44 replies to this topic

[Automatica]

I think the AC family is mostly fine as is. The ammo per ton could use some buffing in certain classes, some minor heat tweaks for the smaller calibers, and the LBX could use a bit of love - but otherwise they aren't bad.

They just look bad when compared to PPCs, which are (imo) currently way too efficient and versatile. The easier solution would be to balance the PPCs so that people actually have a reason to bring an AC to the battle instead of a PPC.

[Nebuchadnezzar2]

In fact in the range of 500 and less i find that dual ac5 is more potent than dual ppc
I agree with ac2 heat reduction but dont think ac5 need more buff, they are my main weapon and never feel lacking with them, in brawl they are superior against any energy counterpart

Rather than ac5 buff id prefer buff on brawling energy weapon (pulse laser) and lbx ac10

[stjobe]

Victor Morson, on 01 July 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

Dual LL and Dual AC/5 isn't very good, primarily because regular AC/5s aren't very good.. but.. I couldn't possibly call that a Frankenmech. AC/5 and LL work well...ish (the velocity sucks) together, it's just that AC/5 is terrible.

AC/5 and LL work together like ... any other AC and laser combo. The lasers have beam duration that totally messes with the lead you need for the ACs, and vice versa. Basically you can't shoot both at a target that's moving laterally. Hence the "frankenmech" moniker.

I really don't have anything against the AC/5, it's not that bad. Sure, it could use slight adjustments, but terrible? No.

It's a "frankenmech" since I can't see that particular loadout (2xLL, 2xAC5, 2xML) used in competitive play, simply because the disparity between the lead needed for the ACs and the beam duration of the LLs (and MLs). Then again I don't really play competitively. For me, it's a Rifleman, and that's all that counts

Edited by stjobe, 01 July 2013 - 06:25 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Automatica, on 01 July 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

They just look bad when compared to PPCs, which are (imo) currently way too efficient and versatile. The easier solution would be to balance the PPCs so that people actually have a reason to bring an AC to the battle instead of a PPC.

They look bad compared to everything, honestly. Lasers, Gauss.. even LRMs. The Ultras are fun to use in pugs right now (but nobody would take them in a serious drop) and the AC/20 at least offers solid damage but past that, they are just plain bad. Even before PPCs got good they were awful, and very little has been done of worthwhile note to them since.

Nebuchadnezzar2, on 01 July 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

In fact in the range of 500 and less i find that dual ac5 is more potent than dual ppc

[Jonny Taco]

ac2 - Pretty much fine, could honestly use a small rof reduction and an increase in dmg per shot to 3 maintaning the same dps as is current.

AC5 - increase dmg to 6, no other changes

AC10 - Decrease rof to 2.00 or 2.2 seconds

LBx10 - Decrease number of pellets to 6, increase damage of each pellet to 2, decrease spread by a small margin, and increase rof to what ever the ac10 become, either 2.00 or 2.2 seconds

AC20 - Decrease max range to 460m, decrease projectile speed by 10%

Ultra5 - reduce rof by a small amount, and reduce jamming chance by a small margin.

[Victor Morson]

I really think the AC/2's raw damage and refire is fine. They run entirely too hot, however, to maximize what they could be; given they are considered a "3rd tier" weapon by almost everyone, that heat reduction could rapidly move them up to first tier given their 6 ton status.

I'd love a viable alternative longer range beam weapons, which is really the niche it would fill.

[Elyam]

After having tested the ACs quite a bit this last month with the Jager' and 'Phract-4X, plus all prior use throughout the beta, I think the AC line is doing fine as-is. An argument could be perhaps made to increase ammo/ton to bring things in line better with TT's normal required payload (we use about 40% more ammo in MWO than is the norm for a single fight in TT), just as was done for LRMs. But I am not on the side of that. Maybe a minor increase in ammo to 90/40/20/9, but nothing more than that. As others have said, further tuning of energy-weapon alphas is the real culprit (since we'll never get proper BT diminished-tech shot deviation).

Edited by Elyam, 01 July 2013 - 01:55 PM.

