116 replies to this topic

[Doctor Proctor]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 December 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

Once again the foolishness of "That's doing good, break it." Mentality. WHy in the world do I want my Heavy hitting ACs to be broken cause Energy weapons are not doing enough damage??? Seriously This is dumb thinking.

Lasers are not as good as ACs... ruin ACs! It is backwards logic. Increase the performance of Lasers so they are doing damage on par of Ballistics! I don't want weaker weapons, I want my opponents to drop over dead faster. That won't happen your way.

Increase Lasers DpS to be on par with Ballistics. And while we are at it buff Missiles as well.

Well first off, while I think that AC's are currently much stronger than laser based weapons, that doesn't mean that they need to be brought down to the effectiveness of lasers. I would prefer something in the middle actually. Increase laser's effectiveness so that they become more useful and can combat the PPC/AC meta, while also reducing some aspect of the AC's so that they actually have pros and cons. Reducing the 3x range to 2x or using some sort of an exponential model for damage falloff instead of linear would do that just fine. They still retain 100% of their effectiveness within optimal range, but now don't dominate at longer ranges like they do now.

Hell, on my 4H I have an LBX-10 and 4 ML, and at 500m if I have a shot I will usually fire the LBX. Why? Because optimal range is 510m and even with the fact that only half the pellets will hit, I will have a better chance to do damage with that weapon than the 4ML that will be doing at best approximately 1 damage per beam if I hold on target for a full second. So I would rather use a space shotgun at 500m than my lasers. That's kinda why things are unbalanced right now...

Also, to be frank, if you want a faster TTK (time to kill) go play any other FPS out there. One of the things that has always attracted me to Mech Warrior is the attrition nature of combat, as opposed to the "boom, headshot!" mentality of other shooters. These are giant mechs that weigh up to 100 tons...I don't want them dying within 5 seconds of turning a corner because of AC/40 Jagers and PPC/AC meta hounds coring them almost instantly from 500m away. Instead, I would prefer to have mechs that don't feel like paper mache and can take a bit of a beating before going down.

[Joseph Mallan]

I am all for reducing the range on ACs It feels weird to be popping folks at 500M with an AC20!

As fr my Desired TTK, I am only trying to get the TT Experience in Real time. and on TT my games are normally over in 9-13 Turns (90 to 130 seconds)Now that would probably be even to short a game for me, but Life expectancy of a 'Mech is not something that is measured in Minutes normally. 30+ years of gaming and I am fine with quick killing my opponents and getting killed in under 20-40 Seconds of "in game" time in this Universe.

[Doctor Proctor]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 December 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

I am all for reducing the range on ACs It feels weird to be popping folks at 500M with an AC20!

As fr my Desired TTK, I am only trying to get the TT Experience in Real time. and on TT my games are normally over in 9-13 Turns (90 to 130 seconds)Now that would probably be even to short a game for me, but Life expectancy of a 'Mech is not something that is measured in Minutes normally. 30+ years of gaming and I am fine with quick killing my opponents and getting killed in under 20-40 Seconds of "in game" time in this Universe.

Full Disclosure: I've never played TT

That being said though, most TT use a lot of abstractions. The whole "10 second round" thing is common amongst many different styles of TT games from BT to D&D, but I've never taken it as any kind of true representation of the time that's passing.

Others have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating: In TT you get to play with multiple minis, but in MWO you get just one mech. So when that Locust mini gets one shotted by an AC/20 you still have however many more mechs you have left in your drop to play as, but when that same Locust gets one shotted by an AC/40 Jager 2 minutes into the match it's a different story altogether. Now you lost your only mech and are forced to sit out of the fight for the next 6-10 minutes (possibly more). Sure, you can jump into another mech, but then you need to buy double or triple modules, which just means MORE grinding for {Scrap}.

TTK is important to think about because of how easy it is to fall out of balance. We see a lot of Spiders around because, even after the hitbox changes, their TTK is usually fairly high. That's why so many matches come down to "Last one left is a Spider, just cap them". Assault mechs are also prevalent because their high armor makes for higher TTK times, while their large weapons arsenals make short work of mechs that are smaller and more lightly armored. I would prefer to see all mechs have TTK's similar to that of what we currently have for Assault mechs.

