112 replies to this topic

[Steel Claws]

Escef, on 08 April 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

The real weakness of the AC5 is that right now the meta is in hit&run/pop-tart/peek-a-boo mode. Which does favor high alpha builds over DPS builds.

This isn't a passing fad - it's here to stay. That has been the way of EVERY MW game ever created so far. Even for "sand blasting" armor, the AC 2 and UAC 5 are better because of recycle, You just can't stand exposed that long to use them that way.

[80Bit]

OP speaks the truth.

The AC10 at least has a niche in that it can fit places an AC20 can't, but range or not range, it is still inferior is almost all cases.

AC5 is flat out inferior. "But it has great damage/heat!" Wow no kidding, you don't generate much heat when you don't fire fast enough. The very low heat of the AC5 is a byproduct of its incorrectly low rate of fire, not a feature.


"But I kill people with AC5s/Ac10s all day long, learn to play!"
Yeah and I can make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich using chopsticks, that doesn't mean a butter knife isn't better for the job.

[Corvus Antaka]

the ac 10 would be a lot more viable if the ac20 didnt have such ridiculously long range.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

I'm honestly amazed at this point how people are willing to actually defend terrible weapons as though they were not terrible.

I think it's more amazing how you expected anything less of the Mechwarrior community...

[jeffsw6]

80Bit, on 08 April 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

AC5 is flat out inferior. "But it has great damage/heat!" Wow no kidding, you don't generate much heat when you don't fire fast enough. The very low heat of the AC5 is a byproduct of its incorrectly low rate of fire, not a feature.

If you say a thing enough times, it will become true!

Oh, no, that's not really how the world works...

Here are the highest dmg/heat weapons in the game:
Gauss Rifle 15 dmg/H 15 tons 7 slots, ammo potential 150/ton, range 0-660-1980
AC5 5 dmg/H 8 tons 4 slots, ammo potential 150/ton, range 0-540-1620,
UAC5 5 dmg/H 9 tons 5 slots, ammo potential 125/ton, range 0-600-1800
LB 10-X 5 dmg/H 11 tons 6 slots, ammo potential 150/ton, range ... lolskates?
AC/20 and AC/10 follow at 3.33 dmg/H, and then you have plenty of other weapon choices beneath those.

Not every weapon should be exactly the same. You seem to think they should be, because you simply say its fire rate is too slow with no justification for that statement. Get a UAC5 then, and deal with the jam (hopefully they will remove the bug that causes it to jam too often.) Don't want a UAC5? Get an AC2 and deal with its heat -- it's only using up 1 critical slot, so you can probably fit some DHS.

Just because you say a thing as if it were a fact does not make it true.

[Josef Nader]

Tonnage and crits won't change. RoF needs a change. The AC10 is so close to useful it hurts, but it just plain falls short. If you can fit an AC20, there's never a reason to pack an AC10. The extra range just doesn't make that much of a difference.

The AC5 is just terrible. It really needs some serious help, probably as an RoF buff. If it matched the UAC for RoF with the UAC's benefit being the double-tapping, we'd be on to something. As it is, it's just bloody useless.

[Roland]

Thontor, on 08 April 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

I'm honestly amazed at this point how many people are willing to actually defend their low opinion of a weapon as if it were a fact, as if theirs was the only opinion that matters.

That's the thing man, it's not just an opinion though.
You can quite objectively analyze the weapon, and see that it's flat out inferior. It just does not measure up to the top tier weapons in the game.

Honestly, when you see a dual AC10, medium laser K2... are you afraid of that build? I'm not... Like I said, I've seen a surprisingly large number of folks run that build, and it's never been a significant threat to me.

Quote

Not every weapon should be exactly the same. You seem to think they should be, because you simply say its fire rate is too slow with no justification for that statement. Get a UAC5 then, and deal with the jam (hopefully they will remove the bug that causes it to jam too often.) Don't want a UAC5? Get an AC2 and deal with its heat -- it's only using up 1 critical slot, so you can probably fit some DHS.

Here's where the disconnect is, I think.

The folks who are arguing in favor of improving the AC10 and AC5 are not saying that they should be made identical to other weapons. We all agree that there should be differences. If we didn't, then no one would care if they remained trash.. we'd just continue to not use them.

But a BETTER solution would be to buff those weapons such that their advantages actually counter weighed their current disadvantages. So that things like their increased ROF compared to the AC20 would actually be large enough such that their DOT outweighed the advantage of being able to put 20 points in a single location every time.

The whole REASON why people are arguing to buff those weapons is so that we can have increased weapons variety.

