35 replies to this topic

[Ph30nix]

i really enjoyed my 4 ac/2 jager. I've never used macros i would use multple groups sometimes to do staggering fire.
2 in group 1 2 in group 2 and alternate. Can't do that anymore
2 in group 1 2 in group 2 both set to chain fire and fire both groups at once (so 2 shots at a time) can't do that anymore

so only options for the weapon is fire all 4 at once which is fine thats what i normaly do. but heaven help me if i accidently click my other weapon group then click my main group too fast....

Ghost heat on the ac/2 is NOT NEEDED, if the dev's think this is working as intended then frankly the Dev's dont know jack.

If one of you had been but hurt by chain fire ac/2 then just put a cooldown on cockpit shake of .5 seconds. people can fire their weapon any way they want and players will only experience cockpit shake from ac/2's every .5 seconds which is what you seem to think is the fastest anyone should ever fire a weapon.

[ShadowbaneX]

You know what would be a good way of getting rid of the Ghost Heat for AC/2s? Is if they double the cool down time. AC/2s cycle WAY too quickly as it is.

[Ph30nix]

ShadowbaneX, on 13 October 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

You know what would be a good way of getting rid of the Ghost Heat for AC/2s? Is if they double the cool down time. AC/2s cycle WAY too quickly as it is.

so then you want them to make them completely useless?

[General Taskeen]

AC's are mostly in a weird place, especially the AC/2. If the cool down is increased, it becomes useless as it was in Closed Beta. If it is too fast, its heat spikes up dramatically - making it unlike the AC/2 from Battle Tech which was the most heat effective Autocannon besides the AC/5.

Since they stuck with straight damage values, that is is inherent to the underlying problem. They have attempted to copy/paste the damage/heat values in a Mech Warrior game. Past Mech Warrior games usually made AC's burst weapons, so an AC/2 did fire very fast, but the 2 damage was spread over a couple or several shells, so it remained as the most heat effective AC, but required more time on target (by mostly staying at long range).

[theta123]

I was a profound user of the quad AC2 and i find ShadowbaneX suggestion a good idea

basically the heat it develops remains the same before ghost heat

the cool down is longer

That way, you go out, unleash a healthy burst, now you need to fall back to cool down

[Edustaja]

3xAC/2 on group fire is pretty good :D

[C E Dwyer]

balistics are now the dominant meta, and you want them more powerful..

[FerrolupisXIII]

They dont even properly chain fire now. its more like they alternate if you have a pair, and running more of them is even worse because you loose even more dps. i have no idea what is up with that but its annoying and makes me hate multiple AC-2 builds.

[ShadowbaneX]

Ph30nix, on 13 October 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

so then you want them to make them completely useless?

I actually think they're a bit on the OP side, yes. Keep in mind that the DPS for an AC/2 is actually quite high. The AC/20 should actually have, you know, 10 times the DPS of an AC/2, instead it's only got ~1.3 times the DPS and for the same tonnage a pair of AC/2s with ammo (say 18 tons each, 14+4 & 12+6) the AC/2 actually does more DPS from much further away than an AC/20 does. So, yeah, I would like to make them "completely useless" since that term usually translates to "still effective, but not OP".

[Ph30nix]

Cathy, on 13 October 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

balistics are now the dominant meta, and you want them more powerful..

they are only dominate because every other weapon was kicked in the balls.

and ac/2's are not some goddly all powerful weapon. Take away cockpit shake, remove ghost heat and the weapon would be perfect. Good DPS for sure, but it can't be sustained for too long and the longer you do the more exposed you are.

ShadowbaneX, on 13 October 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

I actually think they're a bit on the OP side, yes. Keep in mind that the DPS for an AC/2 is actually quite high. The AC/20 should actually have, you know, 10 times the DPS of an AC/2, instead it's only got ~1.3 times the DPS and for the same tonnage a pair of AC/2s with ammo (say 18 tons each, 14+4 & 12+6) the AC/2 actually does more DPS from much further away than an AC/20 does. So, yeah, I would like to make them "completely useless" since that term usually translates to "still effective, but not OP".

you forget one huge factor. the AC/20 is BANG all damage done at once, so you can hide afterwards. The AC/2 you need to stay out in the open to have that kind of dps and not miss. That is something people seem to neglect when it comes to balance.

