118 replies to this topic

[Unbound Inferno]

FupDup, on 24 July 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

Then why haven't we seen an AC/4 Jagerbomb FoTM going around? Why was the FoTM 2 AC/20 instead of 2 AC/2? If it was really so much superior and so amazingly powerful, why don't more people use it?

(^^Those are rhetorical questions, as I already disclosed the answers in my previous post and I will disclose them again below).



What is your definition of OP? Mine is "something which significantly outperforms most other things." The AC/2 doesn't really outperform many other weapons. I'd lump it in with the "average" tier for MWO weapons.

It runs as hot as a PPC, spreads damage all over the target (which means kills take longer, which means more time for the enemy to run away/kill you), and requires the shooter to constantly face the target (leaves your CT vulnerable, because if you twist for shielding you lose the DPS).


If you really really must insist on nerfing something that has not once been a FoTM, then you would have to nerf almost everything else (excluding already bad weapons like the LBX, Flamer, etc.) to a much larger degree than you would the AC/2 or else it becomes useless like it has been since the 1980's.

We saw (or see) AC/8s running around. That's something else.

8 damage per 0.5 seconds. That is 64 damage in the time an AC-40 dishes out. The only downsides - not pinpoint, and chews up ammo fast with borked heat generation, you have to be an exceptionally good pilot to use it well, and I salute those that can. I also curse like hell as I loose parts at extreme range thanks to it. Mostly my fault, but I still don't like it.

Which is why it wasn't and probably never will be a FOTM build, it takes skill to use.

That is why I don't mind it completely. But I still think Quad AC-2 out damaging an AC-40 at extreme range is crazy.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 24 July 2013 - 07:15 PM.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

We saw (or see) AC/8s running around. That's something else.

Which weren't nearly as common as the AC/40 prior to the heat scale sillyness nerfing the Jagerbomb. Even after the nerf I still see some AC/40 (probably didn't get the memo in most cases) and triple UAC/5 in addition to AC/2'ers. Heck, even a few rare few 6 MG + 2 ERPPC trolls.

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

8 damage per 0.5 seconds. That is 64 damage in the time an AC-40 dishes out. The only downsides - not pinpoint, and chews up ammo fast, you have to be an exceptionally good pilot to use it well, and I salute those that can. I also curse like hell as I loose parts at extreme range thanks to it. Mostly my fault, but I still don't like it.

Which is why it wasn't and probably never will be a FOTM build, it takes skill to use.

I tend to be a hillhumping cheeser at long range, which probably explains why I don't have difficulties trolling AC/2 boats. If they do manage to get up close, then I just effed up really badly and would've pretty much been killed by anything else.

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

Which is why I don't mind it completely. But I still think Quad AC-2 out damaging an AC-40 at extreme range is crazy.

The AC/20's optimal range is 270m, of course it's going to suck at extreme range. That's the whole point of equipping long-range weapons.

And at that range, the AC/2 boat has to contend with PPC hill humpers that don't have to stay exposed long enough to take much (or any) damage.

Edited by FupDup, 24 July 2013 - 07:32 PM.

[Purlana]

FupDup, on 24 July 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

Then why haven't we seen an AC/4 Jagerbomb FoTM going around? Why was the FoTM 2 AC/20 instead of 2 AC/2? If it was really so much superior and so amazingly powerful, why don't more people use it?

I don't see many AC/4's but I do see plenty of Ultra AC/5 boats.

[Unbound Inferno]

Which is why its not the top right now. But it doesn't mean we should dismiss the fact its OP from where it ought to stand.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Which is why its not the top right now. But it doesn't mean we should dismiss the fact its OP from where it ought to stand.

Where might that be?

Edited by FupDup, 24 July 2013 - 07:46 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

FupDup, on 24 July 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Where might that be?

Least efficent to most;
AC-2 < LBX-10 < AC-5 < UAC-5< AC-10 < AC-20

In my view at least.

AC-2 should be the least efficient of the AC line, with the AC-20 on the top.
The only reason its on the bottom is due to the least comparable damage and ammo consumption chewing efficiency down.
The LBX-10 is worse off than the AC-5 only due to spread while the UAC-5 can deal nearly the same damage than the AC-10, but not as efficiently due to jamming.
Depending on the user, the pile looks like this from best pick to least;

Raw damage goal from best to worst;
AC-2 > UAC-5 > AC-20 > AC-5 > AC-10 > LBX-10
If pinpoint damage is the goal;
AC-20 > AC-10 > AC-2 > UAC-5 > AC-5 > LBX-10 (placing the AC-2 ahead of AC-5 for odds of hits in similar spots, UAC only looses out form jamming)

Seriously...WTF?

