1080 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Nick Makiaveli, on 29 December 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

First it's a Wiki so it's not infallible.

It isn't, but it does list its sources, which are canon.

Nick Makiaveli, on 29 December 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

Second the text you quote says none have been stated to be a single shot, which is not the same as saying they have all been stated to be a single shot.

Sure, you can't prove a negative and all that. But there have been a lot of ACs described, and all of them have been described as firing bursts or streams of projectiles.

Nick Makiaveli, on 29 December 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

Third you left off the following text that comes right after what you quoted: Probable exceptions are the 185 mm ChemJet GunAutocannon/20 mounted on the Demolisher combat vehicle and Monitor Surface vessel or the 203 mm Ultra Autocannon/20 on the Cauldron Born A BattleMech

So it's never been stated to be that they are all burst weapons, and there are at least two "probable" exceptions.

Well, the ChemJet 185mm has been laid to rest - it fires four-round bursts (see Era Report 3052, or excerpt in link below).

I will concede that ACs could theoretically be single-shot weapons, but there's not been one described yet in the fluff while we've had lots of descriptions of "10-round cassettes", "100-round cassettes", "rolling bursts of rounds", "streams of rounds", and so on and so forth. It's pretty clear that burst-fire ACs are the norm and not the exception in the BattleTech Universe, and personally I feel it's a shame that MWO ACs aren't burst-fire. It would make more sense from a lore-perspective, and be easier to balance as well.

Praetor Shepard, on 29 December 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

Since Calibers are being brought up, I tried googling for threads that discuss that.

Here is one: http://mwomercs.com/...se/page__st__40

I recommend everyone saying ACs shouldn't be burst weapons at least read the top post from that page. Highly informative.

[MustrumRidcully]

mania3c, on 29 December 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

Empirical evidence is probably the problem..

It's like making analysis what food taste the best..and you will go to Asia and ask people there.. Conclusion? NERF RICE! It's too tasty... Rice is AC and Asia is current meta..you just proved exactly what is not needed.. I didn't need stats to see what is happening in the game..okey..you made effort and make fancy table about it...but still your conclusion is just dangerous..

Are you asking people what tastes best, or what they eat most of the time? That is not the same.

Noesis analysis isn't about how well people like it, or how often they use it. It's about how much damage he could get out of them during active play.

Rice doesn't need to nerfed because it tastes well, it needs to be nerfed because it's one of the most effective plants to grow as food. THat is something that one could probably determine by analyizing the requirements to grow rice (energy investment, nutrients for plants) and the amount of energy and nutrients people can get out of eating rice.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 30 December 2013 - 03:16 AM.

[mania3c]

MustrumRidcully, on 30 December 2013 - 03:15 AM, said:

Are you asking people what tastes best, or what they eat most of the time? That is not the same.

Noesis analysis isn't about how well people like it, or how often they use it. It's about how much damage he could get out of them during active play.

Rice doesn't need to nerfed because it tastes well, it needs to be nerfed because it's one of the most effective plants to grow as food. THat is something that one could probably determine by analyizing the requirements to grow rice (energy investment, nutrients for plants) and the amount of energy and nutrients people can get out of eating rice.

what is so hard to understand that I am not talking about ACs but about his analysis method.. you really can't make any useful analysis when testing environment is skewed and one-sided..

Please..try understand analogy.. "Nerf Rice" is perfect example of bad assumption that Rice is just too good based on empirical evidence that most people are eating Rice..

Again..analysis in current environment proves nothing ..only that ACs are good in current meta..and they are supposed to be..

It's like asking to nerf assaults and heavies or buffs mediums and lights because heavies and assaults are the most used chassis... it's basically not understanding of core issues and just trying to band aid as much as possible without thinking about consequences..

Edited by mania3c, 30 December 2013 - 03:35 AM.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 30 December 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

Sure, you can't prove a negative and all that. But there have been a lot of ACs described, and all of them have been described as firing bursts or streams of projectiles.

