57 replies to this topic

[Raso]

LoboSG, on 11 September 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

dual ac10 is so heavy that i have use xl engine... instead i got the ac20, 4ml (that 40 dmg right there), and 2 mg to harrass/crit, AND using a std engine to boot.

The XL is unnecessary unless you want to go MAD FAST (read as: "moderately quicker") with your AC10s. The beauty of the AC10s is you don't need to be directly adjacent to someone to harm then, like with the AC20s. You can skimp a bit on speed because you have so much range BUT unlike the PPCs you have good heat control and no minimum range.

This is what I use when I run AC10s (sometime with quad Small Lasers in place of dual Medium Lasers)
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1f1abee1116d2e9

Brenden, on 10 September 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

Question - why not LB-10X ACs? Wouldn't those be more sufficient?

Since they got their buff they are actually pretty good. I've been running this to good effect a few times. You have good range but suffer from pretty poor heat so you want to ambush and make sure you use your LBX at the right range and on the right target.

This is what I use when I run LBX10s.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...75c2aba1868a7bf

Edited by Raso, 11 September 2013 - 10:30 AM.

[Brenden]

Raso, on 11 September 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

The XL is unnecessary unless you want to go MAD FAST (read as: "moderately quicker") with your AC10s. The beauty of the AC10s is you don't need to be directly adjacent to someone to harm then, like with the AC20s. You can skimp a bit on speed because you have so much range BUT unlike the PPCs you have good heat control and no minimum range.

This is what I use when I run AC10s (sometime with quad Small Lasers in place of dual Medium Lasers)
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1f1abee1116d2e9



Since they got their buff they are actually pretty good. I've been running this to good effect a few times. You have good range but suffer from pretty poor heat so you want to ambush and make sure you use your LBX at the right range and on the right target.

This is what I use when I run LBX10s.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...75c2aba1868a7bf

I like what you're running, but I feel that the inclusion of an XL Engine would be more beneficial. You could add an AMS to it for more protection.

[Raso]

Brenden, on 11 September 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

I like what you're running, but I feel that the inclusion of an XL Engine would be more beneficial. You could add an AMS to it for more protection.

I would have to disagree. The thing about my AC10 build is that while it is primarily a mid range, direct fire support unit that it also functions up close and personal. I originally devised it to fit an anti-AC40 Jager role, picking out side torsos from range wobbled the AC40 Jager wobbles ever closer. The goal was that even if the AC40 yager was using a STD engine if it was down one arm we had would have equal fire power when it came into optimal range (but I would have a superior rate of fire and beam weapons to boot!).

While I could fit an AMS on the Jager with an XL (lord knows Jagers and LRMs do NOT get along) I feel that proper use of the high arm hard points and cover negates the overbearing necessity of the AMS (not it's usefulness just negates having it be a requirement). As a mid range fire support unit the extra speed also isn't a huge requirement since at my preferred engagement range even if I was pushing 70 kph I wouldn't be out running anything I couldn't already out run but not out gun. The weapon set up also allows me to stand my ground with out fear of excessive heat and with added redundancy.

Pro tip: 9 times out of 10 you will lose your torso laser from a crit before your arm's armor is fully stripped (except maybe in the JM6-A). This is no mech for an XL engine and if I wouldn't use one in my mid range build I certainly won't in my LBX build!

If I were to put an AMS on my LBX Jager this is how I'd do it.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...44b09e06b8edaf7
I'd remove 2 medium lasers giving my better heat and add extra leg armor to protect my ammo cache. I've never had a problem with losing an arm before my side torsos were pretty messed up so I'd put my AMS ammo in there for safe keeping so that it's away from my engine.

Edited by Raso, 11 September 2013 - 05:11 PM.

[Punk Oblivion]

Raso knows whats up

I run XL's in jagers for more of my go-to builds then I probably should. But I have found only two reasons to use an XL.
1) You pack in so much firepower that you can make most other mechs cower away from direct fights (Think 3 UAC5/AC40)

2) You can crank up the speed enough to play it a little more medium-ish. Meaning you NEVER stop moving, and you are constantly torso twisting/being aware of and using cover constantly.

Also, the better I have gotten in MWO, the less and less I use AMS. Now I usually only use it on my atlas', to help "tank" and protect my teammates.

[LoboSG]

Raso, on 11 September 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

...

I am not going mad fast actually, just about the same speed as you in a 260 engine...iirc. Besides the weight issue (which I used to equip 2 more ml and 2 mgs than you), is that it is DUAL. At range, you have to lead the target, meaning you are aiming at blank space, meaning there is NO convergence. You are then either hitting different spots on the enemy mech or 1 round missed.

p.s had my best ever dmg round in that build last night, hitting 1005 dmg.

