55 replies to this topic

[Kor Therram]

For a long time in both the Table-top and the virtual game, I have loathed the AC. Mind you the reasons don't transfer well between the two but I'd like to see one thing happen in this game that I believe would change all of that, make AUTOcannons an automatic weapon. I don't want to be firing an AC10 and sit around on my haunches waiting for it to reload. I think we can all agree that putting ACs on a cyclical fire-rate based on their class would be nice. As for ammo, correlate that to the tabletop in seconds of full-auto fire. Obviously the smaller classes would need some tweaks but for the larger bored cannons I could see this being very enjoyable. Oh, and obviously LBX cannons would function differently in cluster munition mode, etc.

Thanks for reading my small, semi-rant. Any thoughts or constructive criticism would be more than welcome.

[Glare]

One of the problems with this is that if you miss part of that stream of bullets, you're going to do much less damage than if you had just landed with one large shot. If anything, this will make autocannons even less effective, seeing as they're already fairly anemic damage-wise for the tonnage and critical space they devour.

I like the idea of higher rated autocannons getting more bursts per period of time, but a sustained full auto burst isn't practical with regards to the weapon or game-balance.

[Belial]

I actually liked MW4's take on the AC best. It wasn't quite rapid-fire but a steady stream of shells did fire, with longer gaps between bursts for the higher calibers. But there's no way the AC/10 and 20 could be anything but the ballistic equivalent of a main cannon, blasting one big shell before the auto-loaders cough up another round several seconds later.

I do think that jamming would have to factor in if the ACs were made to fire continuously.

[Youngblood]

Back in MechWarrior 2, Autocannon/20s fired just as fast as Autocannon/2s. They tore things apart within a few seconds, and tore through their ammunition supply in about the same amount of time.

[AuGuR]

Note : The following response is primarily to your capitalization of auto.
The "auto" in autocannon has nothing to do with it's rate of fire, just that it automatically reloads itself. In other words, the AC is more akin to a tank's main canon than a machine gun (which your requesting it to be). There are rotary ACs that may be more what you're looking for, but they don't hit as hard and go thru ammo rather quickly as they're limited to the smaller caliber AC types.

Regular, ultra, LBX and rotary ACs are each different weapons of the same archetype, and to mix them all together would be same thing (to me) as combining all mechs to one weight class. The all have both advantages and disadvantages that people that prefer to use a particular version of the autocannon have grown to live with.

[VYCanis]

the nice thing about legitimately auto autocannons is that they make aim very forgiving and really let you rack up the damage as you keep hitting. Great for moving targets too. Not to mention having full auto capability allows you to probe your target for weaknesses as well as suppress their aim with knock factor.

Also gives a great contrast vs gauss rifles firing singleshot.

I would pose the following caveat though. Just because the potential damage rate on paper between the various ACs resembles something like the classic 2,5,10,20 scale, does not mean it is balanced properly.

One of the problems with MWLL is that while the ac20 hits like the fist of the north star, the AC10 hits like a wet napkin. why? when on paper the damage rate of the 20 is only 2x more.

its because while the ac20 is firing relatively slowly at 800 something damage per shot (crysis hit point levels, don't ask) the ac10 is using a higher fire rate to come in at half the dps with 170 something damage per shot.

So to do what an ac20 can do in 1 location with 1 shot, while itself being a DPS based weapon, it takes an ac10 around 5 consecutive hits to do.

Keeping in mind how much a target can move around, and that the acs have travel time, this means that you pretty much have to work a lot lot harder to focus your damage and stay on target to do far less, and its extra range does not really help all that much.

As such, i think it might actually work better if the relative damage rate relationship looked more like 4/8/15/20, assuming that as acs get smaller they use higher rates of fire with individually weaker rounds, to make up for inevitable damage spread and missed shots.

Edited by VYCanis, 09 November 2011 - 03:46 AM.

[Xhaleon]

Well, if they ever add different models of ACs of the same class, with some being single shot and others being bullethoses, you wouldn't have to worry so much. They'll have their pros and cons, and you get to choose. If they diverge from the tabletop more, then bullethoses may have greater DPS potential, but more prone to spreading the damage over the target. The ChemJet gun would be a fun beast, then...

If there was only one type of fire rate, then I'd stick to the burst system. No instant hit of all shots like in MW4, but a stream of individual shots like MW3, if the engine and netcode permits. Ultras can easily be worked with by doubling the fire rate. Only RACs may go full tilt, and those aren't due for more than a decade.