[Josef Nader]

OMG NOT EVERY WEAPON SHOULD BE THE SAME is a strawman. We don't want every weapon to be the same. We want every weapon to be viable. There should be a reason to use every piece of kit in the game, or it shouldn't be in the game. Plain and simple. Every weapon should be different and unique, but there shouldn't be any weapons that are strictly "better" or "worse". This argument came up a lot before the gauss got nerfed. The gauss was a thousand times better than every other ballistic in the game, and I was considered moronic for packing an AC20 when I could have unlimited range, zero heat, and nearly as much damage. Then the gauss got nerfed. Did it kill the gauss? Is everything bland and the same now? No. There are reasons to use ballistics that aren't the gauss, and players are presented with interesting choices when setting up their mech.

That is what balancing is all about

[armyof1]

I think we need to consider what you can do with the extra slots and weight when for example you take two AC10 instead of two AC20 on a Jager. The weight and slots you save can get you more ammo or other weapons, like the always trustworthy medium lasers. I mean when we start looking at 2xAC20 vs 2xAC10+4ML which will even save you 2 slots, the advantage of AC20 isn't so clear-cut anymore. Or if you use 2xAC5, you got the weight over for dual PPC. It really depends on free slots and weight of your build and what hardpoints you can use. I do think AC10 and AC5 could use a small fire-rate buff of 0.2 seconds or so. But they're not worthless as they are now, just a bit under-powered.

Edited by armyof1, 08 April 2013 - 08:35 AM.

[Escef]

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

I'm honestly amazed at this point how people are willing to actually defend terrible weapons as though they were not terrible.

What amazes me is how you can't stop blowing your own horn. If you had some real analysis to back up your points and stopped with the "I'm better than everyone, this is what pros do, and I'm better than everyone" BS you wouldn't be received so poorly.

Steel Claws, on 08 April 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

This isn't a passing fad - it's here to stay.

For good or for ill, you are probably right. Still, I think the AC5 is right around where it should be. It isn't bad, it has a niche, it's just a fairly narrow one. For contrast, it's even worse in TT than it is in MWO. Some weapons just aren't good. Period. Just like real life, y'know?

And I do think the AC10 needs a slight RoF buff. Not a big one. Hell, I finally found a load out for my CN9-D that I don't hate. Packin' an AC10, of all things.

[Roland]

Quote

What amazes me is how you can't stop blowing your own horn. If you had some real analysis to back up your points and stopped with the "I'm better than everyone, this is what pros do, and I'm better than everyone" BS you wouldn't be received so poorly.

Dude, nothing I've said even remotely translates into "I'm better than everyone". Honestly, the only people here whose statements here could possibly translate into that are the folks who are saying that weapons like the AC10 are fine... Because THOSE are the folks suggesting that somehow AC10's are perfectly viable, and that folks who disagree are simply "doing it wrong".

Quote

Why wouldn't I fear that mech? It can fire the equivalent of an AC/20 every 2.5 seconds... Doing full damage out to 1.67x the range of an AC/20... In addition to the 4 medium laser damage.

Ok, so you're saying "That's a longer range AC20". That's a fair suggestion.... But here's why it's not a real threat.

Let's compare that build to a K2 which is running 2 ERPPC's and a Gauss.

We can look at JUST the two PPC's, and see that you also get the equivalent of an AC20... but the range is FAR better. And it's not dependent on ammo.. and it weighs less than HALF the tonnage.

So, by replacing those AC10's with PPC's, I'm able to free up a ton of extra stuff on the mech, which lets me load up a gauss.. Which then translates into a mech capable of one-shotting mechs through their heads from long range.

That's the thing... simply doing damage isn't what makes a weapon viable. It's that it compares to other weapons in a favorable way.

Generally, there is no build where I'd rather bring AC10's than PPC's, and pretty much every mech that can pack an AC10 can pack a PPC, since basically everything has energy hardpoints.

And now folks will say, "But the heat! THE HEAT!!!" and my answer will be that the 10 Double Heat Sinks that are standard on pretty much every mech configuration will make it such that the heat advantage of the AC10 becomes a non-issue. Generally, the AC10 is gonna result in configurations which are TOO heat efficient.. in that you won't be fully leveraging your internal heat sinks.

Again, so that folks like Escef don't think I'm just trying to berate folks for using such weapons.. I'm not saying any of this stuff in order to be elitist. I'm saying it because the game will benefit from having more weapons which are truly competitive.

[Escef]

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Dude, nothing I've said even remotely translates into "I'm better than everyone".

Have you actually read your own posts? In the one I took that quote from you could not stop talking about how great you are.

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Again, so that folks like Escef don't think I'm just trying to berate folks for using such weapons.. I'm not saying any of this stuff in order to be elitist.