That can be achieved by doing things like giving Mediums more agility/maneuverability, or making them smaller, but ultimately a lot of means cutting down a bit on the ability for Heavy and Assault mechs to absolutely devastate smaller mechs (and even larger ones too) at long ranges with highly accurate and damaging pinpoint AC weapons. Doing that, combined with agility buffs for Mediums, would take away some of the devastating nature of long range combat and allow brawlers to get in closer and actually be in range for their weapons. This would in turn keep the TTK of those Assault mechs from going through the roof because now those Mediums won't have half their weapons stripped off before they get within 300m and will still be a credible threat to them. Average TTK would increase, but I don't think that maximum TTK would, which is IMO a decent comprimise between the speedy rounds of TT and the desire for big stompy mechs that can still take a bit of a pounding instead of the "boom, headshot!" model of the military FPS games.

Edited by Doctor Proctor, 17 December 2013 - 12:20 PM.

[Mindwipe]

Was thinking about this more while playing and while I still don't think AC's really need a nerf and if they do it'd be that 3x range thing, something else occurred to me while playing my Jenner F.

While the original posts were about the skill use of AC's, it's dawned on me that while AC's require some skill to use, aiming really, lasers require little skill to get hits, what lasers really need is unskilled opponents. It's almost the reverse of ACs. I've been teaming with a friend who is new to the game and obviously has a much lower elo. My Jenner goes from me celebrating a kill and surviving the match to 3-5 kills, mostly because I'm facing opponents who stop, or worse, allow me to stop behind them and bring six medium lasers to bear on their backplate.

If I do that while solo, I'm still going to be lucky to pull it off let along get away with stopping in a light. I'm wondering if it's like LRM's, considered OP at low elo and almost a joke at the higher levels. I'm not saying I'm super awesome or anything but I do ok in my Jenner at least, but it was eyeopening how much of a difference it made at the lower brackets, whereas my PPC/AC Victor (which I'm mediocre at best with) doesn't do much better due to the weapons generally doing the same.

So perhaps AC's/PPC should really be considered a personal skill weapon, in that they'll serve equally against most any opponents and depend only on your skill, whereas the most of the other weapon systems are significantly degraded against an aware and skilled opponent.

[Edwin Kain]

To me it seems kinda simple and perhaps I'm wrong but,... Rather adjusting the behavior of ac's and other direct fire/pinpoint weapons to bring them more in line with lasers. (burst-fire) Wouldn't the easier and slightlly more appealing adjustment be made to the behavior of the laser by shortening the duration of the beam by a fractual percentage while still inlficting the same current amout of maximal damage? I dont mean so much so that they become pin point weapons or make pulse laser useless, but enough so that they have more of a chance to dish out a maximum of damage in a smaller oppertunity window. They would maintain there current ability to sweep while being slightly more effective in a shorter amount of time. By being shorter in duration the damage would become more localized and perhaps more contained within a region than amoungst the entirely of a mechs torso, this would make them a little easier to aim for the inexpirenced and even more deadly for those with experince/talent These adjustments may even allow pilots to popshot back at poptarts and hill toppers who can safely get back behind cover long before a laser can deal any useful measure of damage. and perhaps make them more appealing to some of those that currently perfer ac's. Another thing to consider is that by shortening the duration of the lasers' beam. You also shorten the time amount of between cool down periods for the laser itself. There by allowing it fire more frequently. Perhap enough to aid in combating the rapid firing nature of acs' as well by a small margin but, at the cost of accumulating heat quicker. which could be a down fall or perhaps balance in itself.

Edited by Edwin Kain, 18 December 2013 - 02:55 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

No, Edwin, the reason this is not a good idea is because you would lower the "Time To Kill" the easier you make it to be pinpoint precise, and you increase the synergy effects from boating and convergence.

We do not want mechs to die faster, we want to keep torso twisting an important defensive measure, and we want there to be less synergy from boating so that mixed builds have less drawbacks.