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 24 July 2013 - 07:50 PM.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

Least efficent to most;
AC-2 < LBX-10 < AC-5 < UAC-5< AC-10 < AC-20

In my view at least.

AC-2 should be the least efficient of the AC line, with the AC-20 on the top.
The only reason its on the bottom is due to the least comparable damage and ammo consumption chewing efficiency down.
The LBX-10 is worse off than the AC-5 only due to spread while the UAC-5 can deal nearly the same damage than the AC-10, but not as efficiently due to jamming.
Depending on the user, the pile looks like this from best pick to least;

Raw damage goal from best to worst;
AC-2 > UAC-5 > AC-20 > AC-5 > AC-10 > LBX-10
If pinpoint damage is the goal;
AC-20 > AC-10 > AC-2 > UAC-5 > AC-5 > LBX-10 (placing the AC-2 ahead of AC-5 for odds of hits in similar spots, UAC only looses out form jamming)

Seriously...WTF?

The less than/greater than symbols are only relative (not definitive). What are the raw numbers we're dealing with?

[Unbound Inferno]

FupDup, on 24 July 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

The less than/greater than symbols are only relative (not definitive). What are the raw numbers we're dealing with?

That's where testing is needed - and a definitive answer to how Mechs can be made.

If we keep the single hardpoint mounting then the numbers get really screwy and near impossible to balance as you need to keep the AC-2 close enough to the AC-20 that a one-on-one could be closer, but not so one mounting 3x or 4x AC-2 overpowers the AC-20.

However if the balance can be shifted to have more dynamic hardpoints where we can see 5x or 6x or more AC-2, then the AC-2 needs more of a gap between it and the AC-20 to be better balanced in that case. It does cause issues on mechs that can't do it - but that's part of the point.

Hard numbers aren't easy as you need to factor in the Damage Over Time, Heat Generated and Recharges. If those three can't be balanced between the weapons well, its only going to reflect when it becomes boated sometime.

Ideally for what we have now; restricted hardpoints and options -

AC-20
20 damage, 4 seconds (3 Heat)
AC-10
10 Damage, 2.5 seconds (1 Heat)
AC-5
5 Damage, 1.7 seconds (0.3 heat)
AC-2
2 damage, 0.9 second (0.1 heat)

is what I would think off the bat.

Dual AC-20, 40 for 4 seconds, 80 at 8, 120 around 12 (costing 18 heat)
Dual AC-10, 20 for 2.5, 40 at 5, 60 at 7.5, 90 at 10, 120 around 12.5 (costing 10 heat)
Triple AC-5, 15 for 1.7, 30 at 3.4, 60 by 6.4, 120 around 13.6 (costing 7.2 heat)
Quad AC-4, 8 for 0.9, 32 at 3.6, 56 by 6.3, 120 around 13.5 (costing 6 heat)
At the moment the AC-2 could deal nearly 192 damage in 12 seconds, but it costs it 96 heat.

Heat note for what it should be for the dissipation/10 seconds
Damnit PGI, fix that already for all weapons...

There I go, edited it a few times, but I think I got it right...

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 24 July 2013 - 08:48 PM.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

That's where testing is needed - and a definitive answer to how Mechs can be made.

If we keep the single hardpoint mounting then the numbers get really screwy and near impossible to balance as you need to keep the AC-2 close enough to the AC-20 that a one-on-one could be closer, but not so one mounting 3x or 4x AC-2 overpowers the AC-20.

However if the balance can be shifted to have more dynamic hardpoints where we can see 5x or 6x or more AC-2, then the AC-2 needs more of a gap between it and the AC-20 to be better balanced in that case. It does cause issues on mechs that can't do it - but that's part of the point.

PGI already said they don't want to change hardpoints, so that's a variable we don't need to worry about. By the way, mounting 3-4 AC/2 will eat up more tonnage than an AC/20 (although much fewer slots), so it doesn't seem all that bad if a crapload of them can out-DPS (alpha is still inferior) a single weapon that weighs less than the whole group. Our sizeless hardpoints (presumably not going away anytime soon) also make it so the bigger stuff is still more desirable in the end (i.e. every Medium Laser becomes a PPC, Machine Guns become Gauss or AC/20, etc.).

