28 replies to this topic

[Perihelion Jack]

I would like to make the suggestion that the weight of the AC2 should be lowered to 4 tons. I feel this weapon weighs far too much to be a viable option on most 'mechs. With a damage output score of 2; the AC2 does (according to the in-game numbers) the same damage as a single machine gun, but for 12 times the weight. The AC5, on the other hand, supposedly fires a projectile that is 2.5 times the size of the AC2 round; but only weighs 25% more. By reducing the weight of the AC2 to 4t, you create a more balanced scale; making the tonnage more intuitive.

Another thing to consider is that there are currently no ballistic weapons available between 0.5t (MG) and 6t (AC2); which makes equipping a mech with multiple ballistic hardpoints extremely difficult, and often, not worth it. A 4 ton AC2 would bridge that gap nicely, and allow more 'mechs to use more of the hardpoints without taking a huge hit to their damage output numbers.

There may well be reasons why the AC2 weighs so much, (either canon or otherwise) and I would like to hear them; but from a gamer's perspective, I fail to see a scenario where I would ever use one, when for 2 more tons (and more slots, I know) I could be using a weapon that is more than twice as powerful.

[Lefty Lucy]

When it was functioning correctly, the AC2 had a ridiculously high DPS/ton stat, with the trade off that it generated a lot of heat as well It is currently bugged/nerfed (the devs have been silent on the issue) so that it is a pale shadow of its former self.

[Krazy Kat]

Aphelion Dax, on 10 December 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

Another thing to consider is that there are currently no ballistic weapons available between 0.5t (MG) and 6t (AC2); which makes equipping a mech with multiple ballistic hardpoints extremely difficult, and often, not worth it. A 4 ton AC2 would bridge that gap nicely, and allow more 'mechs to use more of the hardpoints without taking a huge hit to their damage output numbers.

True we need a lighter ballistic weapon or two. I once considered a HBK-4G, and realized there is little point in having a mech with 3 ballistic hard points all in the right torso.

[nungunz]

4 ton AC/2s....holy crap that would be nuts. They are already great weapons as it is, 4 tons each would make them a no-brainer.

Krazy Kat, on 10 December 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

True we need a lighter ballistic weapon or two. I once considered a HBK-4G, and realized there is little point in having a mech with 3 ballistic hard points all in the right torso.

2 AC/2s and 2 Large Lasers

[MWHawke]

Lefty Lucy, on 10 December 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

When it was functioning correctly, the AC2 had a ridiculously high DPS/ton stat, with the trade off that it generated a lot of heat as well It is currently bugged/nerfed (the devs have been silent on the issue) so that it is a pale shadow of its former self.

How was it functioning correctly when it had a ridiculously high DPS/ton stat? It's supposed to weigh 6 tons and do 2 points of dmg.

[Khobai]

AC/2 was broken at 4 dps. It should not do the same dps as an AC/10.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Why is the AC2 broken when it does 4dps? It does the same dps as an AC10, but it generates a lot more heat and usually sprays that dps all over the target. Many of the weapons in MWO work differently than the weapons in TT, and that is a good thing (well, when they work well, the PPCs still need help).

MWO is the first Mechwarrior game that has made the AC2 useful, don't change that now.

[Sprouticus]

For the last time, PGI cannot change weight on any weapon. Period. They could however give you more ammo per ton to save weight that way.

[MWHawke]

Tickdoff Tank, on 10 December 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Why is the AC2 broken when it does 4dps? It does the same dps as an AC10, but it generates a lot more heat and usually sprays that dps all over the target. Many of the weapons in MWO work differently than the weapons in TT, and that is a good thing (well, when they work well, the PPCs still need help).

MWO is the first Mechwarrior game that has made the AC2 useful, don't change that now.

Personally, I feel that they SHOULD follow canon. If they wanted to design a fast paced game, then they should have signed up to design Counter-Strike v4001.100.0001.00001b

Sprouticus, on 10 December 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

For the last time, PGI cannot change weight on any weapon. Period. They could however give you more ammo per ton to save weight that way.

They can't cause the amount of shots a weapon can make has to follow canon too.

