35 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

I'd say ACs would be a lot more fun this way, but also it makes them a bit like lasers that require ammo but produces less heat.

I'm not sure to be honest. How would Ultras and Rotaries work?

Edited by Sybreed, 01 July 2013 - 09:45 AM.

[Jonny Taco]

Dornhal, on 01 July 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

No, then its exactly like a laser, you idiots.

I've heard this same argument a dozen times and its still completely IGNORANT.

I think the dude claiming that a brust fire AC is exactly the same as a laser is the ignorant one, just saying...

[Ningyo]

This may or may not be a good idea, HOWEVER unless PPCs are changed first, this will be bad for the game. Also Gauss is already better than ACs in almost all cases and this would make it even better yet.

It just cannot be done on its own. It has to be part of multiple changes to a large variety of weapons.

[MustrumRidcully]

Fine suggestion. But going by the poll, you won't have much luck here.

It will require a bit more than giving them the same DPS. You would probably want to raise the heat efficiency or the total DPS a bit about the current values, otherwise the weapons might feel to heavy for too little gain.

Sybreed, on 01 July 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

I'd say ACs would be a lot more fun this way, but also it makes them a bit like lasers that require ammo but produces less heat.

I'm not sure to be honest. How would Ultras and Rotaries work?

I would probably suggest a slightly longer burst with more projectiles (when fired in "fast" mode).

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 01 July 2013 - 10:18 AM.

[General Taskeen]

The huge damage AC's, like AC/10's and AC/20's are more like MW:LL, however, I have been a proponent of giving the AC a mega-dakka 'feel' since Closed Beta. I brought up those idea's then in a huge think-tank thread with spreadsheets.

Anyways Syllogy, I'll be adding your thread to mine here:

List Of Ideas For The Upcoming Test Server

Edited by General Taskeen, 01 July 2013 - 10:21 AM.

[redreaper]

I am tempted to do as suggested for the ac20 but ac10 needs no nerf have u ever seen a a high alpha mech carry ac10s the answers is no cos the weigh 12 tons without ammo

[Michido]

I voted no on this. Someone already mentioned this, but this will make ballistics a little too much like lasers.

not exactly alike, but getting close to it.

I think their weight and ammo requirement balance the low heat and front loaded damage just fine.

[stjobe]

I like it. In fact, I just posted a very similar idea in another thread (please notice it also affects PPCs and GR):

stjobe, on 01 July 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

I'd like to see ALL ballistics re-designed to burst-fire.

I.e. let them do their damage in a short (1-second) burst of 3-5 projectiles, and then have their cooldown (shortened by 1 second, perhaps).

The PPC could then be a shorter burst, perhaps 0.5 seconds and two projectiles, and the Gauss Rifle could be 0.75 burst of three projectiles.

Like this:
AC20: 4 rounds of 5 damage in 1 second, 3 second cooldown.
AC10: 4 rounds of 2.5 damage in 1 second, 1.5 second cooldown.
AC5: 5 rounds of 1 damage in 1 second, 0.5 second cooldown.
AC2: 4 rounds of 0.5 damage in 0.5 second, 0.5 second cooldown.
MG: 4 rounds of 0.25 damage in 0.5 seconds, 0.5 second cooldown.
LB10X: 10 pellets as now, same cooldown as now
Gauss Rifle: 3 rounds of 5 damage in 0.75 seconds, 3 second cooldown.
PPC: 2 rounds of 5 damage in 0.5 seconds, 3 second cooldown.

That would effectively remove pin-point damage from the game without resorting to cones of fire or reintroduction of convergence (both of which could also be introduced, of course, if one wanted to).

[Homeless Bill]

Changing all weapons to behave like a lasers takes away a lot of the flavor and is ultimately a lazy balancing solution. To me, the AC/20 is satisfying precisely because it fires one huge, angry shell. In addition to being uninspiring, this approach to balance leaves several issues unresolved.