[Edwin Kain]

Right and the draw back of a mixed build is that they are less effective at dealing out damage in the same manner that pinpoint ac boats can but ultimately ajusting all weapons in the game to the standard that is the current fuction of a laser then also make mix builds redundant because they perform no better or worse then an ac boat, Which isnt balance but simply limited use pulse lasers retexture as tracers. Which would also affect the effectiveness of mixed boats that employ ac's and put them more at a disadvantage then anything else. If all weapons fuction with the similar chacteristics the game stagnates and it will become alpha strikes of which ever weapon system is deem the new "king of field" so that is why i suggest to adjust the laser performance not to match but compansate for its short coming which is the duration of the beam Which in my opinion doesnt shorten the time to kill but shortens the amount of time needed to effetively retailiate. But ultimately the appeal of each weapon currently is their difference in function and feel, and the ac is ment to be a mid/long range pointfire weapon. The "auto" in "autocannon" does not refer the the weapons rate of fire, but instead to its method of loading. "Automatic" self loading cannon (which I assume most knew that). So to me burst fire makes no sense what so ever. Upon reading this I may have come acrossed as jerk. It was unintended lol. <--- smiley face makes it better. (edit: On a side note i think the real problem presented by this action sim is that i does acurrately convey that draw-backs of the auto-cannon's lore based conterpart. Which suffers from ammo shortage in prolonged and drawn out battle or even of multiple encounters. Because this game is limited to round based and generally limited to 10 minute conflicts the auto-cannon is alway performing at optimal effiency with unlimit ammo resupply. but In the lore the auto-cannon is based upon it is still regarded as one of the most feared weapons to deal with in combat much the same as it is in-game.)

Edited by Edwin Kain, 18 December 2013 - 03:57 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Doctor Proctor, on 17 December 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Full Disclosure: I've never played TT

That being said though, most TT use a lot of abstractions. The whole "10 second round" thing is common amongst many different styles of TT games from BT to D&D, but I've never taken it as any kind of true representation of the time that's passing.

Others have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating: In TT you get are forced to play with multiple minis, but in MWO you get just one mech. So when that Locust mini gets one shotted by an AC/20 you still have however many more mechs you have left in your drop to play as, but when that same Locust gets one shotted by an AC/40 Jager 2 minutes into the match it's a different story altogether. Now you lost your only mech and are forced to sit out of the fight for the next 6-10 minutes (possibly more). Sure, you can jump into another mech, but then you need to buy double or triple modules, which just means MORE grinding for {Scrap}.

It is not a question of Getting to run more than one mech, but more over since players want "larger scale" combat, they are forced to run more than one Mech. A GM would love to have 24 players for a Company on Company game. But with maybe 3-4 players doubling or tripling up is required. I have played in game that I only got to pilot a Wasp (so the new players could have the bigger and better Mechs). Third turn I had my Leg kicked off. By the end of the game (7 turns later) I was the last standing (figuratively) for my side. Still shooting my medium laser at opponents grossly out of range. So the point that I get more than one 'Mech in a game is not always true.

Quote

TTK is important to think about because of how easy it is to fall out of balance. We see a lot of Spiders around because, even after the hitbox changes, their TTK is usually fairly high. That's why so many matches come down to "Last one left is a Spider, just cap them". Assault mechs are also prevalent because their high armor makes for higher TTK times, while their large weapons arsenals make short work of mechs that are smaller and more lightly armored. I would prefer to see all mechs have TTK's similar to that of what we currently have for Assault mechs.

TTK in my experience is just foolish. I am a trained fighter and killer. I have always learned that it is better to drop your enemy as quickly as possible. In Football you score as many touchdowns as possible, score as many runs as possible in baseball, and sink as many baskets in basketball as possible. Cause that is what your opponent is trying to do. And if you wanna win you have to out preform or opponent with out mercy. You cannot be Competitive and be worried about if your opponent is getting his fun. The two concepts do not work together. As to Spiders since the HSR improvements I have killed a fair share of them. They are small and fast, killing them should be a *itch.