[Kymlaar]

The only AC weapon I would like to see changed is the AC-2. I believe it needs a heat reduction because as it is now, it's functionality as a rapid fire weapon is damaged by it's inability to be used for very long.

AC-5: I think it's fine. My friends and I use it to great effect in pairs on ballistic mechs.
AC-10: Not fantastic, but there's nothing wrong with it. I've used it to good quite a few times on various builds.
AC-20: Nothing wrong there. It's extremely effective, and it does amazing damage, even in singles.
All ACs: Need an increase in ammo per ton. This really goes for all ammo-based weapons. If armor is doubled, the only fair way to go is to double the ammo across the board as well. Right now we're looking at something like 150%. Bumping it to 200%, like armor is, would help mitigate the extreme weight of ballistic weapons a bit.

[Sephlock]

DAKKA DAKKA BOOMBOOM RATATATATA DAKKA DAKKA BOOMBOOM RATATATATA DAKKA DAKKA BOOMBOOM RATATATATA DAKKA DAKKA BOOMBOOM RATATATATA DAKKA DAKKA BOOMBOOM RATATATATA DAKKA DAKKA BOOMBOOM RATATATATA DAKKA DAKKA BOOMBOOM RATATATATA!

[Victor Morson]

I am honestly surprised anybody would vote against velocity increases for the 5 and 10. I mean really people? Their projectile speed is one of the major factors hurting their usefulness.

[Sephlock]

Victor Morson, on 01 July 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

I am honestly surprised anybody would vote against velocity increases for the 5 and 10. I mean really people? Their projectile speed is one of the major factors hurting their usefulness.

Further evidence for my theory that there are a fair number of people on these forums who just flat out hate fun.

[One Medic Army]

Victor Morson, on 01 July 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

I am honestly surprised anybody would vote against velocity increases for the 5 and 10. I mean really people? Their projectile speed is one of the major factors hurting their usefulness.

The ACs have just fine velocity, hitting with them requires leading the target. They only look bad in comparison to the 2000m/s of the PPCs.

AC/2 2000
AC/5 1300
AC/10 1100
AC/20 900
Gauss 1200

The AC/5 is quite easy to land repeated hits with for instance, even on light mechs.

I'd personally prefer it if the front-loaded damage weapons (SRMs, PPCs, Ballistics) rewarded/required good aim and ability to lead targets, as a downside for the fact they are frontloaded damage.
Lasers are what you use if you want easy hits, projectiles should be for big hits that are harder to achieve.

Edited by One Medic Army, 01 July 2013 - 02:33 PM.

[PanzerMagier]

Victor Morson, on 01 July 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

I am honestly surprised anybody would vote against velocity increases for the 5 and 10. I mean really people? Their projectile speed is one of the major factors hurting their usefulness.

Your very own poll explains to you the bubble reality that you exist in. Your ac weapons feel underpowered because they are... Compared to how easy peasy PPC's are. Still think the community is not to blame for our current terrible meta?

If ppcs were put back in their place we'd have ac's becoming more dominant again, another reason why they're less popular than the almighty ppc is because of hit registration not working properly, ballistics run out of ammo, ppc's don't.

I run a quad ac2 phract as well and I have achieved 900+ damage with them...
Yea' I'd agree with you that ac2's require a little heat reduction. But this crap happens because the devs won't bring ppcs to original heat values and bring DHS heat dissipation to 2.0 instead of 1.4... Because heat dissipation has been stymied, ballistic weapons are now much more capable of overheating your mech whereas they were previously alternative weapons that you could use instead of your lasers while you waited for your mech to cool a little.

Too bad people like you are making threads and complaining about problems that would disappear if only we targeted the real issues...

[Victor Morson]

One Medic Army, on 01 July 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

The ACs have just fine velocity, hitting with them requires leading the target. They only look bad in comparison to the 2000m/s of the PPCs.

AC/2 2000
AC/5 1300
AC/10 1100
AC/20 900
Gauss 1200

The AC/5 is quite easy to land repeated hits with for instance, even on light mechs.

But you don't see the HUGE drop-off between AC/2 and AC/5? 2000 to 1300? When you rely on landing a lot of shots to remain viable - the Gauss gets away with it due to a huge per-shot punch - you need higher velocity.

