149 replies to this topic

[JazzySteel]

I already have plans to mount dual AC/2 (or even UAC-2s) in the arm or a Centurion, set them to chain fire, then rain hell at sniping ranges.

[Vexgrave Lars]

wanderer, on 03 June 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

It does have a small advantage over LRM's- the lack of lockon time being required in the online versions. You can fire and cover with one better than you can manage an LRM salvo. TT doesn't have that, but on the other hand, tabletop AC/2's also get access to delicious, delicious precision munitions, aka "the speed hoser ammo". It makes them premium killers of stuff like hovers and light 'Mechs that no longer can avoid the barrage of dings spewing from your AC/2, whereas a trio of LRM 5's for the same weight often simply get dodged to no effect.

Still way to situationally competent in its role for my taste. I'd rather an AC5, no min, more damage, same heat, little heavier.
Not saying its bad, just saying there's better. Unless the margin of difference becomes wider, between it and like fare, for the scope of the weapons capabilities and uses.

[FaustianQ]

JazzySteel, on 03 June 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

I already have plans to mount dual AC/2 (or even UAC-2s) in the arm or a Centurion, set them to chain fire, then rain hell at sniping ranges.

How is that better then a single UAC/5?

x2 AC/2 + x2 ammo = 14 tons, 4 crits, 2x2 damage (4)
x1 UAC/5 + x2 ammo = 11 tons, 7 crits, 2x5 damage (10)
x2 UAC/2 + x2 ammo = 16 tons, 10 crits, 2x2x2 damage (8)

The UAC/5 covers all practical ranges, is decent in CQC, and is the lightest build. In fact an ES Centurion can move an additional 21.6kph and have a half ton armor more with a UAC/5, LRM-10 and x2 MLas.

[wanderer]

Vexgrave Lars, on 03 June 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Still way to situationally competent in its role for my taste. I'd rather an AC5, no min, more damage, same heat, little heavier.
Not saying its bad, just saying there's better. Unless the margin of difference becomes wider, between it and like fare, for the scope of the weapons capabilities and uses.

AC/5's have the problem of not being able to hit-and-fade at ranges most main guns can't counter at, since they match PPC's distancewise. AC/2's also have the potential to stretch it even further thanks to not fading at maximum range, just dropping off until they hit ground. Aim high and you actually should be able to eke out even more of a range advantage from an AC/2....though UAC/5's will come close, the only ballistic weapon that truly outranges all energy weapon fire is the old vanilla AC/2 (narrowly beating even the ER PPC ).

Gauss rifles are going to be interesting, though. If they have ballistic dropoff, you might well be able to pull the same tricks with better punch- but much more weight to invest.

FaustianQ, on 03 June 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

How is that better then a single UAC/5?

x2 AC/2 + x2 ammo = 14 tons, 4 crits, 2x2 damage (4)
x1 UAC/5 + x2 ammo = 11 tons, 7 crits, 2x5 damage (10)
x2 UAC/2 + x2 ammo = 16 tons, 10 crits, 2x2x2 damage (8)

The UAC/5 covers all practical ranges, is decent in CQC, and is the lightest build. In fact an ES Centurion can move an additional 21.6kph and have a half ton armor more with a UAC/5, LRM-10 and x2 MLas.

The Ultra AC/2 doesn't exist until 3057 for the Inner Sphere, making it a moot point, like the LB-2X (3058).

[Sassori]

Frostiken, on 03 June 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

You're forgetting, ballistics need ammo, and ammo is 1T / 1C, and CASE is 0.5T / 1C. I couldn't imagine carrying around that much ammo without CASE, that'd be suicidal.

I forget nothing. Space is not an issue with a 1 crit weapon. It's just not. 1 ton of ammo is 1 crit, the weapon is 1 crit. That's 2 crits that do not even have to be in the same location. Space is not an issue. Case is an option for those who don't know how to manage their ammo properly. Given the range of the AC2 I'd suggest case is even less an issue since chances are you'll have used up large chunks of ammo before they can even shoot back.

Just because the AC2 isn't perfect for every mech does NOT make it a bad weapon.

[Steamroller Stig]

well I'll assume it's the fastest projectile in the game, so perhaps it'll be a great skull crusher.

[errorabbit]

Yeah in the tabletop, it's probably not that good, but in my recent playthrough of the MW games I really started to love those small calibre autocannons.

I doubt the reasons I liked them will carry over to MWO though:
For one, it had amazing range, and the AI in the games is not very smart, so if you pick at one mech from a far, you can usually pull it off that only that one comes at you, and then kill it quickly by focussing your whole lance's fire on it. But more importantly, the lower calibre ACs had a REALLY high rate of fire. Sure, so do the small lasers, and maybe even the mediums, but you can't really make use of their high firing rate, because that only means you quickly get into dangerous heat territories... but with the ACs, you can fire some very quick salvos until you have to worry about heat. They went great with one-punch slow cycling high-heat weapons like PPCs or Large Lasers.

