149 replies to this topic

[Solis Obscuri]

At least the devs have stated that AC/5s and AC/2s will not suffer minimum range penalties. That makes them a little more useful than they might be otherwise.

I wouldn't be surprised if the RoF is pretty good too, it does seem like PGI is trying to make everything useful.

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 03 June 2012 - 08:52 PM.

[Sassori]

...

Wow... there's just so much crap in this thread now... Think the Forums have reached the point where there's to many people to pick out the Gems. No point in even continuing this really.

If you don't like the AC2, don't ******* use it. That simple. Nobody's making you use it.

[FACEman Peck]

MechWarrior balance kinda screwed over the AC/2. The long range is great, but like you said, unless you have an AC boat walking the streets, you would be better off with maybe another laser, missile, etc. etc.

Now, a way I think would do this ordnance justice in this new game would be to give it more power, but slow down the reload time a little bit, and take away a bit of ammo per ton. Might be just me, but I think that might get the AC/2 the bump it needs to get it some worth, other than cratering tanks (which, I might add, are NOT going to be in this game, quote FAQ, VERY sad day).

[SnakeTheFox]

I think this really depends on a number of factors that will be present in game that aren't demonstrated or made clear with tabletop rules.

Projectile speed/general ballistics, rate of fire, etc.

I think if they go MWLL's route it will be potentially viable in certain situations as a long range stand-off harrasment weapon. Good damage or not, nobody likes getting shot, and after awhile it does start to add up. You don't regenerate armor, after all; this ain't Halo. On a light mech, being able to constantly backpeddle and evade your opponents weaponry by staying far away, while constantly doing small amonts of damage, may end up being worse than it looks on paper. I know on MWLL, I'll constantly take the four UAC2 Partisan over the four AC5 Partisan on a lot of more open long distance maps simply because I can whittle away at targets that are often on the very edges of fog/view distance. Then cross that with MW4's ability to "shake" or rattle opponents views/aiming with fire from one, and you've got a fairly effective harassment weapon.

But at the end of the day, I think the AC2 is like the machine gun. It works in certain tabletop situations against non-mech targets (anti-infantry/battle armor, anti-air), but wont really be too applicable in straight mech-on-mech fights. The main difference between the machine gun and the AC2 being that the AC2 trades increased tonnage for the ability to actually do a little bit more than merely annoy mechs. But other than that, it's pretty much like talking the strengths of the machine gun in a MW game; it's a weapon for the tabletop.

Edited by SnakeTheFox, 04 June 2012 - 12:13 AM.

[Frostiken]

Christopher Dayson, on 03 June 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

...

Wow... there's just so much crap in this thread now... Think the Forums have reached the point where there's to many people to pick out the Gems. No point in even continuing this really.

If you don't like the AC2, don't ******* use it. That simple. Nobody's making you use it.

There there, it'll be alright.

Should probably remember to take your meds.

[Penegrin]

Christopher Dayson, on 03 June 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

... Wow... there's just so much crap in this thread now... Think the Forums have reached the point where there's to many people to pick out the Gems. No point in even continuing this really. If you don't like the AC2, don't ******* use it. That simple. Nobody's making you use it.

Well forgive us for expressing our opinion. I wasn't aware that it's such a crime to disagree with you and I am sure we all will try to keep our crap for ourselves in future...

[Reno Blade]

as much as i dislike MW4, the faster speed of the AC2 and 5 made these guns worth a bit. Obviously the game favored the RAC2, but even so a mech with AC2 could do something.

In my last training session in a Jagermech (2x ac2 2x ac5) against an Archer, i pretty much shredded my opponent 3 times more often than dieing.

[Max Liao]

It's interesting to note the varied opinions as to why people think the weapon is viable or not. Personally, I don't think it is, which is why I made the original post. I've never been in a situation where the full range of the weapon was useful - 90 more meters and LRMs are in range, 120 meters and the gauss rifle is in range - with 7.5x the firepower - and 180 meters and PPCs and AC/5 are in range. I'm sure ER lasers and PPCs also fit in here somewhere.

In the TT game there's no real way to snipe, at least not for long. In the MW games it really wasn't an AC/2 anymore. Like someone said earlier, it's more of an AC/8.

With all of that said, I want the AC/2 to be viable as a sniper or long range fire support. So, the other part of my initial post (that was lost on most responses) is HOW can the weapon be made a 'viable' and 'effective' weapon without changing its low damage long range position.

[Elkarlo]

You all forgott one thing about the Ac/2 .. the Duell Rules.
All MW games had Duell Rules Weapon Delay.

In a Essence it Means:
AC/5 DPR 2.5
AC/10 DPR 5
Ac/20 DPR 6.7
LSR5 DPR(Max) 1.6 (Avr) 1
LSR10 DPR(Max) 3.3 (Avr) 1.6
LSR15 DPR(max) 5 (Avr) 3
Large Laser DPR 2.7
PPC DPR 2.5
Med Laser DPR 2.5

Ac/2 DPR 2 Longest Range, less Minimum Range then a LSR,.

