# Would a 3-shot burst that takes 3x longer to reload still be an AC/2?

13 replies to this topic

### #1Prosperity Park

Professor of Memetics

• Legendary Founder
• Overlord
• 8529 posts
• LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM

Posted 12 May 2012 - 07:52 PM

So... the definition of AC/2 means "it does 2 damage per unit of time." In the time it takes an AC/20 to deal 20 damage, an AC/2 would do 2 damage, and an Ultra AC/2 would deal 4 dmg because it can "fire twice as fast" as a regular AC/2 (think of it as an AC/4 but spreads the damage). A Rotary AC/2 can fire up to 6 times in one sequence meaning it can deal up to 12 damage in the time it takes an AC/20 to deal 20 damage and be reloaded.

But... what about making an AC/2 that can fire a rapid, fairly accurate 3-shot burst that takes 3x as long to reload as a normal AC/2...? If it takes 3x longer to reload, then it would deal 6 damage in the time it takes an AC/20 to deal 60 damage...

6/60 = 2/20 --> thereby making it an AC/2, right?

Edited by Prosperity Park, 12 May 2012 - 07:55 PM.

### #2Strum Wealh

Member

• Members
• 2996 posts
• LocationPittsburgh, PA

Posted 13 May 2012 - 11:27 AM

The Standard AC-2 deals two units of damage per unit of ammunition, and expends one unit of ammunition per firing cycle.

The Ultra AC-2 in standard ROF mode deals two units of damage per unit of ammunition, and expends one unit of ammunition per firing cycle.
The Ultra AC-2 in double ROF mode deals two units of damage per unit of ammunition, and expends two units of ammunition per firing cycle.

The Rotary AC-2 in standard ROF mode deals two units of damage per unit of ammunition, and expends one unit of ammunition per firing cycle.
The Rotary AC-2 in double ROF mode deals two units of damage per unit of ammunition, and expends two units of ammunition per firing cycle.
The Rotary AC-2 in 4x ROF mode deals two units of damage per unit of ammunition, and expends four units of ammunition per firing cycle.
The Rotary AC-2 in 6x ROF mode deals two units of damage per unit of ammunition, and expends six units of ammunition per firing cycle.

The timing on the firing cycle shouldn't change; the gun's firing mechanism just works that much more quickly (at the risk of jamming).

Edited by Strum Wealh, 13 May 2012 - 11:34 AM.

### #3Prosperity Park

Professor of Memetics

• Legendary Founder
• Overlord
• 8529 posts
• LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM

Posted 13 May 2012 - 09:24 PM

I'm speaking strictly in terms of the ratio of firing time to reload time.
• The AC/2 fires 1 round per turn, dealing 2 damage in 1 turn and exhibits a theoretical max output of 3 rounds resulting in 6 damage if fired over the course of over 3 turns.
• The Rotary AC/2 can expend 6 rounds of ammo per turn, dealing 12 damage per turn => it can deal 36 damage in 3 turns.
• A 3-shot burst AC/2 that takes 3x time to reload would expend 3 rounds and deal 6 damage over the course of 3 turns...
So it's still an AC/2 if you consider an AC/2 to deal 2 damage per turn on average.

This would create a high-risk/high-reward situation. If you aim it well, you get 3 shots on target and no misses... if you aim poorly you miss all your shots, you waste 3 rounds instead of 1, and you can't use that gun again for a long while. Also, that 3 shot burst gives your position away more easily than a single shot.

This is very different than mounting 3 AC/2s. You can't just say that it's a cheaters way to triple your firepower because this 3-shot burst feature does not change your total damage output over time, such as over the course of a mission. Mounting 3 AC/2s would triple your damage output because they can each fire every turn, resulting in 9 rounds over 3 turns; a 3-shot burst gun will only fire 3 rounds in 3 turns just like a normal AC/2.

The 3-shot feature should be subject to recoil, causing some shot-divergence resulting in damage spread if the shot takes place beyond "so many" yards. This would keep it fair.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 13 May 2012 - 09:37 PM.

### #4Technoviking

Member

• Legendary Founder
• Overlord
• 2361 posts
• LocationYes

Posted 14 May 2012 - 08:08 AM

I don't think so. It's an AC6. I see what you're saying, but if the enemy player only has 6 CT points left, and you hit him in the center with your "Burst fire" AC26, he'll explode, he doesn't care how long you have reload after that. I like this train of thought though, it brings cooler, differentiating weapons optoins to the table, and I like that kind of customization.

