112 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

Steel Claws, on 08 April 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

Ummmmm how can it be poor dps and yet good damage? You do 5 points of damage - that's the same as - 1 medium laser. Think about that.

And think about this as well.

Quote

- ML - longRange="270" maxRange="540"

versus

Quote

- AC5 - longRange="540" maxRange="1620"

So with 3 AC5's, the enemy can start shooting you at roughly 1200m and continue to until you reach 500m.

That is a long 700m run in. Best hope they don't see you coming. LOL

Edited by MaddMaxx, 08 April 2013 - 01:53 PM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Side Step, on 08 April 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

AC/10 and AC/5 are fine.

Only noobs choose AC/10 and AC/5 while skilled players choose other weapons. All weapons are fine, because you can also pick the same weapons. The skill is in recognizing which weapons are good and which aren't. When you figure this out, you will also become a master.

This is called a learning curve.

You make no sense. "Only noobs" use an AC10 and AC5, and that makes them fine? Are you serious?

[Side Step]

Tickdoff Tank, on 08 April 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

You make no sense. "Only noobs" use an AC10 and AC5, and that makes them fine? Are you serious?

I am not [serious]. This is what some people sound like to me when they say the weapons are fine because they see other people use them.

Edited by Side Step, 09 April 2013 - 07:52 AM.

[Escef]

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Well, I would tend to believe that the AC5, given that it does only 30% of the damage of the Gauss per shot really should require more than equivalent damage to the gauss. Regardless, given that we are roughly in agreement here, and the source of disagreement stemmed primarilly from my mistake, there is little need to pursue this further.

Not really, though, as a miss with an AC5 represents a lot smaller loss of potential firepower. Even missing with twin AC5 only represents 2/3rds of a miss with a Gauss. But so long as we agree that the ammo counts are more or less on target, it's fine.

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

I also would point out that there are certain posters who while arguing that certain weapons I consider trash are in fact effective, are simultaneously arguing in other threads that certain other builds are somehow unfair, because they are using other weapons like PPC's and AC20.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Now, let us get off this topic, before I start turning into my mother.

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Yes, but as I pointed out, the point where you are limted by heat is often pretty far down the line, especially since the introduction of DHS, and the heat reduction of PPC's.

DHS and the heat reduction to PPCs does help. A LOT... However, PPCs boats can, will, and do still overheat to shutdown. I see this most often with people that aren't used to them or who are getting sloppy under pressure. It still takes a disciplined hand to resist the urge to fire faster than the sinks can handle, and experience to know when it's worth doing anyway and when not.

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Yes, which is why I didn't say that literally every single mech could mount a ppc,.. just that VIRTUALLY every mech could. Those three variants of the centurion are the exception... although I'd also point out that they are also not good contenders for running AC5's or 10's. They tend to run better as zombie mechs, with medium lasers and SRM's... For the wang, the largest reason to run it at all is to leverage the removal of the lower arm actuator so that you can run an AC20. (The AH used to also be able to do this, but then they killed that variant when the wang came out, because it was basically just BETTER than the wang)

The CN9 series is largely another discussion. I've found ballistics are fine on the CN9s. I run a Gauss on my A and recently settled into an AC10/2ML/2SRM4 build on my D. I still prefer the L (2LL/2ML), but having finally found a load out on the D that I like has resulted in me using it a lot as of late. (I also don't run my Cents as fast as many other folk do, I use a 250 engine on the A and L, and kept the stock 300 XL in the D.) So far the only Hero mech that's tempted me is the Highlander, but I don't like the idea of paying so much real-world currency for it. So I haven't tried my hand at a YLW, and doubt I will anytime soon.

I've tried different combinations of lighter ACs on my CN9-D, and didn't want to bother with a Gauss because it would feel too much like my CN9-A. The 10 just ended up being the right balance of firepower and tonnage for me. I zip around in that thing and harass. Just fast enough to get in and out, just enough firepower to get attention without holding it. Earlier today I managed to completely circle behind opfor on Caustic and Alpha'd a phract in the back before anyone even knew I was there. I think they had voice comms, though. The whole damn group of them turned almost at once on me. Took them much longer than it should have to take me down. Didn't win, but it was more fun than it had any right to be.

[hercules1981]

I agree with a .2 rate of fire decrease for the ac10 but if the ac5 gets a rof increase too we need to c the ultra jam rate decreased.



I

Edited by hercules1981, 08 April 2013 - 03:15 PM.

[Escef]

NVM

Edited by Escef, 08 April 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

jeffsw6, on 08 April 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

The effort you've put into that chart is commendable, but your conclusions are simplistic. For example, you say The Ultra AC/5 in single shot mode is never worse than the AC/20 for the listed engagement times, which is bad considering the vastly superior range of the Ultra AC/5 but you don't account for the AC20 dealing all its damage to one section or its slower rate of fire giving you a chance to do more damage in short intervals, potentially torso-twisting (or pop-tarting, whatever) between shots to mitigate incoming fire.

