27 replies to this topic

[Lefty Lucy]

Right now, the AC5 is in dire need of a tweak to put it on par with the other autocannons. A damage buff was considered, until people kind of flipped out because they said "an AC5 has to do 5 damage, it's in the name!"

However, letting the AC5 do 6 damage would actually put it in a really nice spot compared to the UAC. The UAC would still have better range and DPS, but the 6-damage AC would be more reliable, and lower weight as well.

Other weapons get damage tweaks for balance. Large pulse lasers, large lasers, missiles of all varieties, etc. We should not exclude the autocannon class from the ability to balance with damage numbers simply because of their names.

In addition, this wouldn't even break canon. Sure in TT the autocannons are named after the 2/5/10/20 paradigm, but in-universe they are not called by these numbers, but by their manufacturer name and sometimes caliber.

For example the following are all names for the AC20:

"ChemJet Gun 185mm"
"Armstrong Requiem"
"Mydron A"
"Scarborough Original 20"

Only one of these names has the number 20 in the title.

In light of these concepts, I believe that autocannons should be renamed to not have the damage number included in the name.

Maybe someone can think of something better, but I think it would be reasonable to rename them:

light/medium/heavy/assault autocannon.

[General Taskeen]

Other games changed the damage and kept their names the same. I don't see the big deal.

[Lefty Lucy]

General Taskeen, on 12 May 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

Other games changed the damage and kept their names the same. I don't see the big deal.

While that may be true, when one of the *devs* says that he doesn't want to change AC5 damage because of the number in the name it seems the best course of action is to change the name.

[Grrzoot]

i would agree with this, we were in fact arguing about in ts the other night, wondering how to buff the ac5 to make it an actual, taken weapon, instead of sub-par as it is because, well its too little damage for tons + ammo. Id rather take a medium laser.

and then yes one of the devs was like, it's in the name, not really changable, but i remember from old bt days, plus if you look at mw tactics, there are weapons that may do 5 damage as a base, but because of manufacturer have certain "quirks" dare i use the word, like +3 damage sniping from cover, and +2 damage when low on heat etc.

It would be easy to start adding these in so instead of, equip ac5 you have equip xenotech ac5 penetrator with (+1,2 damage or penetration)

[Lefty Lucy]

Grrzoot, on 12 May 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

i would agree with this, we were in fact arguing about in ts the other night, wondering how to buff the ac5 to make it an actual, taken weapon, instead of sub-par as it is because, well its too little damage for tons + ammo. Id rather take a medium laser.

and then yes one of the devs was like, it's in the name, not really changable, but i remember from old bt days, plus if you look at mw tactics, there are weapons that may do 5 damage as a base, but because of manufacturer have certain "quirks" dare i use the word, like +3 damage sniping from cover, and +2 damage when low on heat etc.

It would be easy to start adding these in so instead of, equip ac5 you have equip xenotech ac5 penetrator with (+1,2 damage or penetration)

Yeah, when it was still "battledroids" (has there ever been another game as plagued with IP conflicts?), there was just one "autocannon" and it just happened to do 5 damage.

[Renthrak]

I came into this thread to disagree. Imagine my surprise when the OP's presentation changed my mind.

I have been doing quite a bit of research into the novels lately, originally for some ideas on improving the aiming system in MWO. One of the things that I noticed was that, indeed, Autocannons are never referenced as AC/#. The most general terms that I can recall are simply 'autocannon', or 'assault-class autocannon'. I really ought to have had the same epiphany as the OP when I found myself looking 'Mechs up on sarna to find the type and size of the weapons in more familiar terms.

Lefty Lucy, on 12 May 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Maybe someone can think of something better, but I think it would be reasonable to rename them:

light/medium/heavy/assault autocannon.

Until different manufacturers of equipment are fully implemented, or even after, this seems like a perfectly good idea. It's simple, clear, and compatible with a variety of tweaks to the weapons. At the same time, it would give more of a 'BattleTech' flavor to the game, not less, improving the immersion factor.

This should have a poll so that we can start gathering solid data on acceptance.

[Lefty Lucy]

Renthrak, on 12 May 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

This should have a poll so that we can start gathering solid data on acceptance.

I dislike polls because a large portion of the player base simply votes "no" for any suggestion, even if it is reasonable.

[Renthrak]

Lefty Lucy, on 12 May 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

I dislike polls because a large portion of the player base simply votes "no" for any suggestion, even if it is reasonable.

I haven't found that to be the case for my aiming suggestion poll:
http://mwomercs.com/...out-randomness/

A part of it is good marketing. Go into threads discussing the general topic (in this case, autocannon balancing and the AC/5 specifically) and reply with "Hey, I have an idea to fix this, here it is: (insert link to poll here)". That way, you attract the attention of people who already have an interest in the subject, and are thus more likely to think about your idea before voting. I also prefer to add [DISCO] tags to my polls to try and encourage people to tell me why the idea is bad if they don't like it, or to suggest improvements that I didn't think of. Whether that helps or not, I have no idea. It's just what I do.

Edited by Renthrak, 12 May 2013 - 05:05 PM.

[FrostCollar]

General Taskeen, on 12 May 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

Other games changed the damage and kept their names the same. I don't see the big deal.

