its drawback was that it was hardly possible to kill a enemy with a clean headshot or in this case in a clean tripple shot - something that was possible in MW2 and MW3
MechWarrior 5? Are you from the future? Could you share some winning lottery numbers with us?
That said, from what you are explaining I think you're talking about the RAC/5 in MW4. The RAC/5 was actually a very good weapon for knock back and such and Rotary ACs are just really nasty weapons no matter where they've appeared (MechWarrior games, table top, etc). The main reason is that while they fit similar size and space to an Ultra AC, they can fire up to 6 times as fast and can unjam if they lock up (unlike the Ultra); in MW4 you couldn't aim at all if you were being hammered by RACs.
However, if you are talking about standard ACs or even Ultra ACs, they really didn't impact your aim all that much in MW4; LRMs were far, far better for rocking a target before RACs came along.
There you go, the lion's share of it as directly relates to an MW video game. The link is in my signature on every one of my posts.
I.. uh.. what do I say to this? Yeah, the 'mechs in CBT are the same 'mechs in MW and.. what are you trying to say? Of course they share a canon base, it doesn't mean any of their systems of gameplay are the same.
I didn't derail anything.
You'd like specificity?
Another of my sig links.
I can't see how you could possibly have any valid reason from anything I've posted in this thread to say that my comments were kneejerk.
I suspect you won't put in the time to wade through either of those links, and I bet that won't stop you from making comments that are wrong.
Honestly I have to agree that you've kind of de-railed, but I think "gone off the rails" might be more accurate; you're talking about a lot of metagame fluff that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that ACs have been pretty bad in table top, and terrible in all but one MechWarrior game (due to the inclusion of aircraft and infantry, which ACs were given a non-canon buff to damaging).
Yeah, exactly what I'm saying. To be honest we've started turning TACs off even in our Megamek games, as they add nothing but a random chance of the game ending to a single bad dice throw. In a MW title such randomization is even further a bad idea.
They've said repeatedly that the game will not have aerospace or tanks, pending a far, far, far future expansion at which case the role of light ACs could be re-evaluated.
Factors like size and tonnage are exactly what we're talking about, for one. The light ACs weigh far too much to make them favorable to weapons like the Gauss Rifle, and the minute range advantage is not enough to sway popularity. If you can get 3 tiny 2 damage shots on a target before they pull into Gauss range and then, in a single shot, do more damage than you could over the next 30 seconds why on Earth would you ever take the terrible weapon aside from a gimmick?
However just due to the nature of it - realtime vs turn based, strategy vs sim, etc. it IS nebulous. Sharing a common universe and concepts doesn't really change that? It's impossible to straight port gameplay from one part of the BTU to another without changing it to represent the basic idea.
The reason we're talking about light ACs is honestly, they're bad even in the board game so representing them as they are is just insuring that people avoid them like the plague.
Edited by Victor Morson, 16 March 2012 - 01:25 AM.