Actually there is alot of descriptions specifically towards the ac20 being a solid slug. some of the lower end autocannons are often described in fluff as being a 'stream of shells' However keep in mind an ac2 firing at a fast rate can also be described as a stream of shells as well.

[MustrumRidcully]

mania3c, on 30 December 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

what is so hard to understand that I am not talking about ACs but about his analysis method.. you really can't make any useful analysis when testing environment is skewed and one-sided..

Please..try understand analogy.. "Nerf Rice" is perfect example of bad assumption that Rice is just too good based on empirical evidence that most people are eating Rice..

Again..analysis in current environment proves nothing ..only that ACs are good in current meta..and they are supposed to be..

It's like asking to nerf assaults and heavies or buffs mediums and lights because heavies and assaults are the most used chassis... it's basically not understanding of core issues and just trying to band aid as much as possible without thinking about consequences..

mania3c, on 30 December 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

what is so hard to understand that I am not talking about ACs but about his analysis method.. you really can't make any useful analysis when testing environment is skewed and one-sided..

Please..try understand analogy.. "Nerf Rice" is perfect example of bad assumption that Rice is just too good based on empirical evidence that most people are eating Rice..

Again..analysis in current environment proves nothing ..only that ACs are good in current meta..and they are supposed to be..

Unless you are refering to a different post than his or I misread, his post did simply test with what better weapons he achieved the better damage results, taking into account the best possible damage. And it turns out he utilizes less of his lasers potential damage then he does of his ballistic potenital damage?

How much can this actually be subject to specifics of the current meta? What do you think is likely to change about the game and its meta to change the results?

[Tombstoner]

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

Actually there is alot of descriptions specifically towards the ac20 being a solid slug. some of the lower end autocannons are often described in fluff as being a 'stream of shells' However keep in mind an ac2 firing at a fast rate can also be described as a stream of shells as well.

But in MWO they are doing 2 points of damage each shell way op, particularly given the range ac-2s have over other autocannons. ballistics slots limiting ac-20 boating,

In TT the point of the ac-2 was its ability to hit targets at extreme ranges:longest weapon range in the game early on, until long-toms artillery or arrow 4 systems, aerospace fighters clan tech. granted its not really set up for anti mech usage its more of an anti material weapon meaning it would work great on ammo bins and electronics lots of soft ish targets in low priority conflicts. the ac-2 on a helicopter is OP in the TT meta game.

The ac-2 had range traded for damage. it makes no sense to me that an ac-20 single slug shot has such a short effective range.

Autocannons are completely broken in direct comparison between each type of autocannon. It has nothing to do with other weapons systems. the ac-2 is flat out better then the ac-5,10 or 20.

[mania3c]

MustrumRidcully, on 30 December 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

Unless you are refering to a different post than his or I misread, his post did simply test with what better weapons he achieved the better damage results, taking into account the best possible damage. And it turns out he utilizes less of his lasers potential damage then he does of his ballistic potenital damage?

How much can this actually be subject to specifics of the current meta? What do you think is likely to change about the game and its meta to change the results?

Well, we all are in "direct damage weapons are flawed" thread... so I assume his reaction on my post was "you are wrong and I can prove it"..

Of course ACs perform better damage wise..it's not too hard to find out why.. ACs have better DPS..just check smurfy.. it's by design..if you agree with this design decision or not, it doesn't matter at this point...but fact is, ACs are balanced differently because they have different mechanics, advantages and disadvantages .. problem with current meta is, that ACs perfectly fits into it.. So disadvantages..which are supposed to balance weapon with other weapon systems..are pretty much non existent ..because everyone is using just heavy slow mechs, where ACs are most effective..

If we would have different meta..let's say most of the mechs would be light or fast medium, probably his table would look very different..(and today we would be asking to nerf beam weapons) ACs would be less effective while beam weapons(and streaks) would perform much better. What I am just pointing out, that his analyses may lead to false assumptions that ACs are clearly better weapons just because he does't have proper objective data... that's where my whole analogy Asia and rice came from..