Unlike autocannons, the Gauss Rifle canonically only fires a single projectile. Making it work as the only instant-damage weapon simply makes it the only offender and thus the ideal choice for boating. If it gets the burst treatment like autocannons, it goes against lore and severely gimps the weapon’s capacity for sniping (which is, after all, what it was meant to do).

Gauss aside, UAC/20s and other high-damage combinations are still going to be a problem. Whether or not you’ve got to hold it on target for a little while, 80 points of damage to a single spot is too extreme. While damage over time makes it more difficult to do, it doesn’t come close to making it impossible. Though that band-aid might work for a while, the Clan invasion will rip it right off.

Additionally, this does absolutely nothing to counter missiles. Although they aren’t a big problem now, Clan LRMs and SSRMs will bring a world of pain that must be addressed somehow. The damage-over-time solution effectively eliminates weapon diversity to cover up the problem, and I’d argue that a more robust, permanent solution is far superior.

Verdict: Only partially effective at solving the problem, removes weapon diversity, does not affect missiles.

I prefer Doc's solution or my solution.

[Corvus Antaka]

I love this idea.

mech3 used Ac's like this and it worked great.

However, it still fails to adress the gauss rifle (dual) or the ppc 3+ per shot issue.

[Strum Wealh]

Syllogy, on 01 July 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

First, some canon for the Autocannon:

Caliber is fluff for the size of the barrel that the shell or shells are fired from and no standard caliber has been set for any of the classes of Autocannon. Autocannons in a class vary by manufacturer and model. With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire.

What does this mean for High Damage Alpha strikes?

Simple: Instead of the AC20 and AC10 firing a single slug that transfers all of its damage to a single component, it would fire a set number of smaller projectiles in rapid succession that each deal less damage, but totaling in the same amount.

Up close and Stationary targets would still take the majority of damage to a single component, but moving and twisting targets would spread out damage due to the "burn time" duration of the shot, each slug potentially hitting a different component because of Time to Target.

For example:
AC20 = 4 Shells @ 5 Damage Each
AC10 = 2 Shells @ 5 Damage Each
UAC5, AC5, AC2 = Unchanged.

OR:

AC20 = 20 Shells @ 1 Damage Each
AC10 = 10 Shells @ 1 Damage Each
AC5 = 5 Shells @ 1 Damage Each
AC2 = 2 Shells @ 1 Damage Each

Personally, I agree with the notion of ACs being re-implemented as burst-fire weapons (where multiple BT descriptions seem to indicate that such was the norm, rather than the exception).

However, I would prefer to see it be implemented for all AC classes and sizes, along with a few changes to the details.

To put it in terms of a conventional FPS, the ACs could/would be the "burst-fire assault-rifle/battle-rifle" analogue, versus the Gauss Rifle's "single-slug-salvo sniper rifle" analogue and the Machine Gun's "bullet-hose" analogue.
Additionally, the "single-shell-salvo rifle/carbine" role could be taken over by (damage-buffed versions of) the Rifle weapons (the Light Rifle, Medium Rifle, and Heavy Rifle).

I would propose that each unit of AC ammo would fire as a three-round burst (the Marauder's AC/5 fires three-round bursts & the AC/20 in the MechBuster ASF fires a four-round burst, and three-round bursts seem to be the standard AR/BR implementation), with each individual shell dealing 1/3 of the total per-salvo damage (e.g. an AC/2 would fire three shells that deal 0.67 damage (that is, 2/3 = 0.67) per shell while an AC/20 would fire three shells that deal 6.67 damage (that is, 20/3 = 6.67) per shell).

As noted in another thread on a similar subject, I would also propose normalizing the AC family at 4.0 DPS, for the reasons outlined at the linked post. This would result in the following recycle times per weapon:

• AC/2 recycle @ 4 DPS: 0.50 seconds
  
• AC/5 recycle @ 4 DPS: 1.20 seconds
  
• UAC/5 recycle @ 4 DPS: 1.20 seconds
  
• AC/10 recycle @ 4 DPS: 2.50 seconds
  
• LB 10-X recycle time @ 4 DPS: 2.50 seconds
  
• AC/20 recycle @ 4 DPS: 5.00 seconds

In general, many of the recycle times would remain unchanged; the most notable and significant changes would be the increase in the UAC/5's recycle time (from 1.1s to 1.2s) and the increase in the AC/20's recycle time (from 4.0s to 5.0s).

