52 replies to this topic

[Jonathan Paine]

The AC5 vs AC20 comparison is interesting in that the AC5s do more damage over time, and more damage at greater range. This makes the AC5 a good sniping weapon, that can still hold up at point blank. Both systems are viable.

Comparing the AC5 to the UAC5 is much crueler. A disciplined (or macroed) pilot has a higher rate of fire & greater range with the UAC5s, at a very little cost in tonnage and crits. Even the slight ammo nerf for the UAC5 does not close the gap. Had the AC5 been able to out range the UAC5s (perhaps the rapid dual fire mechanism impacts range?), the AC5 would still be a decent weapon - even with a slower rate of fire.

Here is a link to a somewhat crazed post I made under suggestions on how to further balance ballistic weapons.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1783166

Edited by Jonathan Paine, 11 April 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[Veebora]

I am not saying it is better but...

The most interesting and successfully loadout I've played with this Mech was 4 AC2's.

It is a killer sniper and have also a very interesting way to play as you shot for long times.

[Yokaiko]

RainbowToh, on 11 April 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

Where did you get the figures for the range damage drops?

The mechanic is:
Range = optimal
Falloff =end of optimal+optimal 50%
Max range = optimal x3 0 damage falling off linearly.

Energy weapons are difference optimal+optimal=0 damage.

Edited by Yokaiko, 11 April 2013 - 09:48 AM.

[Xtrekker]

IMO the best use of AC5/UAC5s was to keep an enemy knocked around while a teammate takes them down. So, support role for assisting assaults. For me, group 1 is chain for infighting, group 2 is alpha at range.

[MaddMaxx]

Roland, on 11 April 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

DPS isn't really a useful metric in Mechwarrior anyway, since it's all about precision damage, not just spraying damage at an enemy.

Thus the reason many do not like the LBX which in effect has a shot gun based spread. Spread is bad. But if you do find a hole, the LBX has many more crit attempts per shot. A matter of taste and opportunity I guess.

[Yokaiko]

MaddMaxx, on 11 April 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

A matter of waste and opportunity I guess.

FTFY

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Roland, on 11 April 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

DPS isn't really a useful metric in Mechwarrior anyway, since it's all about precision damage, not just spraying damage at an enemy.

Why do you do this to yourself?

[Roland]

MaddMaxx, on 11 April 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Thus the reason many do not like the LBX which in effect has a shot gun based spread. Spread is bad. But if you do find a hole, the LBX has many more crit attempts per shot. A matter of taste and opportunity I guess.

Dude, crit attempts do not mean crap.

Quote

Why do you do this to yourself?

lol
THE BLIND SHALL ONE DAY SEE

[Tickdoff Tank]

Khobai, on 11 April 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

AC/5s are bad because they fire way too slow.

AC/2 = 4 dps
AC/5 = 2.9 dps
AC/10 = 4 dps
AC/20 = 5 dps

The AC/5 cooldown should be 1.25 instead of 1.7 to give it dps consistent with other autocannons.

The UAC5 and AC5 should have the same ROF. The UAC5 has the double tap feature, it does not need an additional ROF increase as well. I think 1.4 for both AC5s will be fine, but 1.25 would not be unwelcome.

Edited by Tickdoff Tank, 11 April 2013 - 10:18 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Roland, on 11 April 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Dude, crit attempts do not mean crap.

lol
THE BLIND SHALL ONE DAY SEE

True enough, not until you actually get one, say the final on an Engine, I suppose.


And until then, the rest of us will have to lead your sorry butt around.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 11 April 2013 - 10:22 AM.

[Sadistic Savior]

Rashhaverak, on 11 April 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

In these discussions I question the logic of thinking that the AC/20 and four AC/5's should somehow be equivalent. That for some reason the damage output or weight or usefulness of weapons should be equal.

They do need to be equal, or you will end up with flavor of the month builds. And the game will become more boring because of it.

They do not need to do equal damage, but they need to be balanced in other ways. Even less obvious ways like EMP effects for the PPCs, or blinding smoke and annoying kinetic rocking from some ACs. There needs to be advantages of some kind over other weapons, or else everyone will just flock to the "good" ones just to compete.

[SirLANsalot]

why are we even talking about heat like its an issue for AC's? For heavens sake IT IS NOT, the only AC that has any heat issues is the AC2 because of the still somewhat broken heat mechanics that cannot handle a .5 sec firing weapon. So now that we have that out of the way.

CTF-4X

4x AC5 and 2x ML 8 tons of ammo.

This mechs DPS with just the AC5's is 9.7 DPS, thats a pretty staggering number and a boatload of damage in a hurry.


JM6-S

2x AC20 2x ML 5 Tonns of ammo

With just the dual 20's the DPS is only 6.9, not much of a loss, but the dual 20 Jager is a mech made to be an alpha mech, not DPS.


If the two mechs come across each other who wins really depends on the pilots, as you can't really math hammer it out. A few well placed 20 shots will end the cata, but if the cata gets 3 well placed shots on a torso of the jager, the cata wins.




Whoever said compare with the gauss.....please that gun isn't even a contender its so bad. Its only usefulness is when you can't place an AC20 on the mech but you still want a high alpha punch on that arm. Even then the AC10 still beats it because of the better RoF and DPS, it just means you need to be a better shot (pilot skill).