And I really like to have a weapon I can fire whenever, in the heat of combat, to get through until I can fire my heavy-hitters. Leaves time to harass and ***** off armor and then when you've got an opening to aim and fire to real damage dealers, you can use that. Of course, I'm actually not a very good aimer in these games, or at least, not a quick one. Hit-and-run snipes never play out well for me...

[Melcyna]

ElliottTarson, on 03 June 2012 - 04:16 AM, said:

You took the second part of my post, but not the first. I gave a demonstrable case in which i've used the AC/2 to great effect, both in SP against computer and in MP against humans. AC/2 can and is great for dead on sniping shots, usually punching through the cockpit on the 4th or 5th shot, so around 6 seconds. Even if it's not a pilot kill, it's a great way to cripple a mech quickly.

Yeah, but here's the thing... for the space you spend for the AC2s, you could just fit something else that'll do the same job really but better... the only part that gives it an advantage is if you can find a place where it's long reach can be used and you have a good unobstructed line of sight to him for the entire duration while you unload your AC2s.

Nick Makiaveli, on 03 June 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

I have to disagree here. You seem to define "real damage" as killing in one shot or something similar. Taking off armor when the enemy can't respond is useful.

As to the psychological effects, that is only one use and I think you underestimate it's power in a game like this. That's also like saying the medium lasers on an Archer are only useful if the opponent closes with you, if he stands off at range there useless. Oh, what about rear mounted weapons? Those are completely useless unless someone is behind you. I guess those have to go as well?

Now I am not arguing it is a supremely cost effective weapon. I am saying, just like the MG/SL, they have their place.

Not quite, i don't define 'effective' damage as one shot kill or anything (since hardly anything does such damage alpha in battletech) i define it as good damage/ton or damage/space.

The weapons HAS to be worth the space and weight it occupy or else other weapons can fill it's space and make you a better combatant, and AC2s are thus far in every game it shows up are very poor in that aspect when used against other battlemech. I mean think about it, what are the situations in which the AC2s provide better return than other weapons you can fit into it's space instead? How often do you encounter the situation? Can you reliably force the enemy to remain within that condition to actually make the weapon do it's worth?

No offense of course but in every Mechwarrior game thus far with extensive multiplayer, MW3, and MWLL in particular, AC2s have been a VERY poor use of weight and space overall especially for competitive fight against another player in a battlemech. The only time it had actual use was to rock the target and give him difficulty in aiming back at you and that was about it.

[Sassori]

Or you know, they could be used to shred the target of some armor at extreme ranges and soften the target up for other mech's so that your team takes less damage overall and thus has a better chance to win...

Just a thought.

If you don't like AC2's, that's cool, I don't like AC-20's. However saying: all they are good for is rocking the enemy... that's a false statement.

[Applejack]

If AutoCannons inflict screen-shake in MWO, then an AC/2 they will be superb weapons to put on a brawler that mounts other weapons due to a probably high rate-of-fire. In fact, they would be so perfect to squeeze into a brawler if they have screenshake because they could also disrupt the accuracy of targets at long range while the brawler closes in for the kill.

AC/2 will probably not be useful at lower tiers of play, but at higher tiers, I expect to see it a lot.

Edited by Applejack, 03 June 2012 - 11:37 AM.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Melcyna, on 03 June 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

Not quite, i don't define 'effective' damage as one shot kill or anything (since hardly anything does such damage alpha in battletech) i define it as good damage/ton or damage/space.

The weapons HAS to be worth the space and weight it occupy or else other weapons can fill it's space and make you a better combatant, and AC2s are thus far in every game it shows up are very poor in that aspect when used against other battlemech. I mean think about it, what are the situations in which the AC2s provide better return than other weapons you can fit into it's space instead? How often do you encounter the situation? Can you reliably force the enemy to remain within that condition to actually make the weapon do it's worth?

No offense of course but in every Mechwarrior game thus far with extensive multiplayer, MW3, and MWLL in particular, AC2s have been a VERY poor use of weight and space overall especially for competitive fight against another player in a battlemech. The only time it had actual use was to rock the target and give him difficulty in aiming back at you and that was about it.

That I don't disagree with. One trick ponies are usually more trouble than they are worth.

As to other games, I don't see that applying here unless the combat is very similar. Granted they may suck in MWO, but that depends on implementation.

If the maps allow for use of their long range, then they can indeed have a purpose. As mentioned before, one or two of them plinking away at your rear armor will get anyone's attention. Especially if your target is already engaged and can't turn around.