I would also propose the following burst specifications:

• AC/2: 1 shell per 0.10 seconds (0.30s total burst duration)
  
• AC/5: 1 shell per 0.15 seconds (0.45s total burst duration)
  
• UAC/5: 1 shell per 0.15 seconds (0.45s total burst duration)
  
• AC/10: 1 shell per 0.20 seconds (0.60s total burst duration)
  
• LB 10-X: 1 shell per 0.20 seconds (0.60s total burst duration)
  
• AC/20: 1 shell per 0.25 seconds (0.75s total burst duration)

Against stationary targets, slow-moving targets, targets on a direct path toward or away from the shooter, and targets that are easily lead, landing all of the shells on a single location would come with relative ease.

Additionally, one would retain the option to walk fire across the target, or across two adjacent targets - a notion supported by BT gameplay rules.
"Rather than firing at a single target, any type of autocannon can be “walked” across two targets close to one another. An LB-X autocannon firing a cluster shot and Ultra and Rotary autocannons firing at multiple targets are a special case."
(explained in greater detail on page 100 of Tactical Operations)

Against targets with some relative lateral motion (as well as faster or further-away targets), there will be a greater tendency for the shells to strike different body areas (subject to target speed, distance to target, and the shooter's ability to lead the target).

Thoughts?

[Victor Morson]

While the AC/2s nature (repeated shots) will never make it a great sniper weapon, it could be a stellar ballistic stand-in for the LL if it wasn't so hot. It needs a huge heat reduction more than other changes.

[Goose]

I took me forever to figure out why Teh Devs wanted all the ACs felt like rifles, but since this way they get the big clot as advertised, it justifies how heavy they are per table-top.

Someone was telling just yesterday how the cycle time(s) for ACs are too short: What with all the AC/40s roving around, I'm beginning to think he had a point …

[Unbound Inferno]

Well, according to the info;

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon

Description

An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts. It is, basically, a giant "machine gun" that fires predominantly cased explosive shells though models firing saboted high velocity kinetic energy penetrators or caseless ordnance do exist. Among the earliest tank/BattleMech scale weaponry produced, autocannons produce far less heat than energy weapons, but are considerably bulkier and are dependent upon limited stores of ammunition.


Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage vs armor.^[1] The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors. Autocannon are grouped into the following loose damage classes:

• Autocannon/2
  
• Autocannon/5
  
• Autocannon/10
  
• Autocannon/20

Beyond the "standard" models, variants include the shotgun-like LBX, quick-firing Ultra and the gatling-type Rotary. Light-weight variants and capital ship scale models also exist. The experimental Hypervelocity Autocannon has also entered limited production.^[2][3]




Caliber


Caliber is fluff for the size of the barrel that the shell or shells are fired from and no standard caliber has been set for any of the classes of Autocannon. Autocannon in a class vary by manufacturer and model. With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire. Probable exceptions are the 185 mm ChemJet Gun Autocannon/20 mounted on the Demolisher combat vehicle and MonitorSurface vessel or the 203 mm Ultra Autocannon/20 on the Cauldron Born A BattleMech.

Barrel Arrangement

All Rotary Autocannon are multiple-barrel arrangements.^[4] Some standard, Light, and Ultra autocannons also use a multiple-barrel arrangement, but not as frequently.


http://www.sarna.net...tary_Autocannon

Description


Developed in the early 3060s by the Federated Commonwealth, the Rotary Autocannon is based only loosely on the Autocannon. While it has the same bore, it is capable of firing up to six times as many rounds as its standard cousin, allowing it to deal three times the damage of even an Ultra Autocannon. At the same time, each extra shot increases the amount of heat the autocannon builds and increases the chance for a jam. Like Ultra autocannons, Rotary autocannons are unable to make use of special munitions.


