52 replies to this topic

[Kaylos Thex]

I've been having a renaissance with my Centurions. Shamelessly I have been using Sean Lang/Phil's "Whack a Mole" load out with an AC2. I like to think of it as a 20mm chaingun lifted from an attack helicopter

(2 / .5 = 4)

Sometimes I use the AC10.

(10 / 2.5 = 4)

Or even the UAC5

(5 / 1.1 = 4.54 ...but you know, jams...)

I would really like to use an AC5, but PGI has decided to give it 3/4's the DPS of the other ballistics.

Can anyone tell me why the cool down for the AC5 is 1.7 seconds?

(5 / 1.7 = 2.94)

When it really should be 1.25.

(5 / 1.25 = 4)

It would still be longer than the UAC5, but more useful.

Right now its on the pile with small pulse lasers, flamers, LB10X's and MG's.

Edited by Kaylos Thex, 15 May 2013 - 03:29 AM.

[N a p e s]

You're absolutely right that if it was in that ballpark it would make it more balanced with the other ballistics. And it would still differentiate itself from the UAC5 by being lighter and more heat efficient as well as having more ammo per ton at the expense of not being to double fire.

That extra 80 meter range boost is really not gonna be enough for this weapon.

[Hobo Dan]

Napes339, on 14 May 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

That extra 80 meter range boost is really not gonna be enough for this weapon.

No kidding...

[N a p e s]

At least its a sign that they're willing trying something...

Maybe in a few patches it will get a ROF boost and it can make itself a little spot as a decently balanced weapon that is a maybe a little underwhelming on its own but at least somewhat useful.

[Kaylos Thex]

All of this is especially important when you think of it this way.

Ammo based weapons do not do damage.
The ammo does.

You trade range and tons(aka more ammo and thus more total damage) for more alpha.
But the total amount of damage you can do is fixed in one ton of ammo.

150 per ton.

AC2 x 75 = 150
AC5 x 30 = 150
AC10 x 15 = 150
LB10X x 15 = 150
AC20 x 7 = 140 (they get screwed because of rounding, nothing you can do about that)
Gauss x 10 = 150

UAC5 is special,

UAC5 x 25 = 125

The total DPS is functionally higher. In this case, you are trading ammo for higher alpha.

Having one weapon out of six with lower DPS is just really strange to me.

Most have a DPS of 4, and 150 damage per ton.

I just can't see why the AC5 is scaled lower than the others.

In the future, I can see the Light AC5 being one of the most used ballistics. But snub nose PPC's would probably come out at the same time.

I'm dreading the arrival of UAC20's though.

Edited by Kaylos Thex, 14 May 2013 - 12:51 PM.

[Khanahar]

Kaylos Thex, on 14 May 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

All of this is especially important when you think of it this way.

Ammo based weapons do not do damage.
The ammo does.

You trade range and tons(aka more ammo and thus more total damage) for more alpha.  But the total amount of damage you can do is fixed in one ton of ammo. 150.

Having one weapon out of six with lower DPS is just really strange to me.

Gauss rifles fall out of the scale as well.

But the rof is more sustainable with those which would result in higher rof over time because of heat buildup.  Their main advantage is they do not give up range, and work better with other weapons.

Actually, AC/20s do 140, and MGs 160.  Close enough, but wanted to throw that it there.

For 12v12, it really ought to be standardized at 200, to make up for bigger matchups.

Edited by Khanahar, 14 May 2013 - 12:25 PM.

[Kaylos Thex]

Damn, You got me as I was adding more in an edit. : )

[N a p e s]

Khanahar, on 14 May 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Actually, AC/20s do 140, and MGs 160. Close enough, but wanted to throw that it there.

For 12v12, it really ought to be standardized at 200, to make up for bigger matchups.

Yea, when we get 12v12 I can imagine a few of my ballistics builds being screwed by running out of ammo much earlier during the match.

[Side Step]

Napes339, on 14 May 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Yea, when we get 12v12 I can imagine a few of my ballistics builds being screwed by running out of ammo much earlier during the match.

Both teams will get 4 more mechs worth of ammo so it should equalize. Unless you plan on taking out the entire team by yourself.
I think ammo/ton should be higher in every matchup regardless though.

About AC/5. It's puzzling. All the gun has going for it is damage/heat, and it doesn't feel like it makes up for all the other downsides like low alpha/ton, low dps/ton, as well as the usual AC downsides (requireing constant LoS/little room for torso twist/ammo explosions/ammo limitation/etc). I've yet to make one AC/5 build that couldn't be improved by swapping the AC/5('s) for something else.

[Khanahar]

Side Step, on 14 May 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Both teams will get 4 more mechs worth of ammo so it should equalize. Unless you plan on taking out the entire team by yourself.

In PUGs, it's been known to happen. Usually not out of skill, but just out of everybody having blindly scattered, and one 'mech getting lucky/smart with positioning and racking up 6 kills by taking the equally scattered enemy one at a time.

In basic terms, 12v12 will mean that, at the higher end of the curve, people will have done more damage and spent more rounds.

But you agree on the ammo/ton should be larger so we're good. (Really, doubled ammo--200d/t--should be assumed due to double armor).

[Side Step]

Khanahar, on 14 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

In PUGs, it's been known to happen. Usually not out of skill, but just out of everybody having blindly scattered, and one 'mech getting lucky/smart with positioning and racking up 6 kills by taking the equally scattered enemy one at a time.

In basic terms, 12v12 will mean that, at the higher end of the curve, people will have done more damage and spent more rounds.

