133 replies to this topic

[Spinning Burr]

TheForce, on 27 February 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

what are you going to take in a CN9-A...AC10 or 3 SRM6?

I started this thread because of this question! I decided to play my cent 9A. The competing options were SRM6/4's, regular vs XL engine, and whether to mount any ballistics at all on the right arm. Taking 3 SRM6's for pure destruction, I decided to take a 275 standard engine and make a very durable and very fast brawling mech. This cent can take a beating, doesn't die from side torso destructions, has maxed armor everywhere including 48 points in the legs, moves at 98 kph, and can lose his arms all day without caring. I'll choose this build over A1 splatcat anyday due to the speed and the non-centurian hardiness from armor and standard engine.

Let's say I wanted this brawler to have an AC10. I would need to switch to XL engine, making him a typical fragile cent. I would likely switch the 3xSRM6's to 3xSRM4's to free up weight and make them more effective at midrange brawling, and I would still need to lose some armor, probably off the legs. So the AC10 makes you vulnerable/fragile, with a right arm liability, and additional ammo liability. It wasn't worth it. I'll take the regular engine 100 kph 45 alpha zombie cent with 2 med lasers in CT over all the sacrifices to accomodate the AC10.

[Arkadash]

I rock dual ERPPCs and an AC10 on my Muro.

The AC10 works for me on this build primarily because it a) helps control heat build-up, b) allows me to continue inflicting damage and cockpit-shake on the bad guys when heat becomes a problem, c) destroys components (just like the ERPPCs), and d) is mounted on an articulating arm.

I would be ecstatic if the AC10 got a ROF bump, but it works for me as-is.

[zorak ramone]

Spinning Burr, on 27 February 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

Let's compare AC10 to PPC and to ERPPC. I challenge anyone to list a single reason why they would mount an AC10 over a PPC or ERPPC if they have the option of picking one at the same hardpoint location.

Well, if you could mount an AC10 in a energy hardpoint, the reason would be heat. If you take into account the heat sinks needed to run an AC10 at max RoF, it beats the PPC.

AC10 DPS = 10/2.5 = 4
PPC DPS = 10/3 = 3.33

AC10 HPS = 3/2.5 = 1.20 = 20.57 DHS
PPC HPS = 8/3 = 2.67 = 26.05 DHS

AC10 DPS/Total tonnage = 4/(12 (Base) + 20.57 (DHS) + 4 (Ammo for 2.5 minutes)) = 0.143
PPC DPS/Total tonnage = 3.33/(7 (base) + 26.05 (DHS)) = 0.099

So, if you're going for DPS, the AC10 is better than the PPC because you get more bang for your buck if you're trying to run cool. If you going for a high alpha, run-hot config, then the PPC is better because it just does more alpha damage per ton. So if the AC10 was an energy weapon, it would probably be balanced compared to the PPC.

However, the AC10 is not an energy weapon, and that's why we don't see it more often. It is totally outclassed in alpha and DPS per ton efficiency by the GR, UAC5 and even the AC5 and AC20.

[Ens]

*ding ding ding*

Edited by Ens, 27 February 2013 - 01:59 PM.

[Khanahar]

How about this for a solution:
in TT ACs were chronically underpowered. Enter the LBX, an AC that is lighter than normal, but has the option of cluster rounds to crit the heck out of an exposed target. Also enter the UAC, an AC that is heavier than normal, but does DOUBLE(!) the damage (in two chunks) at a small chance of jam. Eventually, to give standard ACs a purpose, specialized ammunition showed up.

So let's get a little jump on this: allow LB10-X to fire either kind of ammo, but the AC/10 fires a higher-velocity slug (giving it greater "precision") that allows it to compete directly with the PPC at medium-to-long range.

That said, I use both LB10-Xs and AC/10s all the time, and have since back when they were way more underpowered. The noise is pure cool.

[MadSavage]

The AC10 is similar to the Assault Rifle in Halo. Everyone's supposed to have them, yet no one uses them. It's a shame really. I hope that solid shot is enabled for the LBX10 sometime soon and AC10s get their fire rate buffed to two seconds.

