46 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

It's funny how the current meta makes medium mechs be more effective with the biggest ballistics (e.g. AC20 or AC10), while the smaller ballistics are most useful for assault mechs.

When I started playing, I thought small ballistics went on small mechs, and big ballistics went on big mechs.
Then I played some more, and I thought small ballistics sucked and everyone was better off with AC20s, or possibly dual AC10/UAC5.
Recently, I just bought back my Atlas D-DC, got the funny idea of putting 2 AC2s on it... and it's just ridiculous. The enemy mechs melt away like tiny candles.

So my 100-ton mech has 12 tons of ballistics, my 50 ton mech has 14 tons of ballistics.

It's the opposite tendency of energy weapons and missiles. I wonder if PGI saw this coming.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 01 January 2014 - 10:44 PM.

[Varent]

I actually run 2 ac2 on my Yen Low Wang. I also run an ac20 On one atlas, and 2 uac5 on another atlas. I run a hunchback with a uac 5 as well. Maybe you just prefer that yourself?

[Whatzituyah]

Inb4 sand pit.

I will tell you my opinion its better to have something that will hit small targets as an assault as in Lbx 10s rather then something like the Ac2's or something like those single shots.

Edited by Whatzituyah, 01 January 2014 - 11:00 PM.

[Varent]

Whatzituyah, on 01 January 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

Inb4 sand pit.

*not in b4 Varent*

[Alistair Winter]

Varent, on 01 January 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

I actually run 2 ac2 on my Yen Low Wang. I also run an ac20 On one atlas, and 2 uac5 on another atlas. I run a hunchback with a uac 5 as well. Maybe you just prefer that yourself?

I can count on one hand how many medium mechs I've faced in the past month that were a big threat with either 1 or 2 AC2s or AC5s. I do see YLW's with 2xAC2 or 2xUAC5, but only a tiny minority of players are able to do well enough to make it worthwhile. The difficulty with the YLW, of course, is that people alway aim for your right arm. And when you're using AC2s, you can't really torso twist all the time to block incoming shots, because you need high DPS to win fights. So you end up losing your arm more often than with the AC20.

I'm not saying the Atlas is much better with 2 AC2s than an AC20. I'm sure some of the competitive players will drop in and tell me that I need to put an AC20+PPC combo on my D-DC before I gimp my team. But I have never been so successful with any AC2-build as I am with the Atlas D-DC. And it makes sense, because the Atlas is the ideal mech for a DPS contest.

Whatzituyah, on 01 January 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

Inb4 sand pit.
But anyways yeah size dos not really matter in fact they are redoing the mech models to make it look like a different weapon is mounted on there when there is a different weapon they already did it to some mechs.

Sandpit's empty posting doesn't concern me. Every thread has been made before, every thread will be made again as time goes on.
I'm not sure why you're talking about mech models. That's not what this thread is about.

[Whatzituyah]

Alistair Winter, on 01 January 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:

Sandpit's empty posting doesn't concern me. Every thread has been made before, every thread will be made again as time goes on.
I'm not sure why you're talking about mech models. That's not what this thread is about.

I noticed I changed up my post sorry I am tired.

[Varent]

Alistair Winter, on 01 January 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:

I can count on one hand how many medium mechs I've faced in the past month that were a big threat with either 1 or 2 AC2s or AC5s. I do see YLW's with 2xAC2 or 2xUAC5, but only a tiny minority of players are able to do well enough to make it worthwhile. The difficulty with the YLW, of course, is that people alway aim for your right arm. And when you're using AC2s, you can't really torso twist all the time to block incoming shots, because you need high DPS to win fights. So you end up losing your arm more often than with the AC20.

I'm not saying the Atlas is much better with 2 AC2s than an AC20. I'm sure some of the competitive players will drop in and tell me that I need to put an AC20+PPC combo on my D-DC before I gimp my team. But I have never been so successful with any AC2-build as I am with the Atlas D-DC. And it makes sense, because the Atlas is the ideal mech for a DPS contest.


Sandpit's empty posting doesn't concern me. Every thread has been made before, every thread will be made again as time goes on.
I'm not sure why you're talking about mech models. That's not what this thread is about.

I run 2ac 2 on my yenlow because I play it differently, quasi fire support hitting things from range or around a friendly assult mech im using as a shield. Works great. I don't like using an ac20 on it because of the reason you get focused so hard. Honestly in the end it all depends o playstyle and what works well for you. I like breaking the meta myself and trying out strange things as well as working on odd builds people don't expect.