Quote

That can be achieved by doing things like giving Mediums more agility/maneuverability, or making them smaller, but ultimately a lot of means cutting down a bit on the ability for Heavy and Assault mechs to absolutely devastate smaller mechs (and even larger ones too) at long ranges with highly accurate and damaging pinpoint AC weapons. Doing that, combined with agility buffs for Mediums, would take away some of the devastating nature of long range combat and allow brawlers to get in closer and actually be in range for their weapons. This would in turn keep the TTK of those Assault mechs from going through the roof because now those Mediums won't have half their weapons stripped off before they get within 300m and will still be a credible threat to them. Average TTK would increase, but I don't think that maximum TTK would, which is IMO a decent comprimise between the speedy rounds of TT and the desire for big stompy mechs that can still take a bit of a pounding instead of the "boom, headshot!" model of the military FPS games.

Mediums could use a bit more maneuverability, but frankly, medium is middle of the road, You are not the fastest, most durable, most powerful. You are Average at best. You cannot be as fast as lights r as durable as Heavies/Assaults. So it isn't that Mediums suck, its just that the rest have advantages a medium cannot ever match.

Making a Medium Mech "smaller" would help them out. I am getting tired of mistaking Shadowhawks for Battlemasters

Heavies and Assaults should be able to devastate Lights... If the pilot is capable of hitting them. If it is a game of skill you want purposely handicapping Mechs to impair a player's skill is not being competitive. I can barely track a fast light Mech with a 300 rate engine in my (F)Atlas. But because some folks wanna nerf the entire rank and file of Assault Pilots. To that I say Uck Off!

You want a game that requires skills, but when players show they have skills that work against you work to take it way. If I was like this, I would insist Lights be Slower, have less armor, and have to stop moving every 20-30 seconds so I can kill them.

I am an Average player (maybe a little above), Why is it that I can accept that I will die in game and some of you cannot? Seriously... What am I missing here? I use a non Min/Max Build and rack up fair numbers of OP 'Mech kills. How competitive can players be if they always want to break what they cannot beat?

Keep ACs front loaded damage, add a RoF with multiple Front loaded weapons, Pin Point alphas removed, Heavy hitting still hurts, Profit!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 18 December 2013 - 04:20 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Edwin Kain, on 18 December 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

Right and the draw back of a mixed build is that they are less effective at dealing out damage in the same manner that pinpoint ac boats can but ultimately ajusting all weapons in the game to the standard that is the current fuction of a laser then also make mix builds redundant because they perform no better or worse then an ac boat, Which isnt balance but simply limited use pulse lasers retexture as tracers.

Which would also affect the effectiveness of mixed boats that employ ac's and put them more at a disadvantage then anything else. If all weapons fuction with the similar chacteristics the game stagnates and it will become alpha strikes of which ever weapon system is deem the new "king of field" so that is why i suggest to adjust the laser performance not to match but compansate for its short coming which is the duration of the beam Which in my opinion doesnt shorten the time to kill but shortens the amount of time needed to effetively retailiate.

But ultimately the appeal of each weapon currently is their difference in function and feel, and the ac is ment to be a mid/long range pointfire weapon. The "auto" in "autocannon" does not refer the the weapons rate of fire, but instead to its method of loading. "Automatic" self loading cannon (which I assume most knew that). So to me burst fire makes no sense what so ever.

Upon reading this I may have come acrossed as jerk. It was unintended lol. <--- smiley face makes it better. (edit: On a side note i think the real problem presented by this action sim is that i does acurrately convey that draw-backs of the auto-cannon's lore based conterpart. Which suffers from ammo shortage in prolonged and drawn out battle or even of multiple encounters. Because this game is limited to round based and generally limited to 10 minute conflicts the auto-cannon is alway performing at optimal effiency with unlimit ammo resupply. but In the lore the auto-cannon is based upon it is still regarded as one of the most feared weapons to deal with in combat much the same as it is in-game.)

What would help your post would be a use of paragraphs. It's really difficult to follow your thoughts. Also, don't hesistate to end sentences and start new ones.

No, the Ac is not meant to be a mid/long range pointfire weapon. All ACs have very different ranges, some are short range, some are medium, some are long. They are also not meant as "point" weapons, at least not any more than energy weapons are (which in the table top also deal their damage to a single hit location and have no concept of beam durations spreading the damage across multiple locations). Also, the lore describes most variants of auto-cannons as firing bursts and the weapons only being categorized in the 2/5/10/20 groups because of a common overall damage output.

