149 replies to this topic

[Johnny Reb]

I hope this game doesn't use "crit space" to make a loadout. Guess its my MW4 talking but never played the tt.

[Star Captain Obvious Kerensky]

Christopher Dayson, on 05 June 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

The problem with changing cycle times is it makes the weapon superior to heavier AC's. If the AC2 fires 1 round per second then it all the sudden starts doing 20 damage in 10 seconds, same as an AC-20 and at far greater ranges and lighter tonnage. It throws everything out of wack. I get that people don't like the AC-2, the obvious choice is then; Don't use it if you don't like it.

As soon as people start trying to rebalance the AC2, then it unbalances all the other AC's due to that range and weight. That's the trade off I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

The AC2, even as written in battletech, is a marginal weapon at best. Relying on exceptional teamwork and heatshots. In Mechwarrior, and AC2 with the same rate of fire as an AC20 is just stupid. Faster rate of fire is the only reasonable alternative.

Over a 30 second period it might do the same amount of damage as an AC20, but the AC20 pilot needs to only expose himself for a brief moment to fire each shot, while the AC2 pilot needs to keep hitting the target for the whole 30 seconds.

Under that scenario I would STILL rather mount a single AC20 over a pair of AC2s, but at least the AC2s have range and might be good on wide open maps without cover.

[wanderer]

Johnny Reb, on 05 June 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

I hope this game doesn't use "crit space" to make a loadout. Guess its my MW4 talking but never played the tt.

Yes, it does. Go look at the Mechlab info, a weapon requires both the appropriate hardpoint and enough crit space/tonnage in the section to mount.

[Melcyna]

AlphaKale, on 03 June 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

I'm hoping the designers focus on damage per second when they stat out the RoF of the ACs. The smaller the AC, the less DPS it should do to balance against the longer range featured by the smaller ACs.
That said, you do make a good point about the initial strike. If you are weaving between buildings in an urban environment and come face-to-face with a Hunchback and its AC20 you could die instantly if your armor has already been chewed up. A lesser autocannon would take longer to inflict those 20 points, possibly giving you time to duck for cover behind a building. Even if the AC20's DPS is lower than the other ACs due to its slower fire rate, that initial shot is really going to hurt! (Assuming the pilot can hit the broad side of a barn, and lets face it, AC20s should be used at near point-blank range... )

Pretty much, as others have repeated afterwards as well... that initial alpha strike is one of the most crucial component and in video games, especially for competitive match against human players, the alpha damage tend to be valued more because most players worth their salt isn't going to be standing still in open ground to let you pepper him full of bullets.

The only exception to that is if he was not aware of your presence but even in such case, you still want high alpha because the moment you open fire on him he will sooner or later realize he's under fire and scramble to get out of line of sight.

So as it turns out in most video games, it is imperative that you do as much effective damage possible within the short time frame where you have the chance to shoot him before he moves out of sight or the condition becomes unfeasible to continue engaging him.

You could make the map devoid of terrains and cover that will impair line of sight to help AC2s, but such terrain types tend to be detrimental to gameplay overall even more than pure close quarter map so no one in the right mind will make a map dominated with such terrain type design.

There's ONE way to have the AC2 output it's full damage constantly and thus make it's decent rate of fire and large ammo useful without the need to cripple the target right in wide open space... ie: by being RIGHT UP IN THEIR FACE and strafe them at close range, where it won't matter so much what terrain types and cover there are around because you'd be at such short range that you can probably maintain LOS to the target all the time.

But ironically at such short range, you will throw away one of the only real advantage AC2 had which is it's long reach and you'll eat the full brunt of other weapons which are much more effective at close range in doing damage than AC2.

[Vashts1985]

what if you stripped a 100 tonner and loaded it out the wazoo with AC/2's?

[Melcyna]

you will be a firework display that throws a flurry of tracers into the air and seen by EVERYONE as it will still take a long exposure time and burst to do any real damage to someone else.

what happens next to you is anyone's guess, but if i am to take a guess you will be swarmed by LRMs in seconds.