I think this is the best solution, really. Giving the AC/5 and only the AC/5 a fancy name seems like it would confuse players. I actually wasn't aware the AC/5 was called that because of damage back when I played my first MW game, I just thought the "5" was an abstract number representing an autocannon more powerful than the 2s and less than the 10s. I think that's the best solution.

We can all agree, though, that increasing the AC/5's range slightly isn't going to make any perceptible difference for game balance.

[Renthrak]

FrostCollar, on 12 May 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

Giving the AC/5 and only the AC/5 a fancy name seems like it would confuse players.

No, the idea is to give all autocannons their proper names. Not just the AC/5.

If players can't wrap their heads around the relative effectiveness of a 'heavy autocannon' compared to a 'light autocannon', we have bigger problems than game balance.

[ExtremeA79]

I wonder if anyone knows this but AC/# is the class of autocannons.
AC/2's are the lowest/lightest class while AC/20's are the heaviest/most damaging class.
AC/# is NOT the caliber. 2 different AC/20's can have different calibers and round types and everything.
AC/# is just a category.
If the dev doesn't want to change the damage because "it's in the name," this game is screwed.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

They should have light ACs, standard ACs (or just ACs), heavy ACs, and assault ACs (for the role, not the weight class).

This would free them from the damage-per-shot system of classification and would allow for vastly more detailed and flexible balancing.

[Shumabot]

I strongly support this. They never should have been named after their damage in the first place in any game.

[Karl Streiger]

Hope you have more success - as I had in the past
Dunno how often I have writen the same arguments. They didn't even accept that keeping the damage linked to the name is stupid concept... or if you have than you should use it everywhere: Laser8, PulseLaser9....but wait its a Laser9 and a PulseLaser10 now.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Lefty Lucy, on 12 May 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Right now, the AC5 is in dire need of a tweak to put it on par with the other autocannons. A damage buff was considered, until people kind of flipped out because they said "an AC5 has to do 5 damage, it's in the name!"

However, letting the AC5 do 6 damage would actually put it in a really nice spot compared to the UAC. The UAC would still have better range and DPS, but the 6-damage AC would be more reliable, and lower weight as well.

Other weapons get damage tweaks for balance. Large pulse lasers, large lasers, missiles of all varieties, etc. We should not exclude the autocannon class from the ability to balance with damage numbers simply because of their names.

In addition, this wouldn't even break canon. Sure in TT the autocannons are named after the 2/5/10/20 paradigm, but in-universe they are not called by these numbers, but by their manufacturer name and sometimes caliber.

For example the following are all names for the AC20:

"ChemJet Gun 185mm"
"Armstrong Requiem"
"Mydron A"
"Scarborough Original 20"

Only one of these names has the number 20 in the title.

In light of these concepts, I believe that autocannons should be renamed to not have the damage number included in the name.

Maybe someone can think of something better, but I think it would be reasonable to rename them:

light/medium/heavy/assault autocannon.

Mechcommander used Heavy Ac for Ac 20, Autocannon for Ac 10 and Light Ac for Ac 5. You could use Extra Light Ac for Ac 2.
Edit: Now that I think about it, in those games, the light ac functioned like the ac 2 and there was no ac 5.

Edited by TheCaptainJZ, 12 May 2013 - 10:56 PM.

[Circles End]

Renaming the autocannons would be a good idea, both for the damage tuning, as well as for the variants (if and when they get to those). I can only speak for autocannons in general terms since I tend to use only the extremes of that weapon group. AC5 and 10 just never really spoke to my playstyle.

[Lefty Lucy]

Circles End, on 12 May 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

Renaming the autocannons would be a good idea, both for the damage tuning, as well as for the variants (if and when they get to those). I can only speak for autocannons in general terms since I tend to use only the extremes of that weapon group. AC5 and 10 just never really spoke to my playstyle.

but what if the AC5 did 6 damage, and the AC10 did 11? Then they'd both start looking like viable replacements for PPCs, despite ammo limitations and weight.

[MustrumRidcully]

I agree. They should probably call it

Small Autocannon
Medium Autocannon
Large Autocannon
Assault Autocannon

I would have been tempted to call it LIght/Medium/Heavy, but that fails because the IP later introduces Light Autocannons, which are lighter (and shorter range) version of the AC/x, and I don't want to find a different name for those again. This would also mirror the lasers.

And now you can go to town. Being able to manipulate the damage values of autocannons would be a great helper in balancing them better.
The 0.5 second recycle time AC/2 for example sucks, IMO. Make it 3 damage and 1 heat every second or something like that, and it would likely be much more practical useful.

[Circles End]

Lefty Lucy, on 13 May 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

but what if the AC5 did 6 damage, and the AC10 did 11? Then they'd both start looking like viable replacements for PPCs, despite ammo limitations and weight.

Dude, wat? I'm agreeing with you!

*Edit*

Oh, wait, you were giving actual examples of the numbers you'd like for them instead of just pulling numbers out of the air to argue the point, right?

Edited by Circles End, 14 May 2013 - 05:07 AM.

[Roland]

Lefty Lucy, on 12 May 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

While that may be true, when one of the *devs* says that he doesn't want to change AC5 damage because of the number in the name it seems the best course of action is to change the name.

That dev needs to pull his head out of his ***.