[Roland]

MaddMaxx, on 11 April 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

True enough, not until you actually get one, say the final on an Engine, I suppose.

Heh, do you think you are getting a lot of engine crits in MWO?

[OneEyed Jack]

Roland, on 11 April 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

DPS isn't really a useful metric in Mechwarrior anyway, since it's all about precision damage, not just spraying damage at an enemy.

DV McKenna, on 11 April 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

Why do you do this to yourself?

Roland is partially right.

DPS between comparable weapons is a useful metric, but that's about it.

There's a reason the 6xAC2 Jager (or the slightly more reasonable 5xAC2) hasn't taken over the game. You're really not going to match the DPS, but the unfocused nature of the damage means they don't really do much more than annoy any target experienced enough to overcome the psychological effect they bring.

[Victor Morson]

Tripple UAC5 > Quad AC5.

[DamnCatte]

Personally, I love the 4x AC/5s, and I was using them back on my cataphrat before I got my "doesntfirefromthecrotchlevel" Jagermech. It's twice the range, twice the firing rate of an AC/20. You may not do as much instant damage as dual AC/20s, but I can hit them hard at greater range, and if I feel like making them freak out, use them in a continuous chain fire mode that is a continual firehose of pain.

Also, if your AC/20 breaks, you're in dire straights. With 4 guns, you've got a bit more durability in your firepower.

[aniviron]

Overall a good analysis. I support increasing the ammo/ton, as this effectively shaves tonnage from the weapon. What the small autocannons really need is a slight reduction in weight, both because anything 50 tons or less has almost no options for ballistics, and because they stack together rather poorly. Unfortunately, they will not reduce the weight because of how disruptive it would be on stock mech loadouts; so instead, tweaks like increasing ammo per ton would go a long way towards making the small ballistics viable.

Grayseven, on 11 April 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

Range, for me, seemed to be a big advantage of the AC/5's. The AC/5 has twice the range of an AC/20...unfortunately I can not find hard numbers as to how ballistic damage drops off at range so I can not be absolutely certain as to whether or not the AC/5 has a damage advantage over the AC/20 at ranges beyond the "optimal" or long range of the weapon. At 800 meters against the CT of a Catapult, the dual AC/20's didn't seem to do a lot of damage, 3 salvos only turning the armor yellow but not taking the damage percentage below 99%. At 540 meters, the salvos were doing 3% per and at 270 they pulled off 6%. Simple extrapolation of data would mean the AC/5 would do similar damage percentages at 1600m, 1080m and 540m (That is, full damage up to long, half damage up to twice long and minimal damage at "extreme" ranges).

You are correct- damage falls off linearly, from 100% at the listed range to 0% at the maximum range- the AC20 does 20 at 270, 10 at 510, and .1 810.

[Grayseven]

Heat can quickly become an issue on dual AC/20 mechs, especially in Tourmaline or Caustic. Especially considering you are only running with the 10 DHS from the engine.

Quite often I have to stop using the ML's or AC's (depending on what it is I'm shooting at). For me, the Dual AC/20's strip the armor and the ML's finish the job because I'd rather not waste AC/20 shots on a stripped CT considering I've only got 49.

The heat efficiency of a Dual AC/20, Dual ML build with DHS is 1.32...which means you can fire with impunity for a little while, but eventually you will over heat. After 6 consecutive shots I reached 66% heat in a Forest Colony normal (about 26C). Add in the ML's and you'll quickly hear Betty scream.

I've pushed heat in a number of AC builds including my quad AC/5 Cata 4X and my Tri-UAC/5 Jager and it's always the worst possible time (i.e. a target rich environment where both sides are clashing in earnest).

The problem comes from the simple fact that with ballistics taking up so much room and weight most builds simply can't pack enough additional DHS to significantly reduce heat build up over time.

Edited by Grayseven, 11 April 2013 - 01:47 PM.

[Rashhaverak]

Sadistic Savior, on 11 April 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

They do need to be equal, or you will end up with flavor of the month builds. And the game will become more boring because of it.

They do not need to do equal damage, but they need to be balanced in other ways. Even less obvious ways like EMP effects for the PPCs, or blinding smoke and annoying kinetic rocking from some ACs. There needs to be advantages of some kind over other weapons, or else everyone will just flock to the "good" ones just to compete.

They do not need to be equal. What they need to have are varying strengths and weaknesses that make them desirable for some reasons, and undesirable for others. Some will think that a weapon is best, others will not. The thought that they need to have balance in their advantages and disadvantages has merit, but that doesn't mean that they are equal to each other. For example, one AC/20 and four AC/5's should not necessarily have the same total damage potential for the same weight.

[Escef]

I will say that the initial comparison is flawed because it's being done on a frame that cannot support adequate ammo.

But, let's put the size of the mech aside (because when you limit the load out like that you aren't comparing the weapons themselves, but comparing a load outs for a specific machine).

2 AC20s:

34 tons (2* 14 ton cannons, 6 tons ammo), 26 crits, 40 damage, 12 heat, 10 DPS, 270m range

4 AC5s:

38 tons (4* 8 ton cannons, 6 tons ammo), 22 crits, 20 damage, 4 heat, 11.76 DPS, 540m range

The fivers are better at range, especially if you can keep a bead on your opponent. That's a big if, though.