15 replies to this topic

[Morquedeas]

So I am definetely not a new player, but I come here occasionally for clarification sometimes anyway.

Straight up, why would you ever take the AC/5 over the AC/2? This is assuming you are only using one.

The AC/2 weighs less, takes up less space, has greater range, faster projectile speed, and better dps. I understand that applying consistent damage to a single area is better but this is not really any easier or harder with either for a competent player so I think that is not a point of debate. I also am quite aware that in a fight it is to best to fire and twist away while your weapons are on cooldown. From my experience I find that the weapons have to have cooldown that is long enough for twisting away to matter, ballistics like the AC/10, AC/20, and the guass rifle fit into this catagory, and the AC/2 is in the opposite end of the spectrum with its sustained dps and shaking/blinding affects. The AC/5 seems to be in a sort of deadzone between these two catagorys.

I am curious if anyone can offer any redeeming qualities for using (a single) AC/5, because as it is now, I cannot justify using it ever. Maybe the cooldown of the AC/5 should be reduced just enough to have a dps advantage over the AC/2, you would think that a bigger and heavier weapon would be better.

[Elizander]

You can maintain higher DPS with an AC/5 while twisting and moving to protect yourself as opposed to an AC/2. It also deals more damage on each shot where you don't stand and deliver. You need to expose your torso and damaged areas more frequently with an AC/2 as opposed to any weapon with a slower rate of fire and higher damage. If you are forced to duck or twist away frequently to stay alive, the AC/5 will be far better than an AC/2.

Stand and deliver AC/2 is superior until you overheat. I don't think the AC/5 overheats ever.

[ShockATC]

I prefer the AC5 for its Heat - it almost has none. Well it sure has heat, but i doesnt matter much.

[Dalziel Hasek Davion]

As a Davion pilot I am about to commit heresy here - but I don't like small autocannons on their own - even the mighty UAC5. Don't tell anyone.

I would note that AC2s and AC5s have a different feel depending on whether you have one of them, or several of them. I think AC5s feel better in pairs or threes, AC2s feel better in fours. Nothing wrong with 2 AC5s and 2 AC2s - Jagermech stylee. I am not fond of either weapon as a singleton.

There are stat differences - sure. But weapon suitability is a lot about how you feel with them. With an AC2 and a suitable ammo load, I always feel like I could have spent 8-9 tonnes on something better and that if the enemy is bearing down on me, the AC2 offers nothing to hold them back or make them think twice.

[Redshift2k5]

The ac/2 does nearly twice the heat for the same amount of damage, spreads damage more, requires you to face the enemy more for maximum sustain, and the extra range is rarely necessary.

[scJazz]

Morquedeas, on 19 September 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

So I am definetely not a new player, but I come here occasionally for clarification sometimes anyway.

Straight up, why would you ever take the AC/5 over the AC/2? This is assuming you are only using one.

The AC/2 weighs less, takes up less space, has greater range, faster projectile speed, and better dps. I understand that applying consistent damage to a single area is better but this is not really any easier or harder with either for a competent player so I think that is not a point of debate. I also am quite aware that in a fight it is to best to fire and twist away while your weapons are on cooldown. From my experience I find that the weapons have to have cooldown that is long enough for twisting away to matter, ballistics like the AC/10, AC/20, and the guass rifle fit into this catagory, and the AC/2 is in the opposite end of the spectrum with its sustained dps and shaking/blinding affects. The AC/5 seems to be in a sort of deadzone between these two catagorys.

I am curious if anyone can offer any redeeming qualities for using (a single) AC/5, because as it is now, I cannot justify using it ever. Maybe the cooldown of the AC/5 should be reduced just enough to have a dps advantage over the AC/2, you would think that a bigger and heavier weapon would be better.

In your post you make repeated reference to DPS. Do not engage in this type of thinking. DPS is meaningless in MWO. It is better to think in terms of focused damage, heat or some combination of the two.

A single AC2 does 6 damage in 3 groups generating 3 heat compared to an AC5 which generates 5 damage in 1 group generating 1 heat during the same duration. 1 extra damage, 2 extra heat, 2 extra groups, and 4% ammo of one ton of ammo used compared to 3.33%.

Practically, no one uses just one AC though... on any design where it is possible people boat a weapon (use 2 or more) and this is where the ammo use and more importantly the heat has a real consequence.

2 AC2 6 heat <--- +4 heat with 10 DSHS time to overheat 19 seconds
2 AC5 2 heat <--- heat neutral with 10 DSHS time to overheat Infinity

Range for 1 point of damage
AC2 - 1440m
AC5 - 1612m

Are there mechs that can use AC2s to great effect? Oh yes definitely... I'm just pointing out that the situation is far more complicated than just DPS which is a terrible measure of effectiveness in MWO.

[Aym]

SC Jazz said it much better than I would have. I was so close to just typing "Why would EVER take a single AC2?"

[Koniving]

In past games, DPS mattered. Here, Paul has intentionally designed the game to deliberately jack DPS concepts into uselessness.

The core heat mechanics in PGI's design favors alpha strikes. (An MW3 one would favor damage over time above alpha strikes).
With the exception of some ballistics, instant/burst damage weapons fire faster (AC/20, PPC, etc. all fire faster than a large laser. A medium laser fires at the same rate as the AC/20 and PPC but spreads damage. AC/5, UAC/5, AC/10 and LB all fire faster.).
AC/2, normally considered a DPS weapon, is now gimped because heat penalties attack it for regular chain firing. Though it was never listed as being in the penalty system originally or in any official chart, Smurfy's data taken from the game proves it, as has many of the "AC/2 heat bugs", as well as Paul's stated: "This is intentional."