[xengk]

Varent, on 01 January 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

I run 2ac 2 on my yenlow because I play it differently, quasi fire support hitting things from range or around a friendly assult mech im using as a shield. Works great. I don't like using an ac20 on it because of the reason you get focused so hard. Honestly in the end it all depends o playstyle and what works well for you. I like breaking the meta myself and trying out strange things as well as working on odd builds people don't expect.

I enjoying pling-ing enemy in a YLW too, have mine running an UAC5+AC2 combo.
If you don't have an AC20 and is standing next to a heavier mech, you generally become low priority target, leaving you unmolested to freely rip away enemy components.

[Axeman1]

Autocannons need a nerf across the board. They are clearly better than missles or energy weapons.

[XtremWarrior]

Axeman1, on 02 January 2014 - 12:56 AM, said:

Autocannons need a nerf across the board. They are clearly better than missles or energy weapons.

I don't think ACs are in any way OP right now. They are just performing exactly as they're supposed to. And you still see LL and ML on almost every Mech. PPCs fit the same role as ACs so you just find them as often as these.
LRMs are rather weak if used alone, but get pretty effective if you boat them. And if there are a few other boats around, then it's a raining hell that falls on enemy team.
SRMs are wonderfull even if nerfed a bit by hit-registrations issues.
My thought is that ACs should be the reference for the overall weapon's balance.

IMO, the usefullness of larger ACs is set up by the Mech itself (or it's engine). If you drive a fast XL-engined, JJ Victor, you definitely want to use some very big AC cuz you're gonna avoid longer fights and instead land a few big shots before withdrawing.
But then take a Battlemaster and you would be very glad to fit its arm with a lot af AC2 and 5 cuz you need strong consistent DPS to compensate for your lack of mobility.

[Curccu]

Alistair Winter, on 01 January 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:

It's funny how the current meta makes medium mechs be more effective with the biggest ballistics (e.g. AC20 or AC10), while the smaller ballistics are most useful for assault mechs.

When I started playing, I thought small ballistics went on small mechs, and big ballistics went on big mechs.
Then I played some more, and I thought small ballistics sucked and everyone was better off with AC20s, or possibly dual AC10/UAC5.
Recently, I just bought back my Atlas D-DC, got the funny idea of putting 2 AC2s on it... and it's just ridiculous. The enemy mechs melt away like tiny candles.

So my 100-ton mech has 12 tons of ballistics, my 50 ton mech has 14 tons of ballistics.

It's the opposite tendency of energy weapons and missiles. I wonder if PGI saw this coming.

How about 2x UAC5 to your atlai?
More damage with less heat than AC2s

[Axeman1]

A/C's do more damage than any other weapon and shred mechs in seconds, and this is balanced?

[Petard]

Axeman1, on 02 January 2014 - 03:27 AM, said:

A/C's do more damage than any other weapon and shred mechs in seconds, and this is balanced?

They are also heavier, use more crit slots, are ammo dependent, and useless when out of ammo. Weapon selection is all about trade offs.

Having said all that, I DO love my AC's....

[stjobe]

Leaving aside the AC balance issue for a while, there's a pretty simple explanation to why lighter ACs are better on heavier 'mechs than on lighter 'mechs: Exposure.

In an Atlas you can take some damage and live; in a medium, that's much harder to do, so you want a weapon that leaves you exposed for the least amount of time while still doing massive damage. So you want the AC/20.

A personal anecdote is my experience with Blackjacks; I mastered them half a year ago or so, and I ran them like this:
* BJ-1 with dual AC/2s (also with dual AC/5s but that left precious little tonnage for backup weaponry)
* BJ-1DC with AC/10+ERPPC (also with an AC/20 and a couple of MLs)
* BJ-1X with 2xLL plus a mix of ML+SL (man, did that ever run hot...).

The BJ-1 with AC/2s was horrible to use; as soon as I tried to take a shot my torsos melted away. The BJ-1DC though, was a dream. Fire, twist, fire, twist and the enemy was the one who got melted away - especially with the AC/20 on it.

Coming back to the AC balance discussion then, this is why big ACs are so popular: They allow you the maximum defensive capabilities (cover, twisting) while simultaneously offering maximum offensive capability (all damage to one spot, no matter how short of an exposure you take).

The negatives (weight, slots, ammo, etc) are far outweighed by those two positives alone, and they're not the only positives ACs have - they also have low heat and x3 range to name two more.

[Sephlock]

stjobe, on 02 January 2014 - 04:14 AM, said:

The BJ-1 with AC/2s was horrible to use; as soon as I tried to take a shot my torsos melted away. The BJ-1DC though, was a dream. Fire, twist, fire, twist and the enemy was the one who got melted away - especially with the AC/20 on it.