One last thought, how often will something occur shouldn't be left up to your opponent. It should be something your entire team works to engineer. IE build a tactic around sneaking one or more mechs armed with AC/2s around to the back side of the map in order to start plinking away at a Command or Fire Lance. Granted the same tactic could work with AC/5s or really any other weapon depending on the map, but the, granted theoretical, point holds as all this is theoretical since we don't have a clue about the maps, fire rates, reload rates etc.

[Melcyna]

Christopher Dayson, on 03 June 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Or you know, they could be used to shred the target of some armor at extreme ranges and soften the target up for other mech's so that your team takes less damage overall and thus has a better chance to win...

Just a thought.

If you don't like AC2's, that's cool, I don't like AC-20's. However saying: all they are good for is rocking the enemy... that's a false statement.

That would be true when adding the AC2s did not cost you something else in return...

but unfortunately that is the case, you soften him up however small it may be from long range yes.. at the cost of a very poor return for that space and weight occupied which in return lowers your effective damage potential when you actually enters the combat range with the bulk of your arsenal.

Hence why in practically all competitive multiplayer of Mechwarrior thus far, ppl avoid the weapon except when it's capable of providing secondary effect like rocking them.

Nick Makiaveli, on 03 June 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

That I don't disagree with. One trick ponies are usually more trouble than they are worth.

As to other games, I don't see that applying here unless the combat is very similar. Granted they may suck in MWO, but that depends on implementation.

If the maps allow for use of their long range, then they can indeed have a purpose. As mentioned before, one or two of them plinking away at your rear armor will get anyone's attention. Especially if your target is already engaged and can't turn around.

One last thought, how often will something occur shouldn't be left up to your opponent. It should be something your entire team works to engineer. IE build a tactic around sneaking one or more mechs armed with AC/2s around to the back side of the map in order to start plinking away at a Command or Fire Lance. Granted the same tactic could work with AC/5s or really any other weapon depending on the map, but the, granted theoretical, point holds as all this is theoretical since we don't have a clue about the maps, fire rates, reload rates etc.

Agreed, but here's the thing... if the weapon is a poor conversion of space/weight to damage then by picking any other weapon and applying the same concept ie: shaping the field with your team to suit your team's strength you will get far better return still.

Edited by Melcyna, 03 June 2012 - 11:51 AM.

[AlphaKale]

I think its utility will depend on how often maps allow long sight lines. For instance, there might be a map with a high hill or long straight canyon where an AC2 would have the sight line to be effective at its max range. Otherwise go for at least an AC5 if there's lots of terrain clutter and you will be dancing at near point-blank most of the time anyway.
The in-game rate-of-fire it gets will also have a huge effect. If its damage-per-second is only a bit worse than the AC5 then its range advantage could be worth it, again dependent on the number of wide-open maps.
It would be pretty useful for harassment fire if mounted on a scout mech. You could pop a few shots into the opfor's Atlas at extreme range then make a run for it, drawing their attention and setting them up for an ambush or the like. Basically its distraction value may be more useful than its ability to deal damange.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Melcyna, on 03 June 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

That would be true when adding the AC2s did not cost you something else in return...

but unfortunately that is the case, you soften him up however small it may be from long range yes.. at the cost of a very poor return for that space and weight occupied which in return lowers your effective damage potential when you actually enters the combat range with the bulk of your arsenal.

Hence why in practically all competitive multiplayer of Mechwarrior thus far, ppl avoid the weapon except when it's capable of providing secondary effect like rocking them.

Which is true EXCEPT for the fact that you can potentially do it from a range in which the target CANNOT SHOOT BACK!!!

No offense, and I mean that as this is one of the few times I am not trying to be a smart ***, I think you are thinking in terms of 1v1 with big mechs.

I am thinking in terms of a recon mech with an AC/2 and a med. laser or two. Or even a bigger mech packing on for long range punch kind of like the Atlas with it's LRM5. Not like anyone expects an Atlas to engage in indirect fire support as a primary role right? So if that's all the space you have, and need/want some long range fire power it could fit the bill.

My point is that while it has traditionally been a sub-par weapon, it is not totally without use. As an example, I remember a TT game where a guy fielded a Charger. We all laughed until it got adjacent to another mech and opened up with all 18* MGs. Which it did quite quickly by the way since no one really saw it as a threat.






* For the less evolved among the readers:This was like 800 years ago, so sue me if it was a bit more or less.

[Sassori]

This ^^ Precisely.

The RANGE is the defining factor. If it did more than 2 points it would be without a doubt the BEST weapon in the game.

[Melcyna]

Nick Makiaveli, on 03 June 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

Which is true EXCEPT for the fact that you can potentially do it from a range in which the target CANNOT SHOOT BACK!!!