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

Hard numbers aren't easy as you need to factor in the Damage Over Time, Heat Generated and Recharges. If those three can't be balanced between the weapons well, its only going to reflect when it becomes boated sometime.

Ideally for what we have now; restricted hardpoints and options -

AC-20
20 damage, 4 seconds (3 Heat)
AC-10
10 Damage, 2.5 seconds (1 Heat)
AC-5
5 Damage, 1.7 seconds (0.2 heat)
AC-2
2 damage, 0.9 second (0.1 heat)

is what I would think off the bat.

That sounds kinda underpowered for the AC/2 and leaves us with the same issue FASA started in the 80's with the original autocannons (all of them except the 20 weigh too much for what they do).

By the way, you also nerfed the AC/5 back down to what is was prior to PGI's reload time buff of 1.5 seconds (it was absolute trash tier before 1.5s reload; nobody ever used it). Honestly it could use a tiny bit faster reload than what it is now to help get it closer to the UAC/5.

The AC/10 needs a flat-out buff from where is stands ATM. Right now the AC/20 does more damage at 450m than the AC/10 does, and gets double the alpha strike (and more DPS) for only 2 more tons of weight (yes, the AC/20 takes up a lot of slots but the AC/10 is still too big for what it currently does). Even if you reduced the AC/10 reload to only 2 seconds to match the AC/20 DPS, the AC/10 would still be less effective due to half the alpha damage.

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

Dual AC-20, 40 for 4 seconds, 80 at 8, 120 around 12
Dual AC-10, 20 for 2.5, 40 at 5, 60 at 7.5, 90 at 10, 120 around 12.5
Triple AC-5, 15 for 1.7, 30 at 3.4, 60 by 6.4, 120 around 13.6
Quad AC-4, 8 for 0.9, 32 at 3.6, 56 by 6.3, 120 around 13.5 (costing 1.5 heat)
At the moment the AC-2 could deal nearly 1920 damage in 2 minutes, but it costs it 240 heat.

Heat note for what it should be for the dissipation/10 seconds
Damnit PGI, fix that already for all weapons...

Methinks you might be relying slightly too hard on spreadsheet damage ratios as opposed to getting down and dirty in the trenches. For instance, the PPC has lower DPS and higher heat per second than an AC/10, but we don't see threads about the "AC/10 meta" everywhere...

Edited by FupDup, 24 July 2013 - 08:56 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

I eddied the numbers while you were typing, but not that much.

However, that is the point. Its the benefits vs disadvantages of the options.

The AC-20 can deal up-front outright damage, but it might not be enough in certain instances to outperform another AC.

Even though it says that number for damage, it doesn't pan out - however it doesn't allow for that absurd number to occur.

Is it unfair to the smaller? Maybe. Maybe not. The whole idea around it is to reward the larger sized on one aspect while allowing the smaller alternative - but not where one is completely outperforming another.

The key point is heat, duration and effectiveness in certain builds. If you can fire recklessly, you'll land those hits eventually - so the range can be an advantage, but you need the ammo. That is where the tires hit the pavement here. IF its possible, you do see how the other smaller AC can outclass the larger? And that's on my adjustments. As it is now its crazy if it wasn't for the borked heat.

The key is in the performance. How long, how many shots, what kind of time, positions... its where testing is needed, but I dare say I'm not too far off the mark there.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

I eddied the numbers while you were typing, but not that much.

However, that is the point. Its the benefits vs disadvantages of the options.

The AC-20 can deal up-front outright damage, but it might not be enough in certain instances to outperform another AC.

Even though it says that number for damage, it doesn't pan out - however it doesn't allow for that absurd number to occur.

Is it unfair to the smaller? Maybe. Maybe not. The whole idea around it is to reward the larger sized on one aspect while allowing the smaller alternative - but not where one is completely outperforming another.

The numbers you provided above leave the AC/10 still obsolete to the AC/20, and also leave the AC/5 and AC/2 as underperformers (especially the '2).

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

The key point is heat, duration and effectiveness in certain builds. If you can fire recklessly, you'll land those hits eventually - so the range can be an advantage, but you need the ammo. That is where the tires hit the pavement here. IF its possible, you do see how the other smaller AC can outclass the larger? And that's on my adjustments. As it is now its crazy if it wasn't for the borked heat.

The key is in the performance. How long, how many shots, what kind of time, positions... its where testing is needed, but I dare say I'm not too far off the mark there.