"Stagnation" also is a meaningless term. What stagnates? Are you saying that it's boring to fire a burst fire weapon that requires lead, produces less heat and needs ammo? Is it more boring than firing a ammoless beam for a duration that needs no lead and produces lots of heat?

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 December 2013 - 02:13 AM, said:

No, Edwin, the reason this is not a good idea is because you would lower the "Time To Kill" the easier you make it to be pinpoint precise, and you increase the synergy effects from boating and convergence.

We do not want mechs to die faster, we want to keep torso twisting an important defensive measure, and we want there to be less synergy from boating so that mixed builds have less drawbacks.

You are really taking it for granted that mixed builds should be/are/ever were good.

Boating will always be pervasive in mechwarrior games. It's simply a product of the underlying Battletech framework. You let players pick their weapons and they will always take the best weapon for a given engagement envelope and fit as many of them as possible. That is min-maxing. You cannot just reduce the hypothetical synergy of an LRM boat giving covering fire to an AC40 boat. If you have two LRM20s and two AC20s to allocate to two mech chassis, what combination gives the best damage on target? That is perfect synergy.

Even if you could correct for weapon balance and things of that nature, an LRM10 on a Centurion or LRM20 on an Atlas is always wasted tonnage at close range if that weapon has not made up for that tonnage while you were still at long range. In other words, for a generalist mech to beat a specialised mech it has to actually stop and project enough damage at long range against the opponent brawlers to beat them in spite of their superior firepower once at close quarters... without taking return fire from enemy LRM boats or snipers.

In either situation both teams are fighting for positioning, but the difference is that the team of mixed builds are fighting from a position of weakness with suboptimal firepower. If you have to cede ground to delay/avoid a fight with enemy brawlers while outranging enemy snipers/LRMs and, it begs the question of why aren't you just using mechs specialised for long range firepower to begin with?

The only way to make mixed build mechs relevant is by lame mechanics like ghost heat that constrain how you can build mechs and incidentally invalidate like a dozen stock, canon mech variants. If you want to nerf boats to the point where mixed fail fits are competitive with them, you're nerfing them to the point where you might as well add a 'fit random' button in the mechbay.

Joseph Mallan, on 14 December 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

Once again the foolishness of "That's doing good, break it." Mentality. WHy in the world do I want my Heavy hitting ACs to be broken cause Energy weapons are not doing enough damage??? Seriously This is dumb thinking.

Lasers are not as good as ACs... ruin ACs! It is backwards logic. Increase the performance of Lasers so they are doing damage on par of Ballistics! I don't want weaker weapons, I want my opponents to drop over dead faster. That won't happen your way.

Increase Lasers DpS to be on par with Ballistics. And while we are at it buff Missiles as well.

Because it complicates the balance of the game even further since now you have no reliable baseline of survivability to go off of.

Balancing by buffing, while not strictly power creep, creates the same effect and in the case of MWO would probably just reduce the overall effectiveness of mechs that rely upon armor vs. those that rely on maneuverability. Buff lasers and LRMs to AC level of firepower and all of the sudden assault mechs just got obsolete.

In any case, ACs really should be nerfed because the current level of firepower they put out, in accuracy, rate of fire, and range (at least in the case of the AC20) is just totally out of touch with the source material, both lore-wise and on tabletop AC2/5s were never supposed to be high- damage weapons. Relating to the tabletop- an AC5 should be doing exactly the same damage per second as a medium laser, yet it does over twice.

[Doctor Proctor]

An AC/5 does more than twice the damage of an ML due to the fact that the ML has to be held on target for the duration of the beam. It's more like 4 or 5 times, at minimum, the damage of an ML. And that's for a much better shot than me...

Edited by Doctor Proctor, 18 December 2013 - 09:44 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

vnlk65n, on 18 December 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

In any case, ACs really should be nerfed because the current level of firepower they put out, in accuracy, rate of fire, and range (at least in the case of the AC20) is just totally out of touch with the source material, both lore-wise and on tabletop AC2/5s were never supposed to be high- damage weapons. Relating to the tabletop- an AC5 should be doing exactly the same damage per second as a medium laser, yet it does over twice.