Rotaries on the other hand, could be anything, I like Sturm's thoughts on that, those modes could be "purchasable" as well? This is all fluffy type stuff, so as long as there is fluff stuff to back it up, I like it! I would triple heat on a triple firing weapons though, spinning that fast and exploding shells would make things hot too.

### #5Garth Erlam

Community Manager

• Overlord
• 2738 posts
• LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 14 May 2012 - 08:13 AM

Fantastic ideas guys, keep 'em coming!

### #6Prosperity Park

Professor of Memetics

• Legendary Founder
• Overlord
• 8529 posts
• LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM

Posted 14 May 2012 - 08:21 AM

+3 PrideXP

Technoviking does have a very good point - the rapid burst of rounds does provide a greater damage impulse than a regular AC/2 is capable of delivering, which can help deliver a "killing blow," HOWEVER we're talking about just an AC/2 here.

The idea of a 3-shot-burst AC/20 is totally out of the question, so is a burst-fire AC/10. You can't give Brawling Weapons this kind of burst capacity because it would be unfairly over-powered. Brawling is all about landing the shots first, so a 3-shot burst of AC/20 would be so overpowered it would spell the end of MW:O (and most Mechs in one shot... 60 damage!) It would also probably make the shooter fall over backwards and crack their rear armor panels. Because the AC/2 is not a brawler weapon, though, and a full 3-shot burst would be weaker than a single shot from a Large Laser, I doubt people will be using it just to nail that quick kill.

A long-range burst-fire weapon will also spread the damage across 2 or 3 bodyparts if fired from a very long range, with that spread increasing if the gun is mounted on an Arm location or a very light Mech. This feature would limit its capcity as a "killer gun" since you can only land all 3 shots on the center torso if they're already within AC/5 range... and you might as well be using an AC/5 at that point because you can deal 15 damage and be reloaded to fire again in the time it takes a 3-shot burst AC/2 to deliver just 6 points and be reloaded.

Addendum: Rotaries are technically a few years out on the BattleTech timeline... so this might be the next best thing. We do have Ultra Ac/5 at this point, so we can have AC/5 that fires twice as quickly as a normal AC/5 but that DOES NOT mean that an Ultra AC/5 is a two-shot-burst weapon. The BattleTech rules say it fires twice as fast, so in MW:O an Ultra AC/5 should just be an AC/5 with 0.5x reload time.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 14 May 2012 - 08:46 AM.

### #7HeIIequin

Member

• Members
• 102 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 08:55 AM

One of the reasons I rarely like to use high rof, low dmg weapons is because I feel that if I'm not constantly firing that weapon, I'm actually gimping myself. I'm not a crack shot, and I find it hard to constantly keep my crosshairs on target all the time. This means that my optimal dps with that weapon is lower than it should be, since if I held the trigger down, my dmg would spread all over the place, or miss entirely. As a result, I've always preferred weapons with a moderate to slow rate of fire. An AC2 with an option for a rof toggle would intrigue me because I could fire it less often, waiting until I had a good shot, but still feel like I was using the weapon effectively.

I'm with Technoviking though. Cycle time should probably increase to compensate for the rof, since total DPS should stay the same (otherwise it wouldn't be an ac2, it would be something totally new). The ROF would help people like me with bad aim, or help a pilot out in a spot where he needed to fire as big a salvo as he could.

### #8Barantor

Member

• Elite Founder
• Guardian
• 817 posts
• LocationLexington, KY USA

Posted 14 May 2012 - 09:18 AM

Now I'm no student of the Battletech damage values, but here is what I always pictured these things to be like in my head.

AC/2 = 25mm Bushmaster

AC/5 = 40mm Bofors Cannon

AC/10 = 75mm Howitzer

AC/20 = 105mm Howitzer

Larger guns would be more snub nosed as they aren't really artillery pieces.

### #9HeIIequin

Member

• Members
• 102 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 09:32 AM

Just a question, but I wonder if PGI is considering whether an AC2 or 5 (high rof) would be fed from 1 maaaasssive belt of ammunition, or fed from multiple, smaller belts (Unless there's already an answer to this I don't know). If it's fed from smaller belts, then you could cycle and fire all your rounds off at a quick pace, but would have a long reload. Combined with weapon jamming and there'd be an interesting limit to the weapons ROF.