Your spreadsheet-warrior numbers are leaving out something very important. It doesn't matter how "equal" the damage ratios are in the end, because the person who has to click more times to get to that damage is at the disadvantage. We already see this in effect with the current PPC-fest and the dominance of pinpoint alphas in general. Quick, high-precision kills > slow, low-precision kills. The lower sized AC's also have to expose themselves to enemy fire longer to do their damage (longer cooldown means more time for twisting or even hiding, and thus surviving longer).


If you really want to talk about the range game, let's bring in weapons from other classes into this--because autocannons aren't the only weapons in the game.

LRMs have a longer optimal range than any AC (although the cannons have extended max range where they can still do pinprick damage past 1000m), and you can get 10 missiles for 5 tons (4 tons if you use 2 LRM5); which effectively outclasses the AC/2 in most ways except that it isn't direct fire. If you want a direct fire option, take a PPC for the same weight as an AC/2 + 1 ton of ammo and deal with the extra heat (and lower range, or get ERPPC for approximately the same range).

For the AC/5, you can replace it with a PPC for a similar range profile (or go ERPPC for longer range), double the alpha, and throw in a DHS to make up for the extra heat (also, hiding behind a hill while you cool down).

For the AC/10, that is also replaced by the PPC (heck, even a LL).

Edited by FupDup, 24 July 2013 - 09:20 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

As for your "matching recharge" there is something you need to keep in mind;

First shot, recharge, second shot, recharge, third shot.

Dual AC-20 deals 40 damage in 4 seconds.
Dual AC-10 would deal 60 damage in 4 seconds. with 2 second recharge.

Right now for the others;
Dual AC-2 deals 60 damage in 5 seconds with 2.5 second recharge. costs 18 heat
Triple AC-5 deals 60 damage in 4.5 seconds with 1.5 second recharge. costs 12 heat
Quad AC-2 deals 72 damage in 4 seconds with 0.5 second recharge.costs 32 heat

Bit of a difference then.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 24 July 2013 - 09:23 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

FupDup, on 24 July 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

Your spreadsheet-warrior numbers are leaving out something very important. It doesn't matter how "equal" the damage ratios are in the end, because the person who has to click more times to get to that damage is at the disadvantage. We already see this in effect with the current PPC-fest and the dominance of pinpoint alphas in general. Quick, high-precision kills > slow, low-precision kills. The lower sized AC's also have to expose themselves to enemy fire longer to do their damage (longer cooldown means more time for twisting or even hiding, and thus surviving longer).


If you really want to talk about the range game, let's bring in weapons from other classes into this--because autocannons aren't the only weapons in the game.

LRMs have a longer optimal range than any AC (although the cannons have extended max range where they can still do pinprick damage past 1000m), and you can get 10 missiles for 5 tons (4 tons if you use 2 LRM5); which effectively outclasses the AC/2 in most ways except that it isn't direct fire. If you want a direct fire option, take a PPC for the same weight as an AC/2 + 1 ton of ammo and deal with the extra heat (and lower range, or get ERPPC for approximately the same range).

For the AC/5, you can replace it with a PPC for a similar range profile (or go ERPPC for longer range), double the alpha, and throw in a DHS to make up for the extra heat (also, hiding behind a hill while you cool down).

For the AC/10, that is also replaced by the PPC (heck, even a LL).

That is where we see the major issue with this game's pinpoint convergence and group fired alphastrikes. It shouldn't be that way because we end up with that high preference for the easy kills, or better system.

Its a flaw, I know -but I'm not stating it as absolutes. It can be tweaked to get more or less damage over time to adjust for human error - but not to the degree you are asking. I say that because if we do that pure level for like the AC-10 we just replaced the Dual AC-20 with the Dual AC-10s the situation really hasn't improved.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 24 July 2013 - 09:28 PM.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

As for your "matching recharge" there is something you need to keep in mind;

First shot, recharge, second shot, recharge, third shot.

Dual AC-20 deals 40 damage in 4 seconds.
Dual AC-10 would deal 60 damage in 4 seconds. with 2 second recharge.
Triple AC-5 deals 60 damage in 4.5 seconds with 1.5 second recharge.
Quad AC-2 deals 72 damage in 4 seconds with 0.5 second recharge.

Bit of a difference then.

You math doesn't look right. The dual AC/20 got one alpha, but you gave the dual AC/10 three alphas (which is 6 seconds, not 4). The triple AC/5 would get in 3 alphas in 4.5 seconds, leaving it with 15 x 3 = 45 damage. The quad AC/2 would do 64 damage in 4 seconds.


