52 replies to this topic

[Escef]

Napes339, on 15 May 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

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.

The thing is that a single AC5 is just not worth it. I run 2 LLs and 2 AC5 on my K2, and it works. The key is that in order to make DPS work you need enough armor to survive 2 30+ point alphas, good mobility, or to simply be ignored. And you just can't get 2 of those on a Hunchie, especially not a 4G. People expect you to have an AC20 or a Gauss, they will single out your right torso for destruction, they will not ignore you. And being only 50 tons means even at max, your armor just can't take that kind of a beating.

[N a p e s]

BlackBeltJones, on 15 May 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

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

Is that confirmed or just an issue with the chain fire mode?

[BlackBeltJones]

Napes339, on 15 May 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

Is that confirmed or just an issue with the chain fire mode?

Confirmed repeatedly by users - no official word from PGI that I've seen here. There is a bunch of chatter regarding this matter but the fact that ammo consumption over time indicates a RoF of .7-.8 and this point is validated more than once here though the forum format makes it hard to cite directly.

[SweetWarmIce]

An extended range and RoF of 1.5 or 1.25 would definitely make the AC/5 the mainstay ballistic it should be.

[Escef]

SweetWarmIce, on 16 May 2013 - 12:07 AM, said:

An extended range and RoF of 1.5 or 1.25 would definitely make the AC/5 the mainstay ballistic it should be.

I don't really see any reason for it to be a mainstay. It's been regarded as a sub-par weapon for over 25 years.

[MustrumRidcully]

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

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.

Maybe if we add a bit of crit-seeking bonus?

[Sephlock]

Napes339, on 14 May 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

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

I used to think this way, months and months and months ago...

Quote

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.

And how long is it going to be before they revisit AC/5s and give them another woefully, hilariously, OBVIOUSLY inadequate tweak, before disappearing into the mists to revisit it at a much later date?

[N a p e s]

Sephlock, on 16 May 2013 - 01:21 AM, said:

I used to think this way, months and months and months ago...

And how long is it going to be before they revisit AC/5s and give them another woefully, hilariously, OBVIOUSLY inadequate tweak, before disappearing into the mists to revisit it at a much later date?

I'm just trying to stay optimistic. I've only been playing since end of January so I'm not totally despaired yet.

[Terror Teddy]

I would rather see the following:

Increase the cycle rate of the UAC/5 to 1,4
Add a toggle if you WANT to fire FA with the UAC/5 to avoid accidental jams.
Now we have the possibility to fire two shots at 0,7 which is still almost as fast as an AC/2 and still more than TWICE the firing speed of the AC/5 (with risk of jamming).

Making the AC/5 shoot faster would only make the AC/10 less desirable as I currently prefer twin AC/5 on my Hunchback due to the faster fire rate.

[Ryebear]

AC/10 will still be desirable as 14-15 tonnes with ammo per AC/10 is enough to last a match. Dual AC/5 is about 19-20 tonnes with ammo.

[Terror Teddy]

Ryebear, on 16 May 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

AC/10 will still be desirable as 14-15 tonnes with ammo per AC/10 is enough to last a match. Dual AC/5 is about 19-20 tonnes with ammo.

Nope.

You get 15 rounds per 1 tonne of AC/10 ammo
You get 30 rounds per 1 tonne of AC/5 ammo

So same amount of total ammo - the only extra weight is the guns.

With twin AC/5 I only pay +4 tonnes to shoot 0,7 seconds faster and at greater range and I get the same ammo consumtion. Also, faster projectile speed.

Not to mention I can only loose 1 weapon at a time when they take damage.

[Ryebear]

Dual AC/5 have more range and the greater amount if ammo and faster cycle time results in more 'junk shots' taken.

I added a tonne to account for that.

Anyway when I illustrating there is a non-trivial tonnage (and crit space and hard point) difference between the two, arguing semantics because I'm a tonne off of what your loadouts would be doesn't negate the fact that it *is* heavier. It's a fairly standard incremental improvement in 'cost' for increased effectiveness. Dual AC 5s won't render the AC/10 redundant.

Side note, for everyone saying the according to cannon the AC/5 is supposed to be outdated and worse than comparable weapons, keep in mind PGI expressed it was their intent to have all weapon systems be viable in game.