I suppose the easiest example of this would be if you've played BF3, and hopped into an LAV. The main cannon had a decent rof, but only had like 6(?) shots before you had to reload. I was very unwise to only fire 4 or 5 shots, since holding onto the last couple would come back to bite you when getting into a tight spot later and being forced to reload after only firing 1 round off. There's no manual reloading either, forcing you to fire the last round in the 'magazine' to initiate the reload. This basically means that you almost always fire off a full mag at once. I imagine that's how RL ac's actually work?

Just thought I'd mention it since is sorta falls in line with the OP.

Edited by HeIIequin, 14 May 2012 - 09:35 AM.

### #10Prosperity Park

Professor of Memetics

• Legendary Founder
• Overlord
• 8529 posts
• LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM

Posted 14 May 2012 - 10:47 AM

The Bofors 40mm autocannon fires from 6-round stripper-clips, then has to be reloaded from ammo stores.

However, on a seperate point, I think Hellequin may have missed something in my posts.

HeIIequin, on 14 May 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

I'm with Technoviking though. Cycle time should probably increase to compensate for the rof, since total DPS should stay the same (otherwise it wouldn't be an ac2, it would be something totally new).
What I am suggesting is a 3-round burst AC/2 that does, indeed, have a reloading period that 3x longer than a normal AC/2... so the cycle time is tripled.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 14 May 2012 - 10:47 AM.

### #11Barantor

Member

• Elite Founder
• Guardian
• 817 posts
• LocationLexington, KY USA

Posted 14 May 2012 - 10:53 AM

To me the ac/2 should have the standard damage broken up over the three shots and to do the maximum(normal) damage you would have to land all three. This would move up to the ac/20 where it just fires one big slug at a very slow ROF.

### #12HeIIequin

Member

• Members
• 102 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 01:52 PM

Prosperity Park, on 14 May 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

However, on a seperate point, I think Hellequin may have missed something in my posts.
What I am suggesting is a 3-round burst AC/2 that does, indeed, have a reloading period that 3x longer than a normal AC/2... so the cycle time is tripled.

Nah I heard ya. I guess I was agreeing with Techno (and you) as compared to Strums idea, only I did it poorly & in a vague way. Sorry .

Glad to hear I remembered the 6 round Bofors mag part. It'd be interesting to have something like that in the game, though I wonder just how far from strict canon PGI is willing to go for weapon balance and design.

Edited by HeIIequin, 16 May 2012 - 09:18 AM.

### #133Xtr3m3

Member

• Recruit
• Overlord
• 647 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 06:51 PM

On a related note. I always pictured AC/2s as something completely different that what I have read on these forums. The way I thought of them was this.
Take a tank cannon barrel. Normally when you load it, you put in one shell containing explosive powder to propel the warhead at the front of the shell.
Reload involves taking out spent shell casing and inserting new shell.

That is the normal.
An AC/2 was (I thought) A special loading of the barrel with (in this order) 1, a HEAP warhead, 2 Propellant 3 Sabot warhead 4 propellent.
Firing this would envolve igniting the first propellant, (starting the HEAP warhead on its way to the target) and within .25 seconds, igniting the second propellent charge(sending the sabot on its way to the target).
This would result in two warheads, (first the HEAP, immediately followed by the penetrating sabot) striking the target in the same spot.

I have learned on these forums that is not what an AC/2 is or how it works.

Original Poster, what if you could design a barrel that could handle three propellent charges and three warheads? Would that satisfy the rapid fire and long reloads you seek? (Maybe all three would have to be sabot, as I can not see how you would have a HEAP round be towards the back of the sequence)

BTW the concept of the multi loads and warheads was based on a handgun that had 13 bullets and charges in one barrel. I read about it in a magazine and thought MW/BT ACs were an extension of the idea made real in that handgun. It would take a long time (relatively) to load the handgun, but once loaded it could fire the bullets one at a time, or all 13 in the space of 0.25 seconds. If memory serves me, firing all at once was described as a sustained burn of the charges, instead of all in one big bang.

I wonder if a google search would find mention of this type of handgun. As I do not recall the Manufacturers name or the caliber of the rounds. Or the name of the magazine.

### #143Xtr3m3

Member

• Recruit
• Overlord
• 647 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 06:57 PM

P.S.
I thought AC/20 was some way of multibarrels with 20 warheads fired withing the 0.25 second window. And the warheads traveling near simultaneously interferred with each others flight path, causing the shortened accuracy range of the AC/20. I always thought there is no reason an AC/20 can not shoot as far as an AC/2, So my thought was it was just being able to accurately get all shells on target decreased with an increase in the number of warheads launched in this fashion.

Long post. sorry about that. Hope you think it is on topic, and helpful

#### 1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users