[ShadowbaneX]

Ph30nix, on 13 October 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

they are only dominate because every other weapon was kicked in the balls.

and ac/2's are not some goddly all powerful weapon. Take away cockpit shake, remove ghost heat and the weapon would be perfect. Good DPS for sure, but it can't be sustained for too long and the longer you do the more exposed you are.



you forget one huge factor. the AC/20 is BANG all damage done at once, so you can hide afterwards. The AC/2 you need to stay out in the open to have that kind of dps and not miss. That is something people seem to neglect when it comes to balance.

Cept that you can do the DPS from much, much further away and with Advanced Zoom still target individual components, where as the AC/20 does have a steep drop off. Also, this very argument is proof that the AC/2 is on the OP side. It's a frikken AC/20. You shouldn't be able to compare to two. It's like saying that a Small Laser should be compared with a Large Laser.

[Ph30nix]

little differnt since they are beam weapons and you have to factor heat even more into the equation. SL has the best heat to damage ratio of any beam weapons.

also the ac/20 does 5 dps where the ac/2 is at just under 4. The AC/2 requires you to be exposed for 5 seconds to achieve the same ammount of damage as the ac/20. 5 seconds is more then like enough to get ***** in the open.

If someones dumb enough to not use cover and just sit and take that kind of a beating from long range then frankly they suck and deserve to get blown to pieces.

[ShadowbaneX]

Ph30nix, on 13 October 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

If someones dumb enough to not use cover and just sit and take that kind of a beating from long range then frankly they suck and deserve to get blown to pieces.

It's close enough. I could have used LRM5s and LRM20s, but you would have said it was different because of indirect fire. That's beside the point though. The point is that the smallest of a given weapon system shouldn't have nearly the same DPS as the largest of that similar system, regardless of time exposed.

As for cover and relative pilot skill, you have to go out in the open some time. Others know this and it can be taken advantage of, no matter how much skill someone might have.

[SecondReversal]

ShadowbaneX, on 13 October 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

I actually think they're a bit on the OP side, yes. Keep in mind that the DPS for an AC/2 is actually quite high. The AC/20 should actually have, you know, 10 times the DPS of an AC/2, instead it's only got ~1.3 times the DPS and for the same tonnage a pair of AC/2s with ammo (say 18 tons each, 14+4 & 12+6) the AC/2 actually does more DPS from much further away than an AC/20 does. So, yeah, I would like to make them "completely useless" since that term usually translates to "still effective, but not OP".

ShadowbaneX, on 13 October 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

Cept that you can do the DPS from much, much further away and with Advanced Zoom still target individual components, where as the AC/20 does have a steep drop off. Also, this very argument is proof that the AC/2 is on the OP side. It's a frikken AC/20. You shouldn't be able to compare to two. It's like saying that a Small Laser should be compared with a Large Laser.

Alright, I get that you don't understand what the acronym DPS stands for. And I get that you don't actually understand the basic algorythm to determine damage output on a weapon. I even get that you don't understand that all similar weapon classes are, in fact, directly comparable.

What I don't get is how a player who has been here since March and has over three hundred and fifty posts on the forums and has presumably played a like number of games could possibly not understand these things. All Ballistics are directly comparable to each other, as are all Lasers, all LRM systems, etc. That's entirely how you decide on the different statistics of each weapon to differentiate between them. AC2s have range in their favour, AC20s have DPS and point damage in theirs - Welcome to two different variations on the same system

[Byzan]

I agree AC/02 never needed ghost heat.

simply because it is/was the only AC that actually does produce significant heat anyway.

[ShadowbaneX]

I get that you can't come up with anything other than an Ad Hominem attack.

Here, let me explain (again, since appearently the two previous times were insufficient). The numbers are everything. AC/2's do 2 damage in a 10 second combat round. AC/20s do 20 damage in the same amount of time. That's 0.2 damage per second and 2 damage per second respectively.