No offense, and I mean that as this is one of the few times I am not trying to be a smart ***, I think you are thinking in terms of 1v1 with big mechs.

I am thinking in terms of a recon mech with an AC/2 and a med. laser or two. Or even a bigger mech packing on for long range punch kind of like the Atlas with it's LRM5. Not like anyone expects an Atlas to engage in indirect fire support as a primary role right? So if that's all the space you have, and need/want some long range fire power it could fit the bill.

My point is that while it has traditionally been a sub-par weapon, it is not totally without use. As an example, I remember a TT game where a guy fielded a Charger. We all laughed until it got adjacent to another mech and opened up with all 18* MGs. Which it did quite quickly by the way since no one really saw it as a threat.






* For the less evolved among the readers:This was like 800 years ago, so sue me if it was a bit more or less.

1v1? no not quite, but i am thinking in terms of actual firing line between the teams where weight of fire is the single most crucial advantage needed to actually win the exchange and where having poor damage efficiency is a lethal disadvantage.

Yeah they can't fire back indeed, but the problem is that unless you can actually maintain that condition for a good chunk of the combat duration then the return it gives you is STILL less than anything else you can fit into the slot.

If you plink at him for 1% of his armor for example every 5 seconds let say, or you can chip 5% of his armor every 5 seconds at 2/3 of the range. Unless you can create the range and fired for 20 seconds worth (doesn't matter if it's at once or in short bursts every now and then) at range beyond the second weapon then you are essentially guaranteed a better return with just the second weapon and closing the distance even if you cannot fire occasionally at the extreme range since during the time you ARE in range you make up for it and more.

Essentially the AC2s have a very poor ability to deliver damage within a time window of opportunity, thanks to it's poor weight/space to damage ratio.

And while we don't consider it seriously for assault mech arsenal, we do so for a good reason: the SINGLE advantage of the AC2 ie: extreme range effectively waste the armor bulk since at the single best distance in which AC2s without peers, your assault class armor are not being useful, even worse still the assault mech does not have the capability to actually dictate the engagement range.

LRM5s for example is used since it still has acceptable weight/space to damage ratio, for the resources it consumes to mount one on your Atlas for example it gives a decent bang for buck still. But this is not the case with AC2 which is the exact opposite when it comes to the efficiency.

[Sassori]

The AC2 weighs in at 6 tons. That means it's well capable of fitting on medium mechs, even 2 of them. Possibly even 3 depending on other factors. That means the medium mech can /ensure/ the range is kept against anything bigger than it, and it can fire without return fire. That's a hell of an advantage. Against a light mech that's coming in 3 AC2's would shred significant amounts of armor.

The AC2 has it's place for sure.

[Melcyna]

Sure, except a well armed light (that will dictate the range better than your med) potentially carry more weight of fire than your 3 AC2s.

and if you meet a well armed med that can match your mobility you are virtually guaranteed to be toast.

If AC2s are to be considered as the bulk of the arsenal, it has to somehow utilize it's single primary advantage which is extreme range to stay on top, the moment it loses that your position as the losing side on the fire exchange that follows is practically assured.

If AC2s are to be considered as an addition to the arsenal then it's poor efficiency guarantees that something else can be fitted in that will better improve your weight of fire for the distance in which you intend to position your mech for the most part with the enemy.

[Sassori]

Melcyna, on 03 June 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Sure, except a well armed light (that will dictate the range better than your med) potentially carry more weight of fire than your 3 AC2s.

and if you meet a well armed med that can match your mobility you are virtually guaranteed to be toast.

If AC2s are to be considered as the bulk of the arsenal, it has to somehow utilize it's single primary advantage which is extreme range to stay on top, the moment it loses that your position as the losing side on the fire exchange that follows is practically assured.

If AC2s are to be considered as an addition to the arsenal then it's poor efficiency guarantees that something else can be fitted in that will better improve your weight of fire for the distance in which you intend to position your mech for the most part with the enemy.

Ok, I'm going to try to explain this simply now:

No weapon is perfect.

No layout is the best layout.

The fact that everything has a weakness is good balance.

Yes a Light would catch that medium, but it will take a lot of damage on the way in unless it successfully outmaneuvers it.

There is no, and should /never/ be, such a thing as an 'I Win' layout.

Everything has strengths and weaknesses.

Just because /you/ do not like the strengths of the AC-2 doesn't mean it needs to change. It just means it's not a good weapon for your playstyle. Use a different weapon then. It's existence does not harm you at all, other than that 'weak' weapon ripping you up and you being unable to respond to it...

[Penegrin]

I never was a fan of the AC2. There are way better weapons for long range and the AC2 ist just way too weak.