[Jack Lazarus]

Khanahar, on 27 February 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

in TT ACs were chronically underpowered.

Huh? In tabletop ACs are very solid weapons to mix in with the rest. You can't bring a lot due to weight, but it's always nice to have one. Good range combined with low heat. And heat counts for so much more in tabletop since you start losing performance from heat fairly quickly. Good penetration on the AC/10 too, although that doesn't mean anything in MWO because of doubled armour.

If I were to ask for any changes in MWO for the AC/10, my only real desire would be more ammo/ton to make up for that doubled armour we have in MWO compared to TT, and a faster projectile speed. A faster projectile speed would make it more satisfying to use at medium range - and at medium range is where it is meant to shine over the heavier AC/20. The current speed is satisfactory, but not impressive.

edited for typos.

Edited by Jack Lazarus, 27 February 2013 - 01:43 PM.

[Khobai]

AC10 is garbage because it takes up 7 crit slots. That means its denying you 3 DHS!

Even the LB10X is better than the AC/10 because it only denies you 2 DHS and generates less heat.

Because of how hot mechs run in MWO the game is basically reduced to heatsink boating. So any weapon which prevents you from boating a lot of heatsinks just isn't worth using IMO.

Edited by Khobai, 27 February 2013 - 01:44 PM.

[Monky]

The AC10 could use a travel time buff on its bullet, and heat reduction. Additionally, due to the fact it is only 2 tons lighter than an AC20, consider increasing ammo per ton outside the scale of what is currently used. Weight is a big issue with this gun, so minimizing the need to carry ton after ton of extra ammo is important.

Edited by Monky, 27 February 2013 - 01:44 PM.

[MadSavage]

Khobai, on 27 February 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

Even the LB10X is better than the AC/10 because it only denies you 2 DHS and generates less heat.

It typically does only 2 damage to any given part of the mech if you're fighting at any realistic distance, but it looks and sounds cool as hell so I guess that's all that matters.

[Khanahar]

Jack Lazarus, on 27 February 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

Huh? In tabletop ACs are very solid weapons to mix in with the rest. You can't bring a lot due to weight, but it's always nice to have one. Good range combined with low heat. And heat counts for so much more in tabletop since you start losing performance from heat fairly quickly. Good penetration on the AC/10 too, although that doesn't mean anything in MWO because of doubled armour.

If I were to ask for any changes in MWO for the AC/10, my only real desire would be more ammo/ton to make up for that doubled armour we have in MWO compared to TT, and a faster projectile speed. A faster projectile speed would make it more satisfying to use at medium range - and at medium range is where it is meant to shine over the heavier AC/20. The current speed is satisfactory, but not impressive.

edited for typos.

Hey, we disagree about TT, but agree on the solution. Yay for common ground!

[TheRulesLawyer]

The autocannon line in general kinda sucks when you have double heat sinks in the game. There is far too much free heat dissipation to really make energy weapons a bad choice. 3025 tech they had a place. I'd buff the ROF on ac's in general. I feel like their place should be high burst damage, but ultimately they are limited by ammo. Energy should be more about sustained damage.

[Corvus Antaka]

The AC10 fires every 1.7 seconds. It generates 2.5 heat a shot for 10 damage.

The PPC gives 3 second cycles, 8 heat and 10 damage. You get more range, but you also get a lot more heat.

The AC/10 is a utility gun, it has midrange qualities and is an excellent harrasser due to its fast cycle time. 2 AC/10 can really shine on the cataphract.

The trick is to not spread the damage everywhere. all the AC's need skill and concentration to use.

I currently think the AC/10 fits its intended role perfectly. A slight heat reduction from 2.5 to 2 might be beneficial, but most likely unnecessary.

[Scrawny Cowboy]

Dang all this trash about the AC10 is making me reconsider using it on my Dragon 1N. Seems to work fine for me. Though when slug rounds are added to the LB10X, the AC10 will next to useless unless the Dev's adjust it so the LB10X has even fewer rounds per ton or something.