The problem is that your intention is arbitrary, you come off like a blowhard. Maybe it is just that the text based medium leaves out a lot of inflection and nuance that you use in the spoken word that would soften the way you come across? I don't know. Perhaps you should let someone on your side of things present the facts and figures? Because a lot of the way you have come across is so off-putting that even those inclined to agree with you won't want to associate with you.

[DeathofSelf]

I don't have a problem with AC/5s or AC/10s, even the LBX I can use effectively (although I do think that one needs a little adjustment). Just because YOU can't use it effectively doesn't mean it sucks.

[General Taskeen]

My opinion is that all Autocannons (regular and ultra's) are 100x better developed, balanced, and featured in MW:LL.

Edited by General Taskeen, 08 April 2013 - 08:56 AM.

[Hedonism Robot]

The AC5 just lags behind other weapons too much on DPS. There really is nothing this weapon is good for since it sucks at long range and short. If a mech exposes itself for a short window with a UAC you can at least unload on them. The AC 5 simply pokes for meager damage then when the fighting moves in close it shells out less dps than 2 small lasers.

How would I fix it? I would switch the range of the UAC with the AC5 and drop the AC5's weight by a ton. I would then reduce its cooldown to boost its dps.

[Josef Nader]

You can't mess with tonnage or crits, because then you ruin stock mechs that run an AC5. The stock dragon would be one ton short, for example. You can change a lot of values, but the weight and crit space has already been laid out for us. One of the downsides of using existing material.

[3rdworld]

Escef, on 08 April 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Perhaps you should let someone on your side of things present the facts and figures

What do you want to see?

For the AC/5
Less DPS than a UAC
Less DPS than a Gauss
Less DPS than a AC/20

The UAC has the same CD even taking jams into consideration, and fires much faster if you only trigger it on CD. Has a huge burst potential compared to the AC, and longer range.

Advantages of the AC/5
1 ton
1 crit
5 ammo/ton

Those do not offset the advantages of the UAC.

AC/10
Less DMG than a gauss or AC/20
Less DPS than a UAC or AC/20
Less range than a UAC or Gauss
Larger than a UAC
UAC capable of double the dps in spurts.

The UAC compared to the AC/10 is a interesting comparison. The UAC has a 1.725 CD if double tapped and jamming. (1.1+(5*(.25*.5)), but if you are lucky does double the dps of the AC/10. Firing it on CD produces more DPS than a AC/10. The AC/10 does slighly more dps than a gauss (.25), but does much less dmg/shot and has less range. The 2 weapons are the same size but the gauss weighs 3 tons more. The AC/10 is 3 times as hot as the Gauss which combined with a higher RoF makes it the noticeably hotter weapon. Lacks the burst capabilities of the UAC.

Pros for the AC/10
Slightly more DPS than a Gauss
3 tons lighter than a Gauss
More damage/ton of ammo than a UAC

Conclusion for the AC/10, if you are looking for DPS the UAC is better, if you are looking for damage the gauss is better. For a well rounded weapon the UAC is also better as firing on 1.1 gives more dps than the AC/10 and has larger range with an insane burst capability.

Edited by 3rdworld, 08 April 2013 - 09:26 AM.

[TehSBGX]

So the AC 10 and 5 are worthless? Then what about the LBX?

[Escef]

The critics of the AC5 are very much stuck on comparing it singly to other weapons. What you should be doing is comparing it in doubles to the AC20 and Gauss.

Twin AC5 & adequate ammo is 19 tons, 11 crits, 2 heat, 10 damage, 5.84 DPS, range 540m
Gauss & adequate ammo is 18 tons, 10 crits, 1 heat, 15 damage, 3.75 DPS, range 660m
AC20 & adequate ammo is 17 tons, 13 crits, 6 heat, 20 damage, 5 DPS, range 270m

Suddenly the AC5 is looking a LOT more competitive. For comparable mass and crits you get good range and surprisingly high DPS. Yes, it still fails in the Alpha Strike department. The weapon's niche is medium to long range support, DPSing, and only in pairs. Never mount just one, it's a waste.

As for comparing the AC5 to the UAC5, of course the AC5 is inferior. The UAC5 was meant to be superior to the AC5 ever since it was first introduced in 1989.

As for the AC10, I'm just going on a gut evaluation for it, I haven't run any numbers yet.

Edited by Escef, 08 April 2013 - 09:36 AM.

[armyof1]

Hedonism Robot, on 08 April 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

The AC 5 simply pokes for meager damage then when the fighting moves in close it shells out less dps than 2 small lasers.

No that is not right, small laser has 1 DPS, AC5 has 2.94, so it takes almost 3 small lasers for one AC5 to be equal in DPS.