[Xandre Blackheart]

In almost any situation LRM 5 are a better choice than the AC/2, (except hardpoint I guess)
In most situations AC/5 is a better choice than the AC/2 except weight. (the range factor is just not worth it imho and neither is the weight)

That's why in the past they have tried to balance the "super heavy long range machine gun". It does the same amount of damage as a MG.

Are there ways to "balance" the AC/2 to make it more viable for a sim than upping the cycle time (and thus the damage)? Oh yes.

Without relying on intangibles like aim loss or signature (think silencer) or even enhanced aim (think scoped weapon) you can:

Lower the weight of the weapon.
Increase the amount of ammo per ton.
Increase the range.

Any of those three methods would then make the AC/2 less easy to dismiss out of hand versus it's 2 main contenders. Of the three the weight is probably the one that will actually get people to use it, but ultra long range or the ability to maintain a steady rate of fire for "oh my god why isn't he out of ammo yet" would also be acceptable reasons. Notice that those three options play to the weapons meager strengths, without actually changing the damage profile.

Edited by Xandre Blackheart, 06 June 2012 - 07:52 PM.

[Odanan]

Max Liao, on 03 June 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

One weapon in the BattleTech universe that severely underwhelmed, unless you were duck hunting VTOLs, was the AC/2. For years I tried to find a way to make the weapon useful - yeah, yeah, ultra/rotary autocannons, gauss rifles and all that jazz, I play 3025 era pretty much exclusively - to no avail. I like the idea of a long range plinker, but it actually has to be able to 'plink.'

With minimum range, ridiculous weight to damage ratio, and very few maps ever allowing 24 unimpeded 'hexes' I just couldn't find a way to make this weapon useful. To me an LRM 5 (or three of them) is a much better way to go - indirect fire alone makes them more useful.

In your opinion, how could MWO make the AC/2 weapon useful, or do you think that's going to be the least/never used option in the 'Mech Lab?

Easy: increase the rate of fire.

*it can be done with the AC/5 too - another bad weapon.

[Lomack]

I have to agree. The AC2 is just very underwelming. For any real use it just weighs too much compaird to other alternatives. It's only bonus is that it goes out past the range of LRMs and Gauss. From what I have read from beta impressions its hard to hit stuff that is 1) moving fast, and 2) far away. Unless there is some kind of help with the AC2 or some equipment you can add for distance sniping I don't see it getting much use either.

I don't want to get shot in the back or the head by one but I will gladly walk into an AC2 all day long than run face first into the other guys gauss.

There is some room for balance though in MWO. That balance comes in the way of reload times. Its been ages since I played MW anything on my PC so I am unsure how they handled varying rates of fire. I don't see it only being able to fire as fast as every other gun out there. We are beyond turn based. As long as (when its added) the Ultra fires twice as fast and the rotary 3x PGI can balance the AC2 anyway they see fit. Just look at other weapons from our time. Small, typically, have a faster RoF than large guns.

Edited by Lomack, 06 June 2012 - 08:23 PM.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Odanan, on 06 June 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Easy: increase the rate of fire.

*it can be done with the AC/5 too - another bad weapon.

Unfortunately upping the rate of fire changes the damage profile. Changing the damage profile is something that should be done only as a last resort. If you start changing the weapon cycles and thus their damage profiles based solely on the amount of damage per shot, then the MG becomes the weapon of choice. It also does 2 damage, though it has a shorter range and no heat. For the weight saved you can put in a bigger engine and more armor and bull yourself into range and take out an AC/20 mech with your rapid firing .5 ton MGs that you stuffed every available slot with. That's 5 tons for 10 MG's that do 20 points of damage, and 5 more tons for ammo (since by the original rules 2 mg could feed from 1 bin) with 100 shots each. The reason that isn't a normally used tactic (besides all those internal ammo bins) is because the damage is spread out.

But if you double the rate cycle of fire suddenly you're doing twice as much damage as an ac/20 (or LRM 20 for that matter) for much less weight. (given the amount of ammo needed to keep up any sustained fire with an AC/20 it could be a significant amount of weight) Sure range is a penalty as well, but you've suddenly changed the dynamics of the weapons substantially because you can AIM all of those machine guns at the same spot, lessening the impact of spread.