Clan Diamond Shark created their own experimental version of the Rotary Autocannon in 3069.^[1]

• Rotary AC/2
  
• Rotary AC/5

http://www.sarna.net...ltra_Autocannon

Overview


The Ultra Autocannon technology was originally developed in 2640 by Kawabata Weapons Inc, in response to Defiance Industries's request for a specialized autocannon/5 for their Sentinel BattleMech design. The result was a weapon that resembled the standard model only in the general damage that each round can inflict, as the KWI Ultra Autocannon 5 boasted a shorter smooth-bore barrel, modified breech mechanism, rapid-feed ammo reloader and specially designed ammunition.


While these enhancements gave the weapon an effective range exceeding that of LRMs and standard AC/5s, it most notably allowed the weapon to fire at twice rate of the standard model. Unfortunately, besides generating twice as much heat and burning through ammunition supplies twice as quickly, the extremely high rate of fire causes ultra autocannons to vibrate violently, leading to higher incidence of weapon jams. Though giving the weapon an equivalent volume of fire, because of these vibrations ultra autocannon fire is not as accurate as a pair of standard weapons.

Like many pieces of advanced Star League technology, Kawabata and their unique weapons disappeared during the maelstrom of the Succession Wars, though the Clans retained and refined the technology, eventually producing variants in all autocannon classes. Thanks to the Helm Memory Core, the Successor States regained the ability to produce the original Ultra AC/5 in 3035, and, using this weapon and Clan-tech salvage, were able to introduce Ultra versions of the AC/2 andAC/10 in 3057, finally the AC/20 in 3060.


For specifics about a particular type, click on one of the links below:

• Ultra AC/2
  
• Ultra AC/5
  
• Ultra AC/10
  
• Ultra AC/20

Well, that's where they line up. The AC line isn't a typical one-shot like what we see, but rather a multi-shot repeater. The exception is the LBX which functions as a shotgun for firing them all at once with a reload. The specific Rotary is a faster version firing more shots than the AC, but functions much like the Ultra AC line in that regards.


I'm all for this change. Would be a hell of a sight I'm sure.

[Unbound Inferno]

Forgive the double-post, but I'm lazy on the edit tonight;

Roland, on 01 July 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

That's just in the fluff material.

In the actual game, the benefit of large weapons vs. small weapons is that they do all of their damage to a single location. It's the advantage of a weapon like the AC20 over 4 medium lasers. It's generally the ONLY advantage of the AC20 over 4 medium lasers.

If all weapons became burn time weapons like lasers in MWO, then lasers instantly become the best weapons in the game, since they are hitscan and are thus much easier to hit with.

You can't have non-hitscan weapons competing with hitscan weapons, if they don't have some other advantage.

But that's the point he's trying to make now for this. He isn't specifying how fast that "burst" fires, just that it IS a burst.

That and its the whole point.

We suffer from a chronic case of pinpoint accuracy in a system where we make virtual headshots on the CT and kill a mech too fast.

In BT the numbers are balanced so you don't kill a 200(400 now) armor mech in 32(now64) damage on the CT. You are intended to deal nearly 3x that, about 100 points of damage to the mech before crippling it. Tripling armor to even entertain that thought is out of the question - I would not suggest that's even a possible idea with how ammo expenditures work.

Mechanically speaking, we need to reduce the damage dealt on troublesome weapons or find a way to spread the damage out to make it function.

The FPS crowd is scared to death of a random cone or any variable from this paradise accuracy, so we need an alternative - and to be frankly honest I don't mind the idea of making the weapons some form of duration over time to spread damage out just slightly better.

In this mechanic of the game it works as an answer IMO.

[Warge]

Unbound Inferno, on 01 July 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon

I'd like see it in MWO... but there are slim chances for that.

Edited by Warge, 01 July 2013 - 03:56 PM.