But you agree on the ammo/ton should be larger so we're good. (Really, doubled ammo--200d/t--should be assumed due to double armor).

It is true that pugs usually have high contributors and low contributors, and I can see the argument about the disparity becoming larger with more mechs on each side, increasing the required ammo for the highest contributors. I was largly basing my thoughts on games where ammo can be picked up from dead team mates, a luxury you don't have in MWO, so I find it difficult to judge the exact impact larger matchups will have in this game.

Edited by Side Step, 14 May 2013 - 06:43 PM.

[Ralgas]

If it were to be combined with some penalties on the "big bads" energy weps to discourage them i say it's not totally a bad thing to leave it as is.

The choice then means to lean them towards more balanced builds, turning the ac/40's for example into ac/20/energy hybrids. This could cause a lack of ballistic use for sure, but there's still the fact that they frontload a lot of dmg quickly, which energy weps other than the ppc family (see big bads) can't match

[tayhimself]

Kaylos Thex, on 14 May 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

I would really like to use an AC5, but PGI has decided to give it 3/4's the DPS of the other ballistics.

Can anyone tell me why the cool down for the AC5 is 1.7 seconds?

(5 / 1.7 = 2.94)

When it really should be 1.25.

(5 / 1.25 = 4)

It would still be longer than the UAC5, but more useful.

Right now its on the pile with small pulse lasers, flamers, LB10X's and MG's.

If AC-5 got 4 dps, then what would be the point of the AC-10? The AC-5 would be better in every way but alpha. I think the DPS of the ballistics only needs small tweaks.
The AC-5 could use 3.5 dps while the AC-10 could be boosted up to 4.25 dps. The AC-2s have higher dps because of the heat generated while the AC-20 has higher dps because, well AC-20. Gauss is in a good place and should be left alone.
The odd one out is the UAC-5 which has high dps/low heat/low tonnage especially with 1.1s macros. Could use a slightly higher cycle time there, say 1.25s to lower the macro dps. This would still leave it with the ability to double shot and deliver some good burst dps with jamming in place.

[General Taskeen]

The way I see it, AC's need a revamp at some point. Just throwing numbers out there:

(if damage stays the same, regular AC's)

AC/2 - 0.5 or 0.6 - 4/3.33
AC/5 - 1.5 - 3.33
AC/10 - 2.2 - 4.5
AC/20 - 3.7 - 5.40

DPS is relative, but should go higher the bigger the cannon.

UAC/5 - these need redevelopment (removal of double-shell shot, and percentage jams)

LB 10-X (1.5 Damage Per Pellet, Significant Reduction to Spread to take advantage of extended range) - 3.5 - 4.28 (high burst damage, slower rate of fire)
^
Then

LB 2-X (1.5x2 = 3 Damage spread) - 1 - 3
LB 5-X (1.5x5 = 7.5 Damage spread) - 2 - 3.75
LB 20-X (1.5x20 = 30 Damage spread) - 6 - 5

Edited by General Taskeen, 15 May 2013 - 07:26 AM.

[Escef]

The AC5 is the under dog of ballistics. However, I've found when paired they offer superior DPS to any single big gun. Twin AC5 offer you a DPS of 5.84, higher than an AC20. Yes, the burst damage is low. And you never mount these things singly.

I'm actually satidfied with where the AC5 is. If TPTB feel the need to buff it, hey, sweet, I'll pull my K2 out of the bay and see what happens.

[Ryebear]

I am in love with the idea of AC/5s getting a RoF buff. I use 4 on my CTF-4X, 2 on my DRG-5N and 3 on my JM6-S. The fact that AC/5s are almost universally disparaged in MWO bodes well for the future of those mechs.

[N a p e s]

After posting in this thread yesterday I switched up my HBK 4G to give the AC5 another try.

Here is my test build: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...41bafa5bb5222ff

I like this on paper much better than in application. Can't say it was very successful in my first few attempts though. It places less importance on the hunch but losing it means you also lose one of the LLas.

[Escef]

Napes339, on 15 May 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

After posting in this thread yesterday I switched up my HBK 4G to give the AC5 another try.

Here is my test build: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...41bafa5bb5222ff

I like this on paper much better than in application. Can't say it was very successful in my first few attempts though. It places less importance on the hunch but losing it means you also lose one of the LLas.

Ugh, that's ugly, never mount a single AC5. If you want a serious DPS build out of that, dump the larges, put in a second AC5, another ton of ammo, and round it out with a medium laser (in the head so you can zombie).

It still has the drawback of being a DPS build when the meta is largely focused on alphas, though.

[N a p e s]

Escef, on 15 May 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

Ugh, that's ugly, never mount a single AC5. If you want a serious DPS build out of that, dump the larges, put in a second AC5, another ton of ammo, and round it out with a medium laser (in the head so you can zombie).

It still has the drawback of being a DPS build when the meta is largely focused on alphas, though.

My intent was actually trying to make a single AC5 work within a build. Its also not meant to be super competitive because lets face it I wouldn't be using a Hunchback if that was the goal.

So, I figured the AC would mesh well with the large lasers' range and provide 5 points of pinpoint damage as a balance to the energy weapons. It also serves the purpose of allowing to continue firing even when your heat starts building up but its definitely not the focus of the build like when you put an AC20 in the hunch.

You're totally right about the meta though. Plinking away at enemies doesn't do much good when you get cored in one or two ERPPC alphas.

[BlackBeltJones]

Does it change the discussion any if we realize the AC/2 has a RoF of .7-.75 rather than the stated .5?