You're also skipping over the thing that I keep repeating over and over again. The dual AC/20 only has to click once to get that damage out--which may take somewhere around one second to do in-game (arbitrary number). Once he fires that single salvo, he's free to hide behind cover while he reloads. The small-calibre AC boats fighting him don't get that liberty. If he hides between shots, their overall damage dealt will be lower than his no matter what.

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

That is where we see the major issue with this game's pinpoint convergence and group fired alphastrikes. It shouldn't be that way because we end up with that high preference for the easy kills, or better system.

Its a flaw, I know -but I'm not stating it as absolutes. It can be tweaked to get more or less damage over time to adjust for human error - but not to the degree you are asking. I say that because if we do that pure level for like the AC-10 we just replaced the Dual AC-20 with the Dual AC-10s the situation really hasn't improved.

Actually, dual AC/10 could probably be easier to deal with because of having only half the alpha potential.


And yes, alphas are a problem (if not the problem) of the current game. It's why I don't ask for nerfs to low-alpha weapons. If PGI was to reverse their decision and choose to address convergence, then your damage tables would have a bit more merit than they do right now in the current gameplay.

Edited by FupDup, 24 July 2013 - 09:37 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

FupDup, on 24 July 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

You math doesn't look right. The dual AC/20 got one alpha, but you gave the dual AC/10 three alphas (which is 6 seconds, not 4). The triple AC/5 would get in 3 alphas in 4.5 seconds, leaving it with 15 x 3 = 45 damage. The quad AC/2 would do 64 damage in 4 seconds.

The math's right, its cycle times, remember?

0 seconds - first shots
0.5 second - AC-2 2nd shot
1 second - AC-2 3rd shot
1.5 seconds - AC-5 2nd shot, AC-2 4th shot
2 second - AC-2 5th shot
2 seconds - AC-10 2nd shot, AC-2 6th shot
2.5 seconds AC-2 7th shot
3 seconds - AC-5 3rd shot, AC-2 8th shot
3.5 seconds - AC-2 9th shot
4 seconds - AC-20 2nd shot, AC-10 3rd shot, AC-2 10th shot
4.5 seconds - AC-5 4th shot

But your right, I was off. AC-2 gets another shot, 80 damage in 4 seconds for 40 heat.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 24 July 2013 - 09:38 PM.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

The math's right, its cycle times, remember?

0 seconds - first shots
0.5 second - AC-2 2nd shot
1 second - AC-2 3rd shot
1.5 seconds - AC-5 2nd shot, AC-2 4th shot
2 second - AC-2 5th shot
2 seconds - AC-10 2nd shot, AC-2 6th shot
2.5 seconds AC-2 7th shot
3 seconds - AC-5 3rd shot, AC-2 8th shot
3.5 seconds - AC-2 9th shot
4 seconds - AC-20 2nd shot, AC-10 3rd shot, AC-2 10th shot
4.5 seconds - AC-5 4th shot

But your right, I was off. AC-2 gets another shot, 80 damage in 4 seconds for 40 heat.

You typo'ed and listed 2 seconds twice. O_o


There are still errors, though. Above you said the dual AC/20 would do 40 damage in 4 seconds, but since it fires at both 0 and 4 seconds then it does 80 damage. The AC/2 is just 72 under the new assumption, because it does 8 damage at the 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 second intervals. That's nine intervals of 8 damage, making for 72 total damage.

Edited by FupDup, 24 July 2013 - 09:44 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

FupDup, on 24 July 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

You're also skipping over the thing that I keep repeating over and over again. The dual AC/20 only has to click once to get that damage out--which may take somewhere around one second to do in-game (arbitrary number). Once he fires that single salvo, he's free to hide behind cover while he reloads. The small-calibre AC boats fighting him don't get that liberty. If he hides between shots, their overall damage dealt will be lower than his no matter what.


Actually, dual AC/10 could probably be easier to deal with because of having only half the alpha potential.


And yes, alphas are a problem (if not the problem) of the current game. It's why I don't ask for nerfs to low-alpha weapons. If PGI was to reverse their decision and choose to address convergence, then your damage tables would have a bit more merit than they do right now in the current gameplay.

I'm not trying to skip the problem per se, but that's a factor in the game. Torso Twisting is an option, and depending on the situation it changes alot.

I know the one-click hits of 4x PPC, AC40 and the ERPPC/Gauss setups are a nuciance for it - but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that something can deal such amount more in such a short time is right.