Doubling the rate of fire on an AC/2 would again allow you to stack 3 of them for 21 tons giving you 45 shots of what is effectively an ac 10 with a huge range advantage. A substantial weight penalty admittedly, until you consider that you have 45 shots per cannon. To get 45 shots with an ac 10 you have to add 4 or 5 more tons, which put the total weight up to 17 or 18 tons, more heat, and more amo bins.

In short, I'm against changing the Cycle rate on weapons, in favor of other methods of balance, because the damage potentials were originally based on the idea of a random hit location. The ability to manually aim at a specific part of a mech greatly exacerbates the effect of increasing the cycle rate as a method of balancing a "lackluster" or low damage weapon.

Much easier to just make the thing weigh 3 or 4 tons instead of 6, and leave the cycle rates alone.

[UncleKulikov]

Xandre Blackheart, on 06 June 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

Unfortunately upping the rate of fire changes the damage profile. Changing the damage profile is something that should be done only as a last resort. If you start changing the weapon cycles and thus their damage profiles based solely on the amount of damage per shot, then the MG becomes the weapon of choice. It also does 2 damage, though it has a shorter range and no heat. For the weight saved you can put in a bigger engine and more armor and bull yourself into range and take out an AC/20 mech with your rapid firing .5 ton MGs that you stuffed every available slot with. That's 5 tons for 10 MG's that do 20 points of damage, and 5 more tons for ammo (since by the original rules 2 mg could feed from 1 bin) with 100 shots each. The reason that isn't a normally used tactic (besides all those internal ammo bins) is because the damage is spread out.

But if you double the rate cycle of fire suddenly you're doing twice as much damage as an ac/20 (or LRM 20 for that matter) for much less weight. (given the amount of ammo needed to keep up any sustained fire with an AC/20 it could be a significant amount of weight) Sure range is a penalty as well, but you've suddenly changed the dynamics of the weapons substantially because you can AIM all of those machine guns at the same spot, lessening the impact of spread.

Doubling the rate of fire on an AC/2 would again allow you to stack 3 of them for 21 tons giving you 45 shots of what is effectively an ac 10 with a huge range advantage. A substantial weight penalty admittedly, until you consider that you have 45 shots per cannon. To get 45 shots with an ac 10 you have to add 4 or 5 more tons, which put the total weight up to 17 or 18 tons, more heat, and more amo bins.

In short, I'm against changing the Cycle rate on weapons, in favor of other methods of balance, because the damage potentials were originally based on the idea of a random hit location. The ability to manually aim at a specific part of a mech greatly exacerbates the effect of increasing the cycle rate as a method of balancing a "lackluster" or low damage weapon.

Much easier to just make the thing weigh 3 or 4 tons instead of 6, and leave the cycle rates alone.

No, up the rate of fire. Leave the damage per second the same. it spreads the same damage over more projectiles, which makes it easier to hit with since the rate of fire is higher.

[Xandre Blackheart]

UncleKulikov, on 06 June 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

No, up the rate of fire. Leave the damage per second the same. it spreads the same damage over more projectiles, which makes it easier to hit with since the rate of fire is higher.

Basically increasing the accuracy. It still sounds sort of iffy. At that point ammo becomes the concern, unless you're also going to tie the ammo usage to the DPS. Which might balance it out but just sounds weird.

And it still doesn't significantly improve the desirability of the weapon very much. Accuracy is one of those intangibles that varies with player skill, lag etc etc etc. More chances to land a hit sounds ok till you compare it with lockon or even partial lockon from an LRM5. At that point I'm still going to pick an AC/5 or an LRM 5 over an AC/2 because the AC/5 will likely be benefiting from the same mechanics, and the LRM 5 will have superior mechanics for a significant weight reduction.

[Watchit]

Vashts1985, on 06 June 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

what if you stripped a 100 tonner and loaded it out the wazoo with AC/2's?

The Annihilator ANH-3A

[AlphaKale]

Melcyna, on 06 June 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

There's ONE way to have the AC2 output it's full damage constantly and thus make it's decent rate of fire and large ammo useful without the need to cripple the target right in wide open space... ie: by being RIGHT UP IN THEIR FACE and strafe them at close range, where it won't matter so much what terrain types and cover there are around because you'd be at such short range that you can probably maintain LOS to the target all the time.