Those are excellent points to bring up. The question is - do the advantages you bring up justify the reduced efficiency fully?

Quote

Also the UAC5 jams so often you are lucky if it is firing 2/3rd of the time. Go ahead and reduce its DPS by 30%. I will admit I made up the numbers here, but UAC5 users all know, it jams a ******* lot more than it's supposed to -- the thing doesn't double-fire nearly as much as it jams, and that is not how it is described.

I haven't tried the UAC/5 in a while, but as far as I know, it is possibe to fire it without it jamming. It is tricky and might require mouse-macros, which is a serious problem in my eyes - it should be available without tricked-out drivers that not everyone has.

I think the UAC/5 is all wrong anyway. Either it should simply have twice the ROF as the AC/5 (with the added jam chance), or it should have the same ROF as the AC/5 and a double shot mode (that can jam). It has a mix of both. I would probably prefer the latter, since it gives people the option to choose between double shots with jam risk and single shotting. If you only ever use it in single shot mode, the UAC/5 would obviously be inferior to the AC/5 (1 ton and 1 crit is not worth the increased range), but if you use the single shot mode at long range and the double shot at close range, you would probably have a lot of useful versatility.

[Slanski]

Most issues with the AC10 relate to map design. The AC10 is a medium range and not a sniping weapon. Simply put the effective firing distance of the AC10 is unusable due to cover. In MWO Battles take place at LRM and sniping distance or brawling, rarely in between, so you either use Gauss and ER PPC or AC20.

Get in and out of cover favors the high alpha AC20 as well. A lot of the real power of a weapon in combat has to do with the actual flow of the engagements. A mere excel comparison of weight, DPS and HPS cannot tell the whole story. In general higher alpha is hugely favored in this game, because of the many urban combat style shoot and scoot or shock contact engagements.

On Turmaline Desert, Alpine and Caustic higher range weaponry gets into play much more proportionally than on the more cluttered maps.

[AceTimberwolf]

My Triple AC5 Jager would like to beg to differ

[Warma]

El Bandito, on 08 April 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

Besides, not every weapon has to be competitively viable. Just like not every mech variant has to be competitively viable.

Actually they do have to be competitively viable. A weapon that is unviable is unbalanced and not needed in the game.
AC10 needs a reload of 2.25 sec for 5 DPS and AC5 needs a reload of 1.25 sec. for 4 DPS. AC2 probably needs a DPS of around 4-5, but it's there already, isn't it?.

UAC5 can keep its reload of 1.1 to be a slightly better (if riskier), but AC5 would still be an excellent light ranged weapon. You would pay tonnage for the bigger alpha, which is important in this game, but the DPS of all AC weapons would be similar.

[OneEyed Jack]

This thread is stupid.

AC5 is old and out of date. Fine. Does the military spend money on trying to find ways to keep the black powder cannon viable on the modern battlefield? No, they stopped worrying about them the moment they had something better. Arguing that the worn out old crap has to have advantages to be competitive with the shiny new tech is just stupid.

Why? Why must it be competitive? Because it shouldn't be in the game if it's not? It's a freakin IP! Whether you can wrap your tiny minds around it or not, this is a system with a background and a storyline. If they were going to toss the whole IP out the window, they might as well have saved a whole crap-ton of money and not called it Mechwarrior. And the storyline says that there's AC5's. It also says they're the old tech, not that they're "just as good, but in a different way, hurr durr." And there's even in-game reasons to keep them around, in that some builds don't have the tonnage/crits to load UAC5's.

And, whether you can figure out how to make good use of them or not, AC10's are actually quite good weapons. They don't have the alpha of a Gauss or 20, but the much higher cycle rate makes them much more forgiving than that or a Gauss. They have much longer range than a 20 and better DPS than a Gauss, while keeping a decent alpha, which the UAC isn't good for. And while they do higher heat than a Gauss, it's still much lower than a 20. And "only 2 tons less than a AC20" is a lot on many mechs, the 3 less crits even more so.

Not being the first choice on every build doesn't mean it's not the perfect choice on some builds.

[Urfin]

Both AC10 and AC5 feel like crap to shoot, inconsistent and weak (yes, I hit, proper range, etc.).

I would really like to have some bloody high-tech sci-fi automatic cannons, not hand-cranked snail gatling crap.

Another problem with ballistics is that there's an AC15 that's like sprinkled all over with magic techno-fairy dust, and it's called gauss. It's just better, and even 3hp don't fix how bad the rest are compared to it. It was not so in BT or in previous mech games.