[Sephlock]

But haven't you heard? Any attempt to make poopy weapons viable is a violation of sacred law!

[Escef]

Sephlock, on 16 May 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

But haven't you heard? Any attempt to make poopy weapons viable is a violation of sacred law!

It's a violation of common sense. You don't see modern Armies trying to keep the flintlock viable, do you?

With the recovery of Star League weapons technology, the old AC5, which never looked so great to begin with, was largely obsoleted by the UAC5. (And more so later with the introduction of the LB5X and RAC2.) The only thing that did anything to keep the AC5 viable was the specialty ammos (Armor Piercing and Precision rounds, specifically). However, specialty ammos are a few years out in timeline. That still leaves us in a situation where the AC5 is a junk weapon system. The only thing that makes it usable in MWO is that in pairs they compete well with a single large ballistic (AC20 or Gauss). This is because of a combination of range and recycle times.

[Sephlock]

^ I agree! Lets remove the AC/5, machinegun, flamer, and both small lasers from the game entirely! MODERNIZATION!

[Escef]

Sephlock, on 16 May 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

^ I agree! Lets remove the AC/5, machinegun, flamer, and both small lasers from the game entirely! MODERNIZATION!

In table top, machine guns could be remarkably effective in quantity, same for small lasers. Flamers were always rather questionable, at best (I'd rather use SRM inferno warheads).

I never said they should be removed. Hell, I use the AC5 in MWO. As I said before, it compares favorably with AC20s and Gauss when you pair the AC5s up. But I guess ignoring that was a small price to pay for a sarcastic comeback that puts words in my mouth.

[Menetius]

Ask anyone who's been cored by quad-AC/5's if the DPS-reduction is a good idea. Go ahead.

Edited by Menetius, 16 May 2013 - 03:57 PM.

[tayhimself]

Sephlock, on 16 May 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

^ I agree! Lets remove the AC/5, machinegun, flamer, and both small lasers from the game entirely! MODERNIZATION!

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't prove your point. Making an AC/5 the same dps as an AC/10 with better heat and range doesn't make any sense. The only thing the AC/10 would have going for it would be higher alpha strike damage. The AC/5 does need some love, but not to the level the OP or you seem to want.
The AC/10 needs to be demonstrably and appreciably better than the AC/5, just as the AC/20 is from the AC/10. The UAC/5 needs to be tweaked down as well thanks to macro firing dps, but it needs less of a tweak down than the AC/5 needs up.

Edited by tayhimself, 16 May 2013 - 04:00 PM.

[Sephlock]

Sephlock, on 16 May 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

But haven't you heard? Any attempt to make poopy weapons viable is a violation of sacred law!

Escef, on 16 May 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

It's a violation of common sense. You don't see modern Armies trying to keep the flintlock viable, do you?

With the recovery of Star League weapons technology, the old AC5, which never looked so great to begin with, was largely obsoleted by the UAC5. (And more so later with the introduction of the LB5X and RAC2.) The only thing that did anything to keep the AC5 viable was the specialty ammos (Armor Piercing and Precision rounds, specifically). However, specialty ammos are a few years out in timeline. That still leaves us in a situation where the AC5 is a junk weapon system.

And changing that would be "a violation of common sense!" After all, its like the flintlock!

[Rytheo]

tayhimself, on 16 May 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't prove your point. Making an AC/5 the same dps as an AC/10 with better heat and range doesn't make any sense. The only thing the AC/10 would have going for it would be higher alpha strike damage. The AC/5 does need some love, but not to the level the OP or you seem to want.
The AC/10 needs to be demonstrably and appreciably better than the AC/5, just as the AC/20 is from the AC/10. The UAC/5 needs to be tweaked down as well thanks to macro firing dps, but it needs less of a tweak down than the AC/5 needs up.

Maybe, and this is a crazy idea but hear me out, the weapons could act differently from one another! So that players have to consider more than just dps and heat generation per ton. This would have the extra bonus of giving some variety to a game that desperately needs it and make different mech designs way more personalized than the optimized min/max builds that take the game over and are then replaced solely based on developer whim, its almost as if this would kill like 4 different birds with a single stone #wow #whoa

Edited by Rytheo, 16 May 2013 - 04:40 PM.