But ironically at such short range, you will throw away one of the only real advantage AC2 had which is it's long reach and you'll eat the full brunt of other weapons which are much more effective at close range in doing damage than AC2.

At this point you would be way better off with a couple MGs over an AC2. I get the feeling the AC2 is only going to be handy for long-range harassment purposes with maps that have open sections. This will make it very much a niche weapons and not something most people will regularly mount on their mechs.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

All the videos that we have seen so far show mechs getting up close and personal. We don't know how easy it is going to be to have open sight lines at long range, especially as there is no zoom. Perhaps the only thing that may work is perhaps to give it a high "knock" to unsettle peoples aim.

[Hikaru]

Risk versus Reward.

AC/2 has the longest range -> least risk -> least reward.

Purpose? Plenty. Softening up brawlers for your team, finishing off runners, cover fire, threatening campers/snipers, etc.

[Joseph Mallan]

Funny story. I have had the most ammo hits and multiple engine crits using the humble AC2. One Blackjack Blew up a Battlemaster & IIRC and Atlas. With long range AC2 shots.

Last game I had an AC2 in, I shot a Firebee with a single AC2 round (UNDAMAGED otherwise) and got that golden bee bee! 2 points of armor damage and a double engine crit. Now the poor thing generated excess heat just walking!

Laugh if you will but the AC2 has a place in my arsenal any day.

[Future Perfect]

If AC/2 is so crappy then why not remove it from MWO?

[Davoke]

The AC/2 has a fast fire rate, i know for sure in MW4 that the Ultra2 fired a pair of shots every .7 seconds or so. The standard would be like a huge MG. The AC/2 is a HUGE MG WITH LONG RANGE. It may have less ammo, and a longer cycle, but it packs a better punch and much longer range.

[CarlBar]

There are several issues here.

I think i hae to agree with somone else that i'd like a weight drop, 7 tons for the damage it does is pretty horribad unless it has a really high RoF compared to even the AC-5.

I also think those of you worried that a higher RoF impinges on the AC-5 need to take of your TT blinkers. Tis is not TT. It's a ealtime enviroment played via the medium of your moniter, that means that to aim accurrattlly your not going to be able to look where your going, that is going to severly limit your ability to run away and fire at the same time. Now i'm not up on BT, TT rules, but most games systems do let you run away and fire on your enemy at the same time, and some of the conversation has me beliving thats the case with BT TT.

This is all furthar compounded by the fact that you and your opponnent are moving and firing at the same time. At strict TT range convershions a 30KPH mech with an AC-5 will eat up the range differance in 18 seconds, assuming 1 round per second for both he'll make up the damage differance in another 12 seconds. After 45 seconds of shooting you'll have done 90 damage whilst he will have done 135. Assuming neithier of you has been able to perfectly nail every single shot into one section, your average mediums are going to be very much on their feet at this point, but the AC-2 user is going to be in rough shape. And thats with an enemy mech with 30KPH top speed. Now imaging thats a 60KPH medium, or worse a 90+KPH Light. Your time just drops from 18 to 12 and 6 seconds respectivlly.

Quite simply put a huge veriaty of factors mean that in a real time enviroment range is NOT as big an advantage as it is in TT unless it comes with sufficent damage to burn somone down in the time it takes them to close, (what happened with MW4 and caused, (along with other factors), poptarting).

Another factor in both MW4's poptarting and the balance equation is that it's going to be rather easy for a Gauss/PPC user to duck into cover between volloys, an AC-2 user isn't going to be able to, (nor an Ac-5 probably), thats a big disadvantage.

Bassiclly the DPS differance between the AC types may not be that large, just because the range differance may not be so advantagous in this enviroment. The amount of open terrain will be a big decider, and currentlly it's not looking like there's lots of it.


One obvious build however is a hunchback with ferro, endo, AC-20 + 3 ammo, AC2 + 1 ammo, + CASE for ammo bin. Space tight, but gets 9.5 tons of armour fitted. It cna plink at you from range but has the speed and close rnage punch to make anyone trying to make a quick meal of it wish they hadn't bothered. But it's more about an indirect ambush with the AC-20 than it is a true AC-2 user.