On this considerations it is balanced..Yes you get 1 DPR more out of a Ac10 compared in Tonnage but 2 Crits less and 60% more Range.
Myself i like the Jagermech as Support mech.. and thats it the AC2 is a Support Weapon, when you can start a Barrage with it, a good Enemy goes for Cover, which prevent him from Focusing HIS Firepower effectly. So a AC/2 is more a Strategic then a Tactical Weapon.
But it needs an open firing field.. Reason why i prefer them in a Warrior

Personally i used my Warrior Squad to kill the Enemy One after another. 8 or 4 Damage per round without shooting back per Round is annoying he goes into cover and when he is in Cover supporting each other is not very well.

When the AC/2 comes into MWO with a dezent fire rate, it will be a very underrated Weapon in group fights...
their won't be much Glory in using it, as a hit enemy goes into Cover.
But it opens Ground and Room to Manouver for your team and so lead to Victory...
No wonder it is a Davion preferred Weapon.

[Penegrin]

Do we know anything about the terrain? What I have seen in the videos makes me wonder if you ever fight over more than a few 100 meters. Also the drawing distance would be interesting. Eg in WoT you could shoot way further that you could spot enemies and the maps with flat terrain are just a campfest.

A last thing are crits. AC/2 were nice to cause crits in the tabeltop but will there be (so many) crits in MWO? Sure, crits are fun if you lose onbe out of 4 or more 'Mechs. But if you just have one 'Mech and then have to pay the bill crits could become a pain...

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Hopefully the devs are getting data on all of this at the moment in Beta. We don't know if TACs will be in at all. From the videos it would seem as if armour values have been doubled from TT values. presumably to increase battle times. Weapons also seem to fire faster. What they don't seem to want is for pilots to die too quickly in order to make things more fun. If people don't use the AC2 in game then they are left with the choice of improving its stats, without unbalancing it too much against other weapons, or leaving it as an unused weapon.

It might be that they would increase the range slightly and give it more "knock". This assumes that you can maintain LoS at extended ranges and that all battles don't degenerate into knife fighting brawls, which would bring up a whole range of other problems..
To be honest the only way to find out would be to have mechs like the Blackjack or Jagermech playtest. They wouldn't need to have the actual models, just add the appropriate hardpoints to say the Hunchback and Catapult. That would enable proof of concept.

[Frostiken]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 04 June 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

If people don't use the AC2 in game then they are left with the choice of improving its stats, without unbalancing it too much against other weapons, or leaving it as an unused weapon.

The problem is that the AC/2 isn't just one weapon, it's 4. If you improve the AC2, you infringe on the AC5, so what would be the big difference? You'd then have to increase the power of the AC/5 a bit to make it more viable on its own, and then risk it becoming an AC/8, too close to the AC/10 in power...

Honestly it'd be easier if the AC/2 didn't exist in the first place.

[Randalf Yorgen]

Frostiken, on 04 June 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

The problem is that the AC/2 isn't just one weapon, it's 4. If you improve the AC2, you infringe on the AC5, so what would be the big difference? You'd then have to increase the power of the AC/5 a bit to make it more viable on its own, and then risk it becoming an AC/8, too close to the AC/10 in power...

Honestly it'd be easier if the AC/2 didn't exist in the first place.

But it does have a place and if the terrain allows it is a very useful weapon.

[Frostiken]

That's a big 'if'. Open fields of fire (that the AC/2 would benefit from) have a lot of detrimental effects on gameplay and the metagame besides just shooting people so I wouldn't be surprised if they shy away from them.

You can already find plenty of this behavior in MWLL - one team will have long-range superiority and be in an advantageous position, and the game slows to an inexorable crawl: people hide behind rocks and won't leave, the second you stick your head out, missiles rain down on you, etc.

[Scarlett Avignon]

FACEman Peck, on 03 June 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

Now, a way I think would do this ordnance justice in this new game would be to give it more power, but slow down the reload time a little bit, and take away a bit of ammo per ton.

Congratulations. You just invented the AC/5...

Edited by Franklen Avignon, 04 June 2012 - 08:10 AM.

[Frostiken]

Franklen Avignon, on 04 June 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

Congratulations. You just invented the AC/5...

I lol'd.

[TKG]

Frostiken, on 04 June 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

Honestly it'd be easier if the AC/2 didn't exist in the first place.

Have you ever had the 'fun' of being hit by eight or more AC/2's at once? you cant aim, you barely can see and you loose incredible amounts of armor rather fast. I have seen someone cram that into a Cyclops before, it's hilarious to watch, and scary to receive, ironically he used to call that mech his 'Golden Showers' Cyclops.

A single AC/2 isn't worth much but in groups it becomes an anti-mech machinegun, and the mech caryring it becomes a bombardment vehicle.

[Davoke]

C-UAC2 is a weapon i use as a primary for a lot of my heavier mechs. I group it with fast firing weapons for a good amount of punch over long range with a good ROF.

[Yeach]

Frostiken, on 04 June 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

The problem is that the AC/2 isn't just one weapon, it's 4. If you improve the AC2, you infringe on the AC5, so what would be the big difference? You'd then have to increase the power of the AC/5 a bit to make it more viable on its own, and then risk it becoming an AC/8, too close to the AC/10 in power...

Honestly it'd be easier if the AC/2 didn't exist in the first place.

I agree to all of this.

[Naberius]

You know what I'd like to see for the AC2 and weapons in general is cockpit damage. Could you imagine if all of a sudden you heard cracking glass and half of your cockpit view just became a spiderweb of damage? Really though, the thread already mentioned the other things I could think of as useful.