[Captain Hat]

I was gonna say something like that. My late-era Rifleman on the tabletop is a vicious little monster at close range with its twin RAC-5s, easily capable of battering even an Assault 'mech into submission as long as it retains the initiative for two rounds of shooting or so (over 50 points of damage in one shooting phase will do that, especially if you can get behind him- which isn't too hard with jump jets) but there are two problems:

1- the heat buildup, though small per shot, becomes a serious issue when you're firing off your jump jets, two ER lasers and twelve AC-5 shots a turn.

2- RACs don't exist until much later on in the timeline than this game.

RACs are the bullet-streams. You can have some variation in refire rate and calibre between different models of AC, that only makes sense, but to go full-on jackhammer you have to wait for the big rotaries. And the big rotaries do run a serious risk of jamming once you start slamming the shots out.

Edited by Captain Hat, 09 November 2011 - 05:02 AM.

[Xhaleon]

You know, I'm thinking that if MWO really takes off, then it would be profitable to do timeskips every now and then so that people get to keep fighting in the big events. We might see the RAC one day or another, unless of course, the netcode cannot handle tracking so many bullets.

[Uziel Tesshin]

To me an AC should fire like a semi-auto rifle. That just makes the most sense to me. Though I don't mind burst fire on an RAC, on standards and ultras, semi auto, with ROF and recoil depending on the class. IE, a Mauler's AC/2's have a decent fire rate. (about the same as the gun on a Bradley A.V.) and have little recoil, whereas the AC/20 on a Hunchback is the opposite, a low ROF, and very high recoil. an AC 2, I can see firing like that at about 120-150 RPM, an AC 5 at 90-100, ac 10 at 60-75, and an AC-20 at a slow 40 or so, for balance reasons. UAC's are similar but faster, which also adds to the recoil. RACs...I'd say about 750 RPm for a class 2 and 550 for a class 5. But also RAC's would have aside from jamming issues, trouble keeping the reticule on target do to the recoil of the AC combined with the high ROF.

Basically, an AC 2 fires like you would a .22, an ac 5 like a .223, an ac 10 like a .308, and an ac 20 like a .50 rifle.

[Owl Cutter]

As noted, autocannon are so named because they are autoloaders and they are probably intended to be compared to tank guns of similar tonnage rather than sub-cannon calibre weapons like MMGs. That there is a discrete weapon family called "machine guns" which is distinct from autocannon emphasises this. Also, the plural of "cannon" is "cannon," non "cannons."

To me, the balance between weapon mass, range and damage feels wonky, but I can understand the gameplay reasons. Since lasers have range and damage concentration increase together with size, while overall damage potential decreases relative to the weapon mass and heat cost, I guess autocannon should do something different just for the sake of variety. I would like for something to be flipped around for the sake of making AC feel more like guns, though.

I do have some disliking for how tanks get under-utilised in games, though, for reasons related to autocannon. Gameplay and construction rules suggest arming 'mechs with beams and tanks with cannon, which means that autocannon get regarded as "****" weapons because too many people use battlemechs by themselves rather than in context with the other unit types that help define what battlemechs are by comparison.

Edited by Owl Cutter, 09 November 2011 - 09:24 AM.

[Akula]

I always loved the the thud, thud, thud that AA bofor guns made and that's how I'd love autocannons to be, a steady stream of shells seperated by a second or so, with longer times for larger calibers ect. I think automatic cannons have a place, but that's really where the RAC come in. (And even then it's still thud thud thud in my mind (just going very quickly indeed) )

[UncleKulikov]

Both options should be available as different models for purchase.

Certain models of autocannon should fire more quickly (with smaller calibers), but suffer from recoil during extended bursts.

Others would be single shot, with the advantage of a single blast of damage (concentrated) with more accuracy with each shot.

The trade off would be easier to hit, but doing less damage, or harder to hit, but doing more damage.

[Owl Cutter]

I think that it's easier to attain the same hit percentage with a slower-cycling weapon, all else being equal. That's why in most video games the hoses have higher potential DPS and more deliberate options have less; aiming individual big shots is easier than trying to constantly track a target for a spray of fire. I do like the idea of multiple models of "the same" weapon, such as multiple AC/5, having different recycle rate and per-hit damage, though. I'm not talking about LB-X versus Ultra vs. Light vs. Rotary, I mean different models of weapon which are the same on the table top, despite being fluffed with different calibers or doing different things in novels. An AC/5 deals moderate damage to long range, (or light damage to medium range by more modern standards...) and is not very good for damage concentration, but within that there's a lot of room for interpretation.

[TheRulesLawyer]

AC.
In TT their main advantage was heat. DHS really makes that pointless though. If you allow specialty ammo if gives some reason for being even later.

IMHO AC should be a faster firing weapon than lasers
DPS should be something like
ac20 2.5dps (based on a 10 second round)
ac10 3 dps
ac 5 3.5 dps
ac 2 3 dps

Ammo is the real limited factor to balance AC dps. You can go out and empty your bins and be stuck with 2 medium lasers left pretty easy.