[Stomp]

Raso, on 13 August 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

I must confess, though. Up a fairly good range the AC20 does still hold up, damage per shot, to the AC10. Aside from that the AC10 has a marginally higher rate of fire and better heat per second.

I think that they need to give the AC10 a bit of love to make it more competitive. Say an even 2 second rate of fire, another 50m to 100m worth of range and MAYBE juuuuust MAYBE an ever so minor reduction in the range or bullet speed of the AC20.

I mean it's kinda sad that you can be out damaged by an AC20 at a range of almost 500m with an AC10.

Except you can't, really. 1 AC/20 does, what, 10 points of damage at 500m?

[Raso]

Stomp, on 15 September 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

Except you can't, really. 1 AC/20 does, what, 10 points of damage at 500m?

That sounds about right. In my opinion that's encroaching too far into the AC10's territory. An AC20 basically deals the same damage as an AC10 a whole 150m past the effective range of the AC10. Granted, an AC10 fires significantly faster than the AC10 and with less heat but if you or your target is closing in that damage increases rapidly.

I think the AC10 should have the range of the AC5, the AC5 should have the range of the AC2 and the AC2 should be bumped up to somewhere in the 800s or 900s. At the very least the AC10 should have the same range as the LBX10.

[Stomp]

Raso, on 15 September 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

That sounds about right. In my opinion that's encroaching too far into the AC10's territory. An AC20 basically deals the same damage as an AC10 a whole 150m past the effective range of the AC10. Granted, an AC10 fires significantly faster than the AC10 and with less heat but if you or your target is closing in that damage increases rapidly.

I think the AC10 should have the range of the AC5, the AC5 should have the range of the AC2 and the AC2 should be bumped up to somewhere in the 800s or 900s. At the very least the AC10 should have the same range as the LBX10.

So what you're saying is, despite gimping yourself with 2 extra tons and less than half the amount of shots, an AC/20 should still be nerfed because at the very minimum of an AC/10s effective range it does the same damage, not more? Might as well not shoot it in my opinion, it's a waste of tonnage on gun and ammo if that's how anybody uses an AC/20. It's exclusively a brawler/mid-range weapon, I don't see the benefit in making it less range, it's already hotter, heavier, and more inefficient in terms of DPS and ammo/ton.

[Raso]

Stomp, on 15 September 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

So what you're saying is, despite gimping yourself with 2 extra tons and less than half the amount of shots, an AC/20 should still be nerfed because at the very minimum of an AC/10s effective range it does the same damage, not more? Might as well not shoot it in my opinion, it's a waste of tonnage on gun and ammo if that's how anybody uses an AC/20. It's exclusively a brawler/mid-range weapon, I don't see the benefit in making it less range, it's already hotter, heavier, and more inefficient in terms of DPS and ammo/ton.

I'm not saying (at least not in the past 2 posts now that I have had more time to ponder the over all situation) to reduce the AC20's range. I'm saying the fact that the AC20 can still deal the same amount of damage (maybe more) as the AC10 past the AC10's max range is ridiculous. The AC10 could benefit from a range boost to give it more of an edge at doing it's own thing.

Right now the AC10 is in a very precarious spot. It deals 10 pinpoint damage at less heat than the PPC but with ammo it has a much more demanding fitting requirement. I feel that the trade offs between the PPC and AC10 work well to make both distinct from one and other. Both deal 10 damage, but both have a role along side or opposed to one and other. The problem is, however, that the distinction between a single AC20 and a single AC10. Why use a single AC10 if you can use an AC20 instead? The AC10's bullet speed and rate of fire is it's only real edge over the AC20 at ranges you would expect to use an AC10. Those are good reasons to choose the AC10 but I feel that the AC20 encroaches too much into the AC10's territory. I think that boosting the range of the AC10 would be enough to start with. From there it could be further evaluated.

[Stomp]

Raso, on 15 September 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

I'm not saying (at least not in the past 2 posts now that I have had more time to ponder the over all situation) to reduce the AC20's range. I'm saying the fact that the AC20 can still deal the same amount of damage (maybe more) as the AC10 past the AC10's max range is ridiculous. The AC10 could benefit from a range boost to give it more of an edge at doing it's own thing.

Right now the AC10 is in a very precarious spot. It deals 10 pinpoint damage at less heat than the PPC but with ammo it has a much more demanding fitting requirement. I feel that the trade offs between the PPC and AC10 work well to make both distinct from one and other. Both deal 10 damage, but both have a role along side or opposed to one and other. The problem is, however, that the distinction between a single AC20 and a single AC10. Why use a single AC10 if you can use an AC20 instead? The AC10's bullet speed and rate of fire is it's only real edge over the AC20 at ranges you would expect to use an AC10. Those are good reasons to choose the AC10 but I feel that the AC20 encroaches too much into the AC10's territory. I think that boosting the range of the AC10 would be enough to start with. From there it could be further evaluated.