Coming back to the AC balance discussion then, this is why big ACs are so popular: They allow you the maximum defensive capabilities (cover, twisting) while simultaneously offering maximum offensive capability (all damage to one spot, no matter how short of an exposure you take).

The negatives (weight, slots, ammo, etc) are far outweighed by those two positives alone, and they're not the only positives ACs have - they also have low heat and x3 range to name two more.

And yet we still get people crying about the ac/2.

[Joseph Mallan]

Alistair Winter, on 01 January 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:

It's funny how the current meta makes medium mechs be more effective with the biggest ballistics (e.g. AC20 or AC10), while the smaller ballistics are most useful for assault mechs.

When I started playing, I thought small ballistics went on small mechs, and big ballistics went on big mechs.
Then I played some more, and I thought small ballistics sucked and everyone was better off with AC20s, or possibly dual AC10/UAC5.
Recently, I just bought back my Atlas D-DC, got the funny idea of putting 2 AC2s on it... and it's just ridiculous. The enemy mechs melt away like tiny candles.

So my 100-ton mech has 12 tons of ballistics, my 50 ton mech has 14 tons of ballistics.

It's the opposite tendency of energy weapons and missiles. I wonder if PGI saw this coming.

This is actually pretty simple. A medium doesn't have a lot of tonnage to work with so a bigger hammer is preferred to get the job done. Where a Bigger ride has more room to work with so smaller guns can throw better volumes of ordinance.

And since PGI is gimping us big guys and picking Assault Mechs with limited Ballistic hard points, we just cannot get the destruction we want!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 02 January 2014 - 04:52 AM.

[Barantor]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 January 2014 - 04:51 AM, said:

This is actually pretty simple. A medium doesn't have a lot of tonnage to work with so a bigger hammer is preferred to get the job done. Where a Bigger ride has more room to work with so smaller guns can throw better volumes of ordinance.

And since PGI is gimping us big guys and picking Assault Mechs with limited Ballistic hard points, we just cannot get the destruction we want!

Also take the range to speed equations into account. A heavier mech is normally not going to run as fast as a medium mech. The assaults are going to want more range since they won't be able to close as easily (thus the meta) and if you stack a few lighter autocannons you can achieve the same effect as a heavier autocannon with only paying a price in weight which heavy mechs can afford.

A medium mech needs a higher dps to weight ratio to keep up and can close on an assault with it's faster engine. The meta though has a lot of poptarting going on, which negates many of the mediums outright since the heavier mechs can shred their armor before they get close. The SHD gets by because of it's top tier weight in the medium bracket, JJs and multiple ballistic/energy points (basically like a smaller HGN in a way).

With autocannons doing damage over their BT related ranges you are better off with several longer range ACs if you can spare the weight, but if you can't then you need as much of a hammer as possible and hope you can get close.

[anonymous161]

Axeman1, on 02 January 2014 - 12:56 AM, said:

Autocannons need a nerf across the board. They are clearly better than missles or energy weapons.

No offense but thats just stupid. Have you not played the other games? AC's have always been the big punchers in the series, what they need to do is make lasers and missiles more viable. Lasers either need a slight buff or better for them to not be so darn hot. I'm mostly a laser/ac player largely lasers as I seem to do really well with them, I haven't touched lrms's since nearly before this game was considered released.

[Joseph Mallan]

Barantor, on 02 January 2014 - 05:13 AM, said:

Also take the range to speed equations into account. A heavier mech is normally not going to run as fast as a medium mech. The assaults are going to want more range since they won't be able to close as easily (thus the meta) and if you stack a few lighter autocannons you can achieve the same effect as a heavier autocannon with only paying a price in weight which heavy mechs can afford.

A medium mech needs a higher dps to weight ratio to keep up and can close on an assault with it's faster engine. The meta though has a lot of poptarting going on, which negates many of the mediums outright since the heavier mechs can shred their armor before they get close. The SHD gets by because of it's top tier weight in the medium bracket, JJs and multiple ballistic/energy points (basically like a smaller HGN in a way).

With autocannons doing damage over their BT related ranges you are better off with several longer range ACs if you can spare the weight, but if you can't then you need as much of a hammer as possible and hope you can get close.

Good point!

[East Indy]

Quote

The BJ-1 with AC/2s was horrible to use

That was the case at the height of the alpha meta, but the AC/2 BJ is very effective if it's played for what it is: light fire support. Make sure a target has something bigger to work about, then open fire.