A falloff of nearly a third of it's velocity is part of why the AC/5 is a lackluster gun.

By extension, the velocity decreases continue, leaving the AC/10 in bad shape.

One Medic Army, on 01 July 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

I'd personally prefer it if the front-loaded damage weapons (SRMs, PPCs, Ballistics) rewarded/required good aim and ability to lead targets, as a downside for the fact they are frontloaded damage.

While I agree, AC/2 and AC/5 will never "front load damage." AC/2 is, for it's crime of running MASSIVELY hot, is in fact an easy to hit with weapon. The AC/5 is not, and that is why the AC/2 is actually superior to the AC/5, or at least one big reason. Extending the range won't do much if the velocity sucks.

One Medic Army, on 01 July 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Lasers are what you use if you want easy hits, projectiles should be for big hits that are harder to achieve.

Not the light ACs, at the very least. They rely on hit after hit or they are ineffective. The AC/5s bonus range is terrible with it's slow projectile velocity.

The AC/10's problem is it's velocity means it won't pair with ANYTHING - it's right between the slowest and fastest, competing with neither.
At the very least increasing the LBX/10 velocity would give it an edge, and a longer "ballistic falloff" that is in keeping with the LBX.

Basically if you charted the velocity, you'd see a HUGE cliff drop after the AC/2 - if you repaired that (and kept the degrading relative to where it is), you'd fix it iMO. i.e.:

AC/2 2000 -> 2000
AC/5 1300 -> 1700
LBX/10 1300 -> 1700
AC/10 1100 -> 1500
AC/20 900 -> 1200 (ED: I'd be OK knocking the AC/20 velocity ratio back to <1100, though.)
Gauss 1200

That makes the declining spread more even rather than this just DROP from the AC/2.

Edited by Victor Morson, 01 July 2013 - 02:59 PM.

[One Medic Army]

I find the AC/5, when paired, deals plenty of damage with good accuracy at a respectable range.
When quad-mounted such as on a Jager or Phract 4X it's an AC/20 with 620m range and a 1.5sec cooldown.

The AC/5 is a perfectly functional weapon, it is at this time completely overshadowed by the PPC as are most of the ballistic weapons.

Regardless of if you agree with my personal views, you should at least see that ballistics should not be buffed until after PPCs are nerfed, lest we just replace one OP weapon with another.
Many of the massive weapon imbalances that have occurred in MWO are caused by PGI buffing/fixing things at player request which combined with other buffs/fixes to cause overpowered weaponry (Streaks, PPCs, LRMs several times)

[Victor Morson]

One Medic Army, on 01 July 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

I find the AC/5, when paired, deals plenty of damage with good accuracy at a respectable range.
When quad-mounted such as on a Jager or Phract 4X it's an AC/20 with 620m range and a 1.5sec cooldown.

The AC/5 is a perfectly functional weapon, it is at this time completely overshadowed by the PPC as are most of the ballistic weapons.

I am agreeing with you the AC/5, like many weapons, is right on the cusp of usefulness. But what I am saying is that the PPCs 2000 vs the AC/5s horrendous (for what it is) 1300 is part of the reason PPCs are so Godlike for snipers while AC/5s are almost never seen on the field at all.

What I doubly don't get is that you like the AC/5, yet don't want to see it brought into these tiers.. possibly because you believe it is already there? It truly isn't.

Sybreed, on 01 July 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Regardless of if you agree with my personal views, you should at least see that ballistics should not be buffed until after PPCs are nerfed, lest we just replace one OP weapon with another.

Honestly PPCs, at most, need a recycle nerf again and that's about it. We should not be stopping making current inaccurate weapons or other quirky problems (I cannot imagine they meant for a steep falloff between the AC/2 and AC/5 in velocity, given the AC/5 is barely better in many ways) better.

Sybreed, on 01 July 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Many of the massive weapon imbalances that have occurred in MWO are caused by PGI buffing/fixing things at player request which combined with other buffs/fixes to cause overpowered weaponry (Streaks, PPCs, LRMs several times)

The problem is that all of these massive buffs/nerfs at "Player Request" have been from PUGs making lots of topics.