[Tennex]

there is currently a missync between AC2 server side fire detection, and client side detection. causing inconsistent cooldown/skipped cooldown times.

maybe when that is fixed they will evaluate how blanaced it is from there.

i do agree 0.5 - 6 tons is a very steep gap though.

Edited by Tennex, 10 December 2012 - 09:18 PM.

[One Medic Army]

MWHawke, on 10 December 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

They can't cause the amount of shots a weapon can make has to follow canon too.

They've already changed the ammo/ton for pretty much every weapon in the game.
Changing weight might make mechs over- or under-weight though.

[MrPenguin]

Tickdoff Tank, on 10 December 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Many of the weapons in MWO work differently than the weapons in TT, and that is a good thing

Now, if only we could get the rest of the forum to accept this..

Edited by MrPenguin, 10 December 2012 - 09:34 PM.

[Shadowsword8]

Dps isn't the only thing that has to be considered. The dps+shaking caused by this weapon justify an heavy weight.

[Major Dick]

Before the cooldown bug my YLW was a beast with 2 AC/2, now he is back to mediocrity. Though my CNL-A will always be better...

[MWHawke]

One Medic Army, on 10 December 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

They've already changed the ammo/ton for pretty much every weapon in the game.
Changing weight might make mechs over- or under-weight though.

Didn't notice it o.O Gotta wake up more while I play this copy.. (umm.. not even copy is it?) of Battletech.. ><

[One Medic Army]

MWHawke, on 11 December 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Didn't notice it o.O Gotta wake up more while I play this copy.. (umm.. not even copy is it?) of Battletech.. ><

It was pretty much a necessity with the doubled armor and increased firing rates.

[Noth]

MWHawke, on 11 December 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Didn't notice it o.O Gotta wake up more while I play this copy.. (umm.. not even copy is it?) of Battletech.. ><

It is the battletech universe, but not TT rules. They started with TT as a starting point, but are changing things to make them more balanced for a real time FPS. It is also a reboot of MW franchise meaning many things are going to be different on purpose because the original MW games had horrid balance.

[CocoaJin]

4 tons would be too light, I could see dropping it 1 ton, possibly 2 tons if you bribed me.

[SpiralRazor]

Khobai, on 10 December 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

AC/2 was broken at 4 dps. It should not do the same dps as an AC/10.

It generated a LOT more heat, and scattered damage everywhere vs the AC/10s chunks.

The only OP thing on it was cockpit shake.

I think it was pretty balanced sir.

[Tickdoff Tank]

SpiralRazor, on 11 December 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

It generated a LOT more heat, and scattered damage everywhere vs the AC/10s chunks.

The only OP thing on it was cockpit shake.

I think it was pretty balanced sir.

Once the projectile speeds are adjusted I think the AC2, AC5 and AC10 will just about as balanced as they are going to get. The UAC5 *may* need a little work with the jamming % and sensitivity to double taps (not sure, but I think it bears a look), and the AC20 will also need to be looked at. The projectile speed may be all that the 20 needs, or it may need 1 more shot per ton and/or 1 less heat per shot. (Please note: I don't think the AC20 or UAC are *broken* just that they may need a little adjustment, but I am perfectly willing to accept that they are fine once the changes go through.)

The medium laser, small laser and large laser all seem to be fine (IMO) and the ERLL needs a look. I remember seeing the devs say something about shortening the beam duration for the ERLL to equal the duration of the small laser, that may be a good way to go, or a slight decrease in heat. Not sure which is best, but the ERLL needs some help right now.

PPC and ERPPC are already being worked on, we all know they need some help, I will refrain from making suggestions on them untill we see what the devs give us.

Gauss seems pretty fair to me right now, but I know a lot of people disagree. The weapon is fragile, but still packs a punch. But I have not used gauss rifles too much and my comments on them would be an outsiders view.

LRMs are great weapons, ECM may be a bit too strong but I don't think it is game breaking, only game changing. Let's see what happens to ECM in the near future. Not too sure about Artemis though, does not seem to do a whole lot for LRMs, but I also do not use Artemis too much so I could easily be wrong on that.

SRMs are fine. Good damage, low weight, can be high heat if you spam them to much and they are ammo limited. Artemis seems to work well for them as well.

MGs and flamers need help, they are being worked on. I hope they make them useful.

SSRMs seem about perfect right now, if/when you can fire them.