We are on the same page here. 10 point damage weapons should be equal, 5 point damage weapons should be equal. I'd rather see other weapons Buffed first then nerf as needed to maintain balance across the board.

DOc My Medium laser puts 3.5 damage in target per laser. They are DpS weapon not front loaded. I would love making lasers front loaded, but understand the need for different types o damage to be brought to bare against the enemy.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 18 December 2013 - 09:49 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

an AC5 should be doing exactly the same damage per second as a medium laser, yet it does over twice.

Nope it shouldnt. An AC5 weighs at least 10 tons including ammo. A medium laser weighs 1 ton. An AC5 should be outright better. Period.

I am not saying autocannon 5s dont need a nerf. Simply that their tonnage dictates they should be better than medium lasers.

Autocannon 5s should do way more dps than medium lasers because of their significantly higher tonnage. However Autocannon 5s should not be doing 5 damage all at once. They should fire in bursts of three or four shots that do 1.25-1.67 damage each. The problem here is pinpoint damage vs spread damage, and the fact pinpoint damage is an outright broken game mechanic. Autocannons need burst fire, simple as that.

Edited by Khobai, 18 December 2013 - 10:00 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

30 years says yer wrong.

[Khobai]

Quote

30 years says yer wrong.

30 years of custom battletech taught me that medium lasers, PPCs, and Gauss were the only three weapons worth using. Everything else was outright inferior.

The AC/5 was one of the worst weapons in tabletop. Not really sure what youre talking about. The only weapon that was worse was the AC/2.

In fact it was such a bad weapon FASA gave us the UAC/5 and Light AC/5 as alternatives to the horribleness of the standard AC/5. Even PGI had the sense to realize that, thats why they buffed those weapons heavily over TT.

Edited by Khobai, 18 December 2013 - 10:06 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 18 December 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

The AC/5 is one of the worst weapons in tabletop. Not really sure what youre talking about.

In fact its such a bad weapon FASA gave us the UAC/5 and Light AC5 as alternatives the the horribleness of the standard AC/5.

They also gave us the Rotary AC20 cause that AC20 sucked so bad!

Or was that MFUK that gave us that???

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 18 December 2013 - 10:05 AM.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 December 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

They also gave us the Rotary AC20 cause that AC20 sucked so bad!

I would like to see a new weapon in TT called the Streak Rotary Heavy ERPPC + Capacitor.

[Khobai]

Quote

They also gave us the Rotary AC20 cause that AC20 sucked so bad!

Unlike the AC/2, AC/5, and AC/10, the AC/20 actually did one thing no other weapon in the game could do: 20 damage to one location. That gave the AC/20 a niche at least. The other autocannons were all terrible though. They were the absolute worst weapons in the 3025 box set.

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 18 December 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

I would like to see a new weapon in TT called the Streak PULSE Rotary Heavy ERPPC + Capacitor.

I have one of those in My HeavyMetal Pro save. For the only the most finicky Munchkins!

0.5 ton, 1 crit, 1 heat, 45 damage, works with a targeting computer at Minus 2 to hit due it being made for accuracy as well as power.

Khobai, on 18 December 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

Unlike the AC/2, AC/5, and AC/10, the AC/20 actually did one thing no other weapon in the game could do: 20 damage to one location. That gave the AC/20 a niche at least. The other autocannons were all terrible though. They were the absolute worst weapons in the 3025 box set.

That would be the Machine gun and SRM2 All the rest could be used successfully in any TT game.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 18 December 2013 - 10:14 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

That would be the Machine gun and SRM2 All the rest could be used successfully in any TT game.

I disagree. Machine guns were actually quite good in horrendous quantities. Pirahnas were vicious little mechs.

And the SRM2 was bad, but it also did 2-4 damage for 2+ tons. While an AC/2 only did 2 damage for 7+ tons. Even despite the AC/2s better range, I would say the SRM2 was a better weapon overall. Although there was little reason to use an SRM2 instead of an SRM4 or 6. But the AC/2 was by far the worst weapon. Period.

Edited by Khobai, 18 December 2013 - 10:25 AM.