I'm going to say something that might not be liked by some, but it's true: PUGs don't know what they want. They simply don't know enough about the game, and immediately jump in screaming damage/heat or "OMG ALPHAS!" without looking at all these other factors I keep trying to talk about.

If they'd take feedback from some veteran groups again, I think even the lowest tier player would have a better time, because at the very least even their bad build will have more good weapons on it.

[One Medic Army]

Victor Morson, on 01 July 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

I am agreeing with you the AC/5, like many weapons, is right on the cusp of usefulness. But what I am saying is that the PPCs 2000 vs the AC/5s horrendous (for what it is) 1300 is part of the reason PPCs are so Godlike for snipers while AC/5s are almost never seen on the field at all.

What I doubly don't get is that you like the AC/5, yet don't want to see it brought into these tiers.. possibly because you believe it is already there? It truly isn't.



Honestly PPCs, at most, need a recycle nerf again and that's about it. We should not be stopping making current inaccurate weapons or other quirky problems (I cannot imagine they meant for a steep falloff between the AC/2 and AC/5 in velocity, given the AC/5 is barely better in many ways) better.



The problem is that all of these massive buffs/nerfs at "Player Request" have been from PUGs making lots of topics.

I'm going to say something that might not be liked by some, but it's true: PUGs don't know what they want. They simply don't know enough about the game, and immediately jump in screaming damage/heat or "OMG ALPHAS!" without looking at all these other factors I keep trying to talk about.

If they'd take feedback from some veteran groups again, I think even the lowest tier player would have a better time, because at the very least even their bad build will have more good weapons on it.

I don't want ballistics made better (apart from the small list I put up in my first post, which is more about balancing the ballistics relative to eachother), and/or easier to hit with.
I want PPCs made worse, and harder to hit with.

PPCs are making mechs die too fast and the meta devolve too much into snipewars and peek+shoot.
I want the disruptive weapons nerfed rather than the non-disruptive weapons buffed to the point where they are also disruptive.

This is the basis of my arguments and Point of View. We both want PPCs and Autocannons to be equally effective, but I like the baseline of effectivenes of the current ACs, whereas you prefer the baseline of effectiveness of the current PPCs.

Edited by One Medic Army, 01 July 2013 - 03:29 PM.

[Sephlock]

What about LBX ? Also, AC/5s and AC/10s don't really have much of a niche...

[Victor Morson]

One Medic Army, on 01 July 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

PPCs are making mechs die too fast and the meta devolve too much into snipewars and peek+shoot.
I want the disruptive weapons nerfed rather than the non-disruptive weapons buffed to the point where they are also disruptive.

If they wiped out the PPC, people would go to Gauss.
If they wiped out Gauss, they would go to Large Lasers.
If they wiped out Large Lasers they would go to AC/20.
If AC/20 got wiped out, they would go to probably Splatcats.

I'm not predicting past this point, but what I am trying to say is that the AC/2-AC/5-AC/10-LBX/10 are so far down the list from good, that you need to stop worrying about comparing them to the PPC and start comparing them to anything else.

[One Medic Army]

Victor Morson, on 01 July 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

If they wiped out the PPC, people would go to Gauss.
If they wiped out Gauss, they would go to Large Lasers.
If they wiped out Large Lasers they would go to AC/20.
If AC/20 got wiped out, they would go to probably Splatcats.

I'm not predicting past this point, but what I am trying to say is that the AC/2-AC/5-AC/10-LBX/10 are so far down the list from good, that you need to stop worrying about comparing them to the PPC and start comparing them to anything else.

Here's the thing, I don't consider Gauss or LargeLaser disruptive.
LargeLaser damage can be spread out by the receiving mech, Gauss is heavy and explosive, meaning it's only a really good choice on arm mounts for heavy/assault mechs.

PPCs are, right now, so much better than pretty much every other weapons system.

My personal thoughts on the matter is that the rest of the AC family aren't really that far behind the AC/20, and all can be made similarly good with fairly minor tweaks as soon as PPCs stop overshadowing all of them that function at PPC ranges.

Edited by One Medic Army, 01 July 2013 - 05:23 PM.