You know how the turtle is supposed to beat the hare because the hare gets exhausted (or so over confident he takes a nap)? Here, the race is gimped so that the turtle cannot win no matter what and intentionally so.

Every feasible attempt is made to gimp 'heat neutrality' (that is, the ability to pile on weaker weapons or only a couple of decent weapons in order to always return to zero heat before firing again with a design that favors damage over time. You take longer [sometimes considerably longer] to kill things, but you'll never shut down). And in so doing, they make heat management matter even less with high damage weapons.

Aym, on 20 September 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

SC Jazz said it much better than I would have. I was so close to just typing "Why would EVER take a single AC2?"

Pair an AC/2 with an LB-10. You'd be surprised.
Or an AC/2 with 1 medium laser as a missile boat's defense. Because of the limited weapons the heat is almost non-existent in a close range fight, and the cluster of LRMs will have softened the target significantly long before it gets close. Combine this with the maximum size standard engine on an 80 to 90 ton assault and you might even be impressed. Of course it's virtually defenseless against lights.

[Sadistic Savior]

Morquedeas, on 19 September 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

So I am definetely not a new player, but I come here occasionally for clarification sometimes anyway.

Straight up, why would you ever take the AC/5 over the AC/2? This is assuming you are only using one.

AC/5 does more damage per shot. You have to fire the AC/2 3 times to match what the AC/5 can do once, and even then the damage may not go to the same spot.

That being said, I don't think AC/5s and AC/2s are really intended to be mounted alone, and they are not the best sniping weapons...I'd much rather have a PPC or Gauss. Pinpoint damage is where it's at for sniping, not spam damage from LBX/low ACs/SRMS/whatever.

Quote

The AC/2 weighs less, takes up less space, has greater range, faster projectile speed, and better dps.

Stopping power > DPS

Pinpoint damage is always better unless you are not a good gunner. If your gunnery sucks or your goal is crits rather than damage, you use spam weapons. Otherwise pinpoint damage is king IMO.

I generally use AC/5s over AC/2s, though I do not use either a lot. And when I do, it is always in pairs. Even on a light mech, I would sooner use a single PPC or large laser.

[Aym]

Koniving, on 20 September 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

AC/2, normally considered a DPS weapon, is now gimped because heat penalties attack it for regular chain firing. Though it was never listed as being in the penalty system originally or in any official chart, Smurfy's data taken from the game proves it, as has many of the "AC/2 heat bugs", as well as Paul's stated: "This is intentional."

It's listed in the charts here http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2575191

[Koniving]

Aym, on 20 September 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

It's listed in the charts here http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2575191

But it was applied on the very first day of heatscale, back when large lasers, ER large lasers, LPL weren't linked and PPCs + ER PPCs weren't linked. And every volunteer moderator, some of the actual moderators, etc., all swore up and down "there's no AC/2 heat penalty" when we screamed about being hit by AC/2 heat penalties for chain and macro fire.

Back then it, half of the LRM types, and a few other affected weapons were never listed. That's what frustrates me the most.

And with their recent thing, the problem's been stated (to some degree) that the chain-fire firing rate doesn't give the weapon enough time on both ends to register that the penalty timer has been reached. So I wonder why they can't just lower the timer for just the AC/2s? Or if that's too much work (compared to what they've done already?) why not lower the penalty timer to 0.4 or 0.3 for all weapons?

Edited by Koniving, 20 September 2013 - 04:10 PM.

[Aym]

Koniving, on 20 September 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

But it was applied on the very first day of heatscale, back when large lasers, ER large lasers, LPL weren't linked and PPCs + ER PPCs weren't linked. And every volunteer moderator, some of the actual moderators, etc., all swore up and down "there's no AC/2 heat penalty" when we screamed about being hit by AC/2 heat penalties for chain and macro fire.

Back then it, half of the LRM types, and a few other affected weapons were never listed.

Thus do I feel it is reasonable to question whether or not people in charge of certain game mechanics might not be aware of issues such as fast fire.

[Project Chaos]

My opinion on the matter, is component destruction.

AC/5 will do more damage per critical heat, so it'll be more likely to destroy something.

AC/2 will have to hit several critical hits to achieve the same amount of damage.

Other than that, I also think it's more of a preference of "how big the gun is" some people might not like the AC/2 because they think of it as a "Pea-shooter" while others prefer the AC/5 because it is "bigger, badder, and has more punch," So to say.

[Sadistic Savior]

I tend to think of AC/2s more as heavy machine guns than light ACs.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Koniving, on 20 September 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

"A fair amount of FRUSTRATION whilst still remaining relatively calm"

I would assume that they know less about it than they dare admit: and I say that as one who supports them as much as I can.
(read: I do not say that to criticize them.)

I am starting to learn some about programming, and most of what I am learning is that even the best programmers (and I know some well above average ones) spend about half of any programming period slamming their head into the desk wondering why it is doing what it is/not doing what it should.

In other words, the more I learn about computers the more I believe we do not know as much about them as we think we do

[SethAbercromby]

Shar Wolf, on 20 September 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

I would assume that they know less about it than they dare admit: and I say that as one who supports them as much as I can.
(read: I do not say that to criticize them.)

I am starting to learn some about programming, and most of what I am learning is that even the best programmers (and I know some well above average ones) spend about half of any programming period slamming their head into the desk wondering why it is doing what it is/not doing what it should.

In other words, the more I learn about computers the more I believe we do not know as much about them as we think we do

I can completely relate to that. I'm am getting involved into game programming myself and even though I've just started, I've already had my fair share of weird happenings that had no reasonable source. Programming really makes you wonder about the inner logic of some systems sometimes.