[CaveMan]

UncleKulikov, on 09 November 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Both options should be available as different models for purchase.

Certain models of autocannon should fire more quickly (with smaller calibers), but suffer from recoil during extended bursts.

Others would be single shot, with the advantage of a single blast of damage (concentrated) with more accuracy with each shot.

The trade off would be easier to hit, but doing less damage, or harder to hit, but doing more damage.

THIS.

I've always wanted different models of autocannons. I like the idea of being able to choose between an AC/20 that acts like a GAU-8/A Avenger, or one that's like the giant snubnose gun on the M551 Sheridan.

[DFDelta]

UncleKulikov, on 09 November 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Both options should be available as different models for purchase.

Certain models of autocannon should fire more quickly (with smaller calibers), but suffer from recoil during extended bursts.

Others would be single shot, with the advantage of a single blast of damage (concentrated) with more accuracy with each shot.

The trade off would be easier to hit, but doing less damage, or harder to hit, but doing more damage.

This *10. We already know from the fluff that autocannons have different fire behavior depending on their manufacturer.
For example an AC20 can be single shot with a rather huge calibre made by one factory, or burst fire with medium sized shells by another. The only thing we know is that it deals 20 damage over the course of one TT round and that it is able to do that 5 times.

Having them manufactured as different brands with diffrent behaviors would be totally awesome.

Edited by DFDelta, 09 November 2011 - 12:13 PM.

[Owl Cutter]

Giving all autocannon comparable DPS would horribly break them in favour of the lighter ones; why use a 14 ton weapon when a 6 tonner does comparable damage out to more than twice the range and with similar ammo efficiency? The same exact problem appeared in MW2 with the lasers, since recycle times were varied greatly but damage per hit was left as-is. At least lasers had range differences lined up to combat that problem rather than compound it. MW3 gave all sizes of laser of same type the same recycle properties, which worked nicely, but I don't know how well it works with autocannon. Heavier autocannon have shorter range in BT, so they need to be much more effective in that limited range to make them worth the mass.

I would probably enjoy having different options for balance between cycle rate and shell size for each size of cannon. I have thought about a gatling AC, not to be confused with the canonical Rotary AC, but it seems hard to reconcile the two. I think the GAU/8 is a terrifying weapon, but don't know how a translation of it should fit into canon; it's probably accurate enough to be long-ranged by BT standards, would have to be an excellent critseeker, and way too reliable to represent as RAC/2. Besides that, I think the piddly Machine Guns in BT are already fluffed as being basically old-fashioned Gatling guns, at least for some models- to be fair, though, I am not sure whether it's autocannon caliber or not.

As a battlemech weapon, as opposed to a tank weapon, autocannon are overall relegated to small niche roles by beam weapons. That's okay with me, as long as those niches get some use in the game. Since there's probably little need for dedicated anti-air weapons in a MW game, I am kinda worried about the AC/2.

I think special ammo gives the AC/5 and AC/10 a new lease on life, but is not so appealing for the more extreme sizes. That's okay, though, as the AC/2 and AC/20 offer unique capabilities with vanilla ammo. Before special ammo, they are still useful for a few neat 'mechs you can build with an autocannon that you couldn't make work with beams, like the Clint.

Edited by Owl Cutter, 09 November 2011 - 12:17 PM.

[CaveMan]

Owl Cutter, on 09 November 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

I have thought about a gatling AC, not to be confused with the canonical Rotary AC, but it seems hard to reconcile the two. I think the GAU/8 is a terrifying weapon, but don't know how a translation of it should fit into canon; it's probably accurate enough to be long-ranged by BT standards, would have to be an excellent critseeker, and way too reliable to represent as RAC/2.

There are several 'Mechs whose artwork depicted their autocannon as multibarrel rotaries long before the RAC series came out. I think what's supposed to be unique about the RACs is they're *large bore* rotary cannons, something that had never been done before.

As far as doing an Avenger-type AC/20, just keep the rate of fire extremely high, and the heat production/ammunition consumption high enough people can't afford to lay down the trigger for 20 seconds. Actually, you could have a barrel heating timeout on the gun, so that if you fire it for more than a second or two it stops firing to avoid melting the barrels (unlike a fighter plane, a 'Mech doesn't have hundreds of kph cooling air anyway). High RoF will cause the hits to cluster tightly, but a good gunner could still walk the fire across a target. It definitely shouldn't get one standard critical hit roll per shell though, that would be insane. Give it an extremely low percentage per round, or roll for groups of rounds.

[ethnic minority]

I want the MW2 style of autocannons. They were so satisfying to use.