Again..I am not saying current meta doesn't have problems and ACs are not overused..they are..I just believe that people are too focused on ACs itself while I don't see them as main cause of this problem..Problem is, sadly, much more complex..

Edited by mania3c, 30 December 2013 - 08:22 AM.

[Varent]

Tombstoner, on 30 December 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

Autocannons are completely broken in direct comparison between each type of autocannon. It has nothing to do with other weapons systems. the ac-2 is flat out better then the ac-5,10 or 20.

the ac2 has the highest dps. That comes with its own tradeoffs of also being the lowest alpha. The ac20 has some of the lowest dps. That comes with the benefit of having the highest alpha. They both have there uses and trade offs.

[NautilusCommand]

That Guy, on 22 December 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

a better solution would be for ballistic weapons to have a small cone of fire. close range shots still will hit where you aim, but long range shots wont always hit exactly where you aim, spreading damage. especially when there are 3 PPC and heavy AC grouped together. after-all we accept cone of fire for missile weapons, MGs and LBX, why not a small one for ballistic weapons? a COF about the size of the arm reticule would do the trick

ballistic weapons deviate, that's just how they work. and it allows other ultra and later rotary ACs to be implemented with out breaking the game. those weapons can be less accurate.

Maybe a cone of fire as you leave the effective range of the weapon for example the UAC5 have an effective range of 600M out side of that the damage starts to drop off. Adding a COF on top of it would help.

[Noesis]

mania3c, on 30 December 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

If we would have different meta..let's say most of the mechs would be light or fast medium, probably his table would look very different..(and today we would be asking to nerf beam weapons) ACs would be less effective while beam weapons(and streaks) would perform much better. What I am just pointing out, that his analyses may lead to false assumptions that ACs are clearly better weapons just because he does't have proper objective data... that's where my whole analogy Asia and rice came from..

Yet you can't say that it is not proper objective data since it is using real data across multiple platforms (including lights and mediums) with variable builds as applied in game. Your simply trying to dismiss or devalue what "is actually apparent" in favour of some fictional representation.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 30 December 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

Yet you can't say that it is not proper objective data since it is using real data across multiple platforms (including lights and mediums) with variable builds as applied in game. Your simply trying to dismiss or devalue what "is actually apparent" in favour of some fictional representation.

and your trying to devalue a very excellent point because you dont like what hes alluding too. Numbers can be skewed, so can statistics, so can dps... etc... etc.... And they can be skewed very easily.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

and your trying to devalue a very excellent point because you dont like what hes alluding too. Numbers can be skewed, so can statistics, so can dps... etc... etc.... And they can be skewed very easily.

All he is trying to do is say what if the numbers were different, that would mean something else wouldn't it, lol. Which is like saying what if the results of this experiment weren't what they are. If anything that is fudging the data by denying what exists as empirical evidence.

Edited by Noesis, 30 December 2013 - 09:23 AM.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 30 December 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

All he is trying to do is say what if the numbers were different, that would mean something else wouldn't it, lol. Which is like saying what if the results of this experiment weren't what they are. If anything that is fudging the data by denying what exists as empirical evidence.

No... hes pointing out a very valid flaw in your data. Different mechs use different weapons and use them at varying degrees of success.

For example I know many light mech pilots who only pilot light mechs. There laser stats would be through the rough. Since they rarely if ever use balistic weapons they would be quite low.

[Cimarb]

An Autocannon is classified by the amount of damage the weapon does in a ten-second duration. That means it is classified by its DPS, not necessarily how large the shell is. An AC2 should do TWO damage in TEN seconds (0.2 DPS). An AC5 does FIVE damage in TEN seconds (0.5 DPS). An AC10 does TEN damage in TEN seconds (1 DPS). Finally, an AC20 does TWENTY damage in TEN seconds (2 DPS). You sacrifice range for damage at a linear rate, and it is irregardless of the rate of fire or the size of the shell, though both do affect the end outcome.

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

Actually there is alot of descriptions specifically towards the ac20 being a solid slug. some of the lower end autocannons are often described in fluff as being a 'stream of shells' However keep in mind an ac2 firing at a fast rate can also be described as a stream of shells as well.

