64 replies to this topic

[Zakatak]

I am putting no effort into the introduction. I don't care.

The AC/5 in the recent video footage fires a single high velocity round every 3 seconds or so. The Ultra Autocannon, from what we know, fires at a faster rate, with a lower velocity, with a higher net damage potential. But it never goes into specifics, so every Mechwarrior game features them differently. What would you guys prefer? It's all in the poll.

I love MW3 autocannons to infinity, so I vote 5-round burst. If we could have that equally cool recoil back too, that would be nice.

Edited by Zakatak, 14 May 2012 - 02:06 PM.

[Redshift2k5]

burst fire may not be TT accurate but it will let it stand out more clearly against other AC

[Sassori]

If the AC 5 fires a single shot, then the UAC 5 needs to fire two shots boom-boom one after the other. Really that's all there is to it.

[Felicitatem Parco]

The rules say the Ultra AC/5 fires twice as quickly as the AC/5, so it should have half the reloading time as a normal AC/5...

[Mystwolf]

it fires twice as quickly because it fires 2 rounds in the same amount of time. Not reloading any faster really.

and while burst fire sounds cool...... having the damage spread out would make having an AC detrimental. the added threat of overheat, running out of ammo and ammor explosions and the benefit of the high dmg to one area gone.

[BossTroll]

Mystwolf, on 14 May 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

it fires twice as quickly because it fires 2 rounds in the same amount of time. Not reloading any faster really.

and while burst fire sounds cool...... having the damage spread out would make having an AC detrimental. the added threat of overheat, running out of ammo and ammor explosions and the benefit of the high dmg to one area gone.

In the TT game, the 2nd UAC/5 hit is randomized using the missile spread table, in the same way as an SRM2 is. So spread damage seems pretty cannon.

Also, if the UAC/5 fires 2 rounds in the same time as 1 round for an AC/5, having a quicker reload time seems like a logical way to achieve the quicker firing speed.

[Corstis]

Mystwolf, on 14 May 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

...and while burst fire sounds cool...... having the damage spread out would make having an AC detrimental. the added threat of overheat, running out of ammo and ammor explosions and the benefit of the high dmg to one area gone.

I agree. It's pretty pointless to spread small damage all over the place. While it gives you a greater chance of head shots or critical center torso shots on the TT game, it still diminishes the overall damage potential.

[Volthorne]

It needs to fire like a double barreled shotgun. Except with slugs instead of buckshot.

[Kanatta Jing]

Reduced cool down time, with a chance to jam.

We can't have it stepping on the toes of the LBX-10

Edited by Kanatta Jing, 14 May 2012 - 03:12 PM.

[That Guy]

from a game play standpoint, the uac should fire at a double rate of fire, and not 2 simultaneous shots.

in the TT you can declare if you are going to fire 1 or 2 shots, and with a 1.5 second reload you can do that in MWO. If MWO UAC automatically fires 2 shots it takes control away from the player.

faster reload

[osito]

Kanatta Jing, on 14 May 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

Reduced cool down time, with a chance to jam.

This seems about right. Although it hurts to agree with a liao. In cannon a ultra does fire at the double time, with a good chance of barrel warping. Although jamming does occur in some ultra 5. Some designs use 5 barrel designs that keep the overheating/jamming problem down to a minimum.

[Reaver 1 1]

Id vote for half the reload rate, meets the rules defenition of twice as fast. also tagets move and such so your second shot is where you put it nothing random, rush your shot then it will be off target. if it just does more damage or shoots twice into the same place then isn't a AC-10?

[Skylarr]

"Introduced in 2640 by the Terran Hegemony. The Ultra Autocannon/5 is an upgraded version of the standard Autocannon/5. Utilizing a different loading mechanism, the Ultra Autocannons are capable of maintaining a substantially increased rate of fire over traditional or LB-X autocannons at the cost of higher heat and the risk of jamming. Of course, the rapid-fire autocannons require a much larger supply of ammunition to maintain their rate of fire. This high dependence on ammunition limits the effectiveness of the weapon. Being of a lower caliber, the Ultra Autocannon/5 has an increased range at the cost of reduced damage over higher-caliber versions. "

It does not have a higher continous ROF. It is designed to quickly reload a second burst after the first has been shot. I believe the TT rules say that a role of 2 on 2 d6 means the weapons rams and cannot be fired for the rest of that combat. it cannot be unjammed during combat. (Unless you can find a volunteer who want to enter the location the weapon is in and unjam it). Both shots are not guaranteed to hit. You use the SRM-2 missile chart to see how many actually hit. Then roll for each shot to see were they hit.

[Zakatak]

Ah, so MW4 got at least one thing right?

Still voting for MW3-style burst fire. Canon is too mainstream.

[Skylarr]

It should be a 2-shot burst with a reload timer. Both shots would act like they were fired from differnt weapons. This would mean they can only hit the same location if the gunner is very good or both attacker and defeder stood still.

[Der Kommissar]

Most - if not all - autocannon are burst fire weapons. While this is questionable with the very largest classes, light bore autocannon are consistently depicted as firing bursts of rounds. Even the Marauder's unusually high-bore AC/5 fires in three round bursts.

The ultra-type autocannons can double this firing rate at the cost of weapon integrity. Sustained rates of fire above normal can burn the weapon out, requiring easy maintenence that cannot be performed mid-battle. This is canon. The actual game may deviate from this, but it will be inaccurate to the canon.

Edited by Der Kommissar, 14 May 2012 - 03:47 PM.

[Major Tom]

Prosperity Park, on 14 May 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

The rules say the Ultra AC/5 fires twice as quickly as the AC/5, so it should have half the reloading time as a normal AC/5...

And yet it only weighs 1 more ton. Granted it is difficult to balance new technology with standard tech, but double the DPS seems excessive, no one in their right mind would ever use an AC/5, which means all the time put into game design is wasted.
That being said, I'm good with whatever damage is selected as long as the C-Bill cost is appropriate.

[Der Kommissar]

The disadvantage of ultra firing mode is that it turns accuracy to trash and has a chance of damaging the gun so that it cannot fire for the duration of the battle. On the heavier guns, the doubled heat load is also a liability. Ultra autocannons, at least in TT play, are balanced - some players argue overbalanced in any case but the UAC-20.

Edited by Der Kommissar, 14 May 2012 - 04:05 PM.

[Kanatta Jing]

I would like to remind everyone that ACs and Guass's are apparently the only point damage weapons in MWO.

While bursts may be cannon in Table Top, Single Shots are how MWO is going and I don't want to see the Devs pressured into making what would be a bad game design choice for the sake of sentiment.

[That Guy]

this is one of those things that you guys really need to get the tabletop rules out of your heads. It makes no scene (from a realistic, or game-play standpoint) to have a mounted weapon that only shoots in "controlled pairs".

the standard AC5 rate of fire (groan) 20 rounds per min, and the UAC5 40 rounds per min. (Bolt action cannons!)