How long do you need to strip rear armor usually? Or tear down something? So its got the ability to twist its arm in the way, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact a Quad AC-2 has the potential to rip through that arm, shoulder and kill the CT in a matter of a dozen seconds if they ever fix the AC-2 "heat bug" I believe they called it. At that point ALOT changes.


The numbers need evening out. If that means that one is less effective on the competitive scale, well that's the competitive scale. I don't care.

I care about the average newbie facing another newbie with a FOTM build and abuses the fact theirs is better than the opponents and starts thinking so highly of himself. Cause you know they''ll cry foul when they reach real skill later. Better to soften the impact earlier than later I think.

FupDup, on 24 July 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

You typo'ed and listed 2 seconds twice. O_o


There are still errors, though. Above you said the dual AC/20 would do 40 damage in 4 seconds, but since it fires at both 0 and 4 seconds then it does 80 damage. The AC/2 is just 72 under the new assumption, because it does 8 damage at the 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 second intervals. That's nine intervals of 8 damage, making for 72 total damage.

Okay, hitting 2am so I'm getting sloppy.

I'll look at this after some rest I guess.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

How long do you need to strip rear armor usually? Or tear down something? So its got the ability to twist its arm in the way, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact a Quad AC-2 has the potential to rip through that arm, shoulder and kill the CT in a matter of a dozen seconds if they ever fix the AC-2 "heat bug" I believe they called it. At that point ALOT changes.

Stripping rear armor depends on the mech. If it's a medium or smaller, then it dies instantly (lights die instantly from any direction if I actually hit the little hooligan). Medium mech frontal side torsos take 2 hits and the CT takes 2-3. Heavies and assaults usually don't give me their back, so I just take potshots from a hidey hill and wear them down over time.

Anyways, people in open get ripped apart by pretty much anything, with LRMs being the most devious at it of all due to how they love to hit the CT so much.

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

The numbers need evening out. If that means that one is less effective on the competitive scale, well that's the competitive scale. I don't care.

I care about the average newbie facing another newbie with a FOTM build and abuses the fact theirs is better than the opponents and starts thinking so highly of himself. Cause you know they''ll cry foul when they reach real skill later. Better to soften the impact earlier than later I think.

The average newbies are unlikely to be experienced enough to even effectively utilize low-alpha-high-dps weapons as it is, so reducing the effectiveness of stuff like the AC/2 won't really change much. FoTM builds centered around high alphas (such as the infamous Pee Pee Cee) would still be much easier to use and more effective at any level of the game.

Edited by FupDup, 24 July 2013 - 09:56 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Quickie post before I sleep though;

0 seconds - first shots
0.5 second - AC-2 2nd shot
1 second - AC-2 3rd shot
1.5 seconds - AC-5 2nd shot, AC-2 4th shot
2 second - AC-2 5th shot
2.5 seconds - AC-10 2nd shot, AC-2 6th shot
3 seconds AC-2 7th shot
3.5 seconds - AC-5 3rd shot, AC-2 8th shot
4 seconds - AC-20 2nd shot, AC-10 3rd shot, AC-2 9th shot
4.5 seconds - AC-5 4th shot, AC-2 10th shot

There, that looks better.

Dual AC-20 in 4 seconds = 80 damage
Dual AC-10 in 4 seconds = 60 damage Current Dual AC-10 in 5 seconds = 60 damage
Triple AC-5 in 4.5 seconds = 60 damage
Quad AC-2 in 4.5 seconds = 80 damage

AC40 is short range, slow
AC-10 short-mid range, moderate
AC-5 mid-long range, moderate
AC-2 long range, fast

The range differences are the key points.

1) You are right, a minor buff to AC-10 wouldn't hurt, much.

2) The range benefits of the AC-5 doesn't warrant such a recharge nerf, your right #2, but I think its still too fast.

3) The extreme range bonus of the AC-2 doesn't warrant the damage level considering the time the AC-2 could be firing. Its borked now, so its somewhat balanced with faster recharge but massive heat - but it shouldn't be that way.

The AC-2 ought to be relatively lowish damage output compared to the AC-20/10/5 but also extremely low heat cost. Its a suppression weapon - kinda needs a ton more ammo tho. In my sleepy state it brings a thought to mind - lowering the effectiveness of the AC-5 slightly but buffing ammo on it along with the conservative nerf on AC-2 damage and generous buff on heat with a massive ammo boost for it.

basically allow the AC-5 and AC-2 to function as suppression weapons by allowing it to have the ammo for it.
Odd thought though.. need to sleep on it.