I'd hesitantly agree that the PPC and AC/10 right now are currently occupying a bit of a sweet spot of damage/range, and I'd also agree the AC/10 could use a small range bonus... but it's not that simple: For one thing, very few mechs can mount an AC/20. The only chassis that a majority of the variants can mount an AC/20 are the Hunchbacks, the Atlases, and the Jagermechs. Some other notable mechs that successfully mount on are one of the Highlanders, and I think one of the Victors? OH and I'm forgetting the new Orion. The Flame can mount one, but Hero mechs are rare enough to not factor too much, like the Wang. Other than that, almost none of the mechs can use them. Right there is a point of interest, but let's go a bit further.

Next is the issue of ammo. Although you do only TECHNICALLY need two tons to switch up, it's not nearly that simple. You're also cutting your ammo count AND your range in half. Your ammo/ton goes from 15 shots a ton to 7. Literally. 7. Shots. Per. Ton. That's so small haha, you're committing at least 4 tons to upgrade, which even on heavier mechs runs the risk of cutting into your other guns' tonnage requirements, like heatsinks or missile ammo, etc. This is assuming you have an AC/10 with 2 tons, ie: 30 shots, which is a pretty solid amount assuming you have 75% hit ratio. A straight switch will get you an AC/20... with no ammo. A switch + 2 tons allows for an AC/20 with 2 tons, or 14 shots. You'll end up with a brawler weapon that has no range, flies SO. SLOW. And did I mention that you'd probably get more damage with the AC/10? Assuming you hit with every single round (and I'm not saying anybody will, but you never know) with the AC/10 with 2 tons inside your effective range, you'll do 300. With an AC/20, even with 2 tons as well, inside your effective range, you'll still only do 280 damage. With less range, slower rate of fire, aaannnnd more heat.

So, in closing, the AC/10 occupies a special spot with a certain amount of mech builds, and isn't to be compared easily with an AC/20. I prefer an AC/20 myself, as I'm a huge Hunchback pilot. I steamroll through bigger mechs simply because I have a big gun, and know how to use it.

[Brenden]

Behold, the latest in Viking Technology. I present to you...
PffttftftftftftffftfBOOM.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...a3ae270aa5678c6

[MaddMaxx]

Thoughts on this one. My first Jager.

Quote

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ea9b870994ffe40

May need AMS but for now...

[Punk Oblivion]

^^^ Remove ammo from the Side Torsos! It is a deathtrap with XL engines. Remove the CASE, it does nothing for XL's Move ammo to legs>head>arms>CT
Also you can remove just a hair more armor from the legs and fit in a DHS

So something like this: JM6-S

[Gelf]

My build for the beloved Jager: 1xUAC5 / 1x AC20 / 2xMPLAS / AMS. I use xl250 engine an 4 tons of ammo for both ACs (virtually I never run out of ammo....yet). Full armor to the whole torso, a bt less on arms/legs. I like this one and I find it very usefull, especially when use different button to fire with left/right arm weapon, so i dont have to fully show my torso to my enemies and spend less time in their crosshair. Any opinion? Pro or contra?

[Autobot9000]

The build just proves, that people are always looking for the current meta's best pin-point damage. Now it's the AC10, before it was PPCs and Gauss rifles. Wheres the difference? PGI's meta changes did more or less nothing.

[Hex Pallett]

Autobot9000, on 01 October 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

The build just proves, that people are always looking for the current meta's best pin-point damage. Now it's the AC10, before it was PPCs and Gauss rifles. Wheres the difference? PGI's meta changes did more or less nothing.

The gameplay was recorded before the Gauss nerf and PPC heat over-rewind.

Also, I played very VERY carefully not to become the center of the firefight, so I could deal sustained damage. You know what's the arch enemy of this build?

Quad-AC2 Jager.

Edited by Helmstif, 02 October 2013 - 02:39 PM.

[Autobot9000]

Helmstif, on 02 October 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

The gameplay was recorded before the Gauss nerf and PPC heat over-rewind.

Also, I played very VERY carefully not to become the center of the firefight, so I could deal sustained damage. You know what's the arch enemy of this build?

Quad-AC2 Jager.

Legit answer, although the double AC10 can be played as hit&run 20 pin point damage at 450m range. I think thats the actual use in almost every game I see nowadays - post patch!

[Colby Boucher]

Side note - A Blackjack with 2 AC5s is like a mini version of this (works really, really well)

[tib3r]

Is the quad AC2 a good build? They seem sort of iffy to me.

[Autobot9000]

tib3r, on 04 October 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

Is the quad AC2 a good build? They seem sort of iffy to me.

Problem is ghost heat, otherwise its great.