Granted, that's from TT which is a bit slower than MWO. I don't have a problem with them being sped up, but I have a problem that the DPS of the AC/2 is nearly 20 times that of TT. In comparison the AC/20 is 2.5 that of TT. AC/10 is 4 times and AC/5 is 6.66 times. If they dropped the cooldown time to say 2 DPS it's still a massive, massive increase over TT (by 10 times), and yet still viable.

The other thing is the range. The AC/2 does it's full damage at up to 710 meters. At that range the AC/20 is doing 3 damage...every 4 seconds. That's a DPS (there's that term again) of 0.75. So, yeah, the AC/20 does have a higher DPS...at 270 meters. At further ranges it does less. So a if you stay at range and attack with AC/2s it's easier to dodge in and out of cover and you do lots more damage than others would. That's the advantage of the AC/2.

Did that make sense or do I need to dumb it down some more for you?

[MisterFiveSeven]

ShadowbaneX, on 13 October 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

Cept that you can do the DPS from much, much further away and with Advanced Zoom still target individual components, where as the AC/20 does have a steep drop off. Also, this very argument is proof that the AC/2 is on the OP side. It's a frikken AC/20. You shouldn't be able to compare to two. It's like saying that a Small Laser should be compared with a Large Laser.

If you think an ac20 and an ac2 are currently equivalent weapons, I really hope I see you in a drop.

Edit:

ShadowbaneX, on 13 October 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

I get that you can't come up with anything other than an Ad Hominem attack.

Here, let me explain (again, since appearently the two previous times were insufficient). The numbers are everything. AC/2's do 2 damage in a 10 second combat round. AC/20s do 20 damage in the same amount of time. That's 0.2 damage per second and 2 damage per second respectively.

Granted, that's from TT which is a bit slower than MWO. I don't have a problem with them being sped up, but I have a problem that the DPS of the AC/2 is nearly 20 times that of TT. In comparison the AC/20 is 2.5 that of TT. AC/10 is 4 times and AC/5 is 6.66 times. If they dropped the cooldown time to say 2 DPS it's still a massive, massive increase over TT (by 10 times), and yet still viable.

The other thing is the range. The AC/2 does it's full damage at up to 710 meters. At that range the AC/20 is doing 3 damage...every 4 seconds. That's a DPS (there's that term again) of 0.75. So, yeah, the AC/20 does have a higher DPS...at 270 meters. At further ranges it does less. So a if you stay at range and attack with AC/2s it's easier to dodge in and out of cover and you do lots more damage than others would. That's the advantage of the AC/2.

Did that make sense or do I need to dumb it down some more for you?

Your condescension is amusing. As is your ignorance.

I'm sorry an ac2 stole your high school girlfriend. ac2 /= ac20. ac20 is better. No one with any sense disagrees with that. 2 damage to one location. 20 damage to one location. End of story.

Was that dumbed down enough for you?

Edited by MisterFiveSeven, 13 October 2013 - 06:50 PM.

[FupDup]

Why do I see more Jagermechs carrying 2 AC/20 than 2 AC/2? Why do people rage more about the dual AC/20 than dual AC/2? Why do Atlai and Victors virtually always carry an AC/20 in their ballistic hardpoints?


It's all about focused/pinpoint damage and minimizing your exposure time.

Edited by FupDup, 13 October 2013 - 06:41 PM.

[stinkypuppy]

i say keep the ghost heat on them. currently when someone rapid shoots at you, you are basically blinded by explosion effects while getting your CT being annoyingly ripped apart that causes much more rage than a regular death. now imagine that 2 times faster. it would be hell for anyone without a jagermech. i'm sick of these people wanting ballistic buffs despite the fact that they already are the dominant king of the battlefield, play a mech with no ballistic weapons and go against a ballistic mech, chances are you are going to get obliterated. energy vs ballistic is like crossbows vs mini-guns.

[MisterFiveSeven]

FupDup, on 13 October 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

Why do I see more Jagermechs carrying 2 AC/20 than 2 AC/2? Why do people rage more about the dual AC/20 than dual AC/2? Why do Atlai and Victors virtually always carry an AC/20 in their ballistic hardpoints?


It's all about focused/pinpoint damage and minimizing your exposure time.

QFT, but it needs reiterated. DPS is a useless stat. Time spent staring at your target is time for them to pick location hit boxes and gut you like a fish.