[Targetloc]

Spinning Burr, on 27 February 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

50% faster recycle time for roughly 50% more heat from PPC and 100% more heat from ERPPC

I'd say this is the reason the people who like it are fans.

Heat is a huge deal. It limits your DPS far more than recycle time.

[ArmandTulsen]

Dual AC/10s are fierce.

[Firelizard]

B3RZ3RK3R, on 27 February 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

Dang all this trash about the AC10 is making me reconsider using it on my Dragon 1N. Seems to work fine for me. Though when slug rounds are added to the LB10X, the AC10 will next to useless unless the Dev's adjust it so the LB10X has even fewer rounds per ton or something.

If memory serves, LB10X slug ammunition is half the rounds/ton as cluster shot.

[Whompity]

Khobai, on 27 February 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

AC10 is garbage because it takes up 7 crit slots. That means its denying you 3 DHS!

3 DHS you don't need with the ac... That's the point.

[Stringburka]

sC4r, on 27 February 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

well yea you are right there

vs ppc -> damage/weight wise ppc is much better -> weight less and projectile is much faster though generates much more heat
vs ac20 for 2 more tons and few more crits it has much bigger dmg -> better at any close range
vs uac5 this one weights less and has a higher potential dps + better range
vs lbx -> -1 ton and crit but does spread damage instead (unfortunately)
vs gauss -> for +3 tons deals +5 damage with no heat at pretty much any range


so yea ac10 is kinda lackluster

While I agree, I'd like to add that the extra crits taken by an AC-20 is a bit worse than just "a few more crits" - they pass the critical number where they can't be fit next to fully articulated arms or in XL engine side torsos, so their placement is MUCH more limited. There are many 'mechs and variants that can fit an AC-10 but not an AC-20. Also, it's more than two tons extra if you want to keep shooting since it's only 7 shots per ton compared to 15.

Vapor Trail, on 27 February 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

Nope... the UAC/5 is why you see few AC/10s.

Less tonnage needed at 8 vs 12 tons.
Less critical space needed at 4 vs 7 slots.
Better DPS (even without double-shotting) at 5/1.1 = 4.55 vs 10/2.5 = 4
Lower heat generation (again, no doubles) at 1/1.1 = .91 vs 3/2.5 = 1.2
Comparable damage per ton of ammo at 125 vs 150.

Why take an AC/10?

AC-10's are _much_ better at critting. Otherwise there's not much benefit compared to the UAC. Though that's more of an issue with the UAC than the others.

[One Medic Army]

AC10: 4DPS, 1.2HPS, 450/1350 range
PPC: 3.33DPS, 3HPS, 90/540/1080 range
ERPPC: 3.33DPS, 4.33HPS, 810/1620 range

So compared to the PPC, the AC10 has:
+higher DPS
+lower heat
+longer range
+no minimum range
-ammo
-heavier
-larger
-slower projectile
-no anti-ECM

Compared to the ERPPC the AC10 has:
+higher DPS
+lower heat
-ammo
-heavier
-larger
-slower projectile
-no anti-ECM
-less range

It seems pretty clear that the reason to use the AC/10 is because you want more DPS and less Heat.
Perhaps you've stocked up on lasers in your energy slots and want a lower heat weapon to complement.
Perhaps you've made a brawling build so constant rate of fire and high DPS are important (as well as dealing full dmg inside 90m)

I run a pair of AC/10s on my Cataphract 3D, they work fine, cooler than AC/2s, lighter and less explosive than gauss (while having higher DPS), and more reliable than UAC/5s (also allow torso twisting away).

The reason you don't see as many AC/10s is that they're balanced weapons. People tend to pick maximum fire rate (AC/2), maximum damage (AC/20), maximum heat efficiency (Gauss), maximum DPS (UAC/5).

Edited by One Medic Army, 27 February 2013 - 02:41 PM.