Where are "a lot of descriptions specifically towards the ac20 being a solid slug"? Can you share them with us?

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 30 December 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

An Autocannon is classified by the amount of damage the weapon does in a ten-second duration. That means it is classified by its DPS, not necessarily how large the shell is. An AC2 should do TWO damage in TEN seconds (0.2 DPS). An AC5 does FIVE damage in TEN seconds (0.5 DPS). An AC10 does TEN damage in TEN seconds (1 DPS). Finally, an AC20 does TWENTY damage in TEN seconds (2 DPS). You sacrifice range for damage at a linear rate, and it is irregardless of the rate of fire or the size of the shell, though both do affect the end outcome.


Where are "a lot of descriptions specifically towards the ac20 being a solid slug"? Can you share them with us?

sure, would you prefer sarna or bt novels? Guess they are one in the same really.

[Tombstoner]

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

the ac2 has the highest dps. That comes with its own tradeoffs of also being the lowest alpha. The ac20 has some of the lowest dps. That comes with the benefit of having the highest alpha. They both have there uses and trade offs.

i agree but those trade off are not symmetrical.... hence broken.
now this is where people say but they dont have to be symmetrical to be balanced.
now we enter the circle of subjective balancing instead of using something like math and cost functions.

damage per second per ton of weapon is .6 for the ac-2 and .3 for the ac-20. cost functions mater for balance.... it shows whats broken.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

No... hes pointing out a very valid flaw in your data. Different mechs use different weapons and use them at varying degrees of success.

For example I know many light mech pilots who only pilot light mechs. There laser stats would be through the rough. Since they rarely if ever use balistic weapons they would be quite low.

As opposed to someone who only pilots Boom Jaegers for instance and therefore skewing their stats in favour of Ballistics in a similar fashion?

However the relative effectiveness of the study also conveniently compares the relative values based on what has "hit". Which also happily demonstrates my point that maximum potential on hit isn't being achieved with lasers, far from it.

In my 1000's of games I have piloted a fair spectrum of platforms (light through to assault) with variable weapon use on those platforms.

The only flaw I see is with your ability to appreciate objective contribution. (Well that and spelling perhaps).

But you stay in denial if you like, I'm quietly confident that beam effects don't result in maximum potential of instantaneous damage to the hit box initially aimed at in all cases. Not simply because I presented information to demonstrate this but from actual observations in game and from an understanding of how MWO beam mechanics work.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 30 December 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

Where are "a lot of descriptions specifically towards the ac20 being a solid slug"? Can you share them with us?

http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/20

Description
The Autocannon is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.

ill update it with some exerpts from the novels in a sec, have them on pdf, but will take abit =p

[Almond Brown]

DeadlyFred, on 23 December 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

Which completely defeats the purpose of having different types of weapons.

And does not do anything to change the effect range has on the weapon sets. So you weapon now has a "burst" versus pin point. My weapon has a better range parameter that negates your "burst".

Make all weapons "burst, have the same range and the same damage potential and "Balance" will have been achieved. Perfect balance makes for poor game play as it removes the need for tactics or thought at all.

I know many don't want to have to think to much when playing MWO, but it is actually a rather FUN aspect of the game, when properly applied.

[Varent]

Almond Brown, on 30 December 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

And does not do anything to change the effect range has on the weapon sets. So you weapon now has a "burst" versus pin point. My weapon has a better range parameter that negates your "burst".

Make all weapons "burst, have the same range and the same damage potential and "Balance" will have been achieved. Perfect balance makes for poor game play as it removes the need for tactics or thought at all.

I know many don't want to have to think to much when playing MWO, but it is actually a rather FUN aspect of the game, when properly applied.

This.

I honestly feel sometimes like most people on the forums just want to run around the map holding down the trigger the whole time and charge at people. No tactics, no use of terrain.

If the game ever actually gets to this state of 'balance' I might as well not play since my 12 year old brother could effectively do that.