43 replies to this topic

[Grondoval]

Something just came to my mind tinkering in the Mech-Builder with my TBT-7K:

All ballistic weapons under AC20/Gauss-Class are too heavy for the damage they do (compared to lasers and missiles). If you calculate WeaponDamage/WeaponWeight Autocannons are just plain horrible. If your Mech could only carry one single AC maximum you could not depend on a single AC10, AC5 or AC2 to do any major damage in combat situations. And on top of that they are so heavy that you cant mount any decent backup weapons.

My suggestion: maybe tweak the "little" autocannons (AC10, AC5, AC2):

- faster reload times
- a little weight reduction
- more ammo per ton

Its sad to see that you are great in dealing damage with the big guns but fail to do so in single AC10,5,2 builds because they are not viable in single-gun-configurations.

Whats your opinion?

[Merky Merc]

I only use ACs on my Ilya. I never use them on mediums and I don't use them on my single ballistic heavies either. So I agree I suppose. The only issue is that making them useful alone makes them even more ridiculous when you mount 6 on a mech so idk how your proposed changes would affect that.

[Tennex]

AC10 and AC2 are badsauce.

[TehSBGX]

Agreed, but don't get your hopes on it happening soon the missle splash damage bug is whats happening next patch so it might be a few more patches till Autocannons get the attention they need.

[Protection]

Single Autocannon builds will almost never be really viable. If you make AC/2s, AC/5s, or AC/10 better, than mechs that boat them will do better than mechs with only one of them.

[Grondoval]

Merky Merc, on 20 March 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

The only issue is that making them useful alone makes them even more ridiculous when you mount 6 on a mech so idk how your proposed changes would affect that.

Maybe add an heat modifier which raises heat overproportional if more than one weapon of the same type (or any type of the same class) is present in the same hardpoint.

Edited by Grondoval, 20 March 2013 - 04:07 PM.

[nanoreaper]

The way I look at it is they are fine, maybe a faster fire rate but overall i feel MWO is intended to be a thinking players shooter where the pilot as too tactically wear down there oponent not just a boom i win. button the lighter AC's are better at picking a apart an enemies armor at range so when close too lasers you can tear them apart.

[Grondoval]

nanoreaper, on 20 March 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

The way I look at it is they are fine, maybe a faster fire rate but overall i feel MWO is intended to be a thinking players shooter where the pilot as too tactically wear down there oponent not just a boom i win. button the lighter AC's are better at picking a apart an enemies armor at range so when close too lasers you can tear them apart.

I agree but the problem is: you are very careful picking and poking with your single AC, and then there is this missile-toting heavy doing more damage in a single volley than you just did in 10mins of harassing fire.

[Vassago Rain]

All the ACs that are called only AC are terrible, to the point where they had a universal upgrade in the tabletop game to lighter, stronger, more flexible versions about 20 years ago.

[WVAnonymous]

Vassago Rain, on 20 March 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

All the ACs that are called only AC are terrible, to the point where they had a universal upgrade in the tabletop game to lighter, stronger, more flexible versions about 20 years ago.

What he said. And at 1 year at a time, I think we get better AC just before I retire.

[Kobold]

Autocannons are old tech, and generally inferior ton for ton to energy weapons in normal Battletech (compare the BV values of PPCs/ER PPCs/Gauss Rifles to AC10s, for example).

So in that sense, MWO is emulating BT correctly. However what we lack is BV balancing.

[BlackSquirrel]

Yeah UAC/5 as a single isn't bad. (Assuming you're lucky with the jams) everything else.. (Did have some luck with an lbx raven for a bit) Not so much.

Considering you'll also need your weight in ammo as well that can espode. So a 12 ton AC/10 turns out to be 15+ tons.

The trade off was suppose to be heat...and a single point of damage. It's not worth it in most cases. Additional range isn't all that handy either. For the same tonnage you can put on 2 PPC/ERPPCs as said AC/10, more space and then heat sinks to boot. Yes there is more heat, but no single point of failure.

The part is 2 fold. Meta game (better to alpha/boat) and the rules themselves governing the weight heat, ammo tonnage, and fire rate.

They need to up the amount of ammo per ton to lessen the crippling weight trade off.

[Padic]

I have some builds I like that use a single Autocannon (well, UAC). Of course, I still use other weapons to give alpha punch. The UAC is more for chipping damage at range and precision damage once they have holes in their armor.

[General Taskeen]

Tennex, on 20 March 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

AC10 and AC2 are badsauce.

This game has so much balance work to do.

[Davers]

Kobold, on 20 March 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Autocannons are old tech, and generally inferior ton for ton to energy weapons in normal Battletech (compare the BV values of PPCs/ER PPCs/Gauss Rifles to AC10s, for example).

So in that sense, MWO is emulating BT correctly. However what we lack is BV balancing.

BV works (mostly) in BT because there is one known constant- pilot skill. So you can extrapolate how useful is a weapon that does x damage at y range. But when pilot skill varies wildly, not just between pilots but how good each pilot is at different weapons, then BV isn't much help.

[Merky Merc]

Why do AC's even weigh as much as they do? ERRRRRGGGGGG BTTTTTTT WHYYYYYYYYY

Can we just remake BT with at least weapons that are equivalent of modern day tech if not future tech.

[Davers]

Merky Merc, on 20 March 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

Why do AC's even weigh as much as they do? ERRRRRGGGGGG BTTTTTTT WHYYYYYYYYY

Can we just remake BT with at least weapons that are equivalent of modern day tech if not future tech.

Sure. Then we can just LRM each other from miles away. No need for ACs or PPCs at all!

[Vassago Rain]

General Taskeen, on 20 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

This game has so much balance work to do.

The game it's based on accepted that certain weapons are a bad idea, and relegated them to historical legacy support. Outside of REAL MEN'S BATTLETECH, no one takes old ACs, and no one ever should.

The ultras and LBXs were made to replace a flawed weapon class, and they do so quite well.

[Khobai]

Yeah the problem with autocannons is the lack of BV.

[Davers]

Vassago Rain, on 20 March 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

The game it's based on accepted that certain weapons are a bad idea, and relegated them to historical legacy support. Outside of REAL MEN'S BATTLETECH, no one takes old ACs, and no one ever should.

The ultras and LBXs were made to replace a flawed weapon class, and they do so quite well.

I didn't realize the LBX was any good. Was there a change I didn't know about?