Well, again, as science tells us volume does not necessarily equal mass... an AC-20 shell holds heavier material in a much more compact space, but is, nonetheless, HUGE.
Besides, That picture looks awfully small for a 180mm shell... that looks more like a 150mm artillery round.
First up, if you read it is 8 inches (203mm).
Second, it isn't a combined round. The propellant is separate. That is what is fired.
Yes, that car is only 500 pounds. And yet it is bigger then an Average AC-20 shell... why is that?
Well, again, as science tells us volume does not necessarily equal mass... an AC-20 shell holds heavier material in a much more compact space, but is, nonetheless, HUGE.
Besides, That picture looks awfully small for a 180mm shell... that looks more like a 150mm artillery round.
Meaning, that the ammo-per-ton should actually be five instead of seven because of the tremendous weight of the ammo.
Even if the projectiles are not the "size" of a car (arguing semantics here...) the weight is still consistent with that of an economy-sized vehicle.
Digressing aside, nerfing the range is still not justified. Nerfing the velocity, however, makes sense. Again, the AC-20 is a close range weapon. If you engage targets at the minimum damage ranges, you will do little more then scratch paint, and give the enemy pilot a serious case of the shakes.
203mm, the largest directly-quoted AC caliber (from the TRO for the UAC/20-equipped Cauldron-Born A) is equal to 7.992 inches.
Moreover, AC/20 ammunition in BattleTech comes in 5-salvo units per metric ton (1000 kg); (1000 kg/ton)/(5 salvos/ton) = 200 kg/salvo, where 200 kg is equal to 440.925 pounds.
A single-shell-per-salvo 203mm AC/20 is essentially a M115 howitzer (except the M115's shell weighs half as much and has ~62 times the effective range ), which had a muzzle velocity of 587 m/s (1925.85 ft/s, 1313.08 mph).
For comparison, the Smart Fortwo subcompact (the "SmartCar") weighs 730-820kg (1600-1808 lbs), while a typical modern sedan (e.g. Honda Accord, Toyota Camry) is substantially heavier (usually on the order of 1200 kg).
Also, Nebfer made an excellent post some time ago with the different calibers of various weapons (mainly the ACs) and the sources of those calibers.
It should also be noted that single-shell-per-salvo ACs are actually the exception rather than the norm in the BattleTech universe; the vast majority of ACs fired in bursts of 3-10 shells (or up to 100 individual shells per burst, in the case of the 100mm Pontiac 100), with each unit in the "ammo per ton" count representing a cassette/magazine containing a number of individual shells.
"Ardan ran a hurried check on his Victor's main armament. The right arm Pontiac 100 autocannon had the best chance of scoring a crippling hit on the Thunderbolt, but he was afraid that his swim in the mud might have fouled its feed mechanism. The autocannon was a devastating weapon. It fired high-speed, rapid-fire streams of explosive, armor-piercing shells from cassettes or carousels fed into the gun one at a time by a complex and occasionally balky autoloader mechanism. Each cassette held 100 shells, and by a widespread but commonly accepted looseness of terminology, each cassette was itself considered to be one round. One cassette round was already loaded. Nineteen more were stored in the autoloader chamber high up in his Victor's right torso. He would have to use that single round carefully, because if the loader jammed, he would not get another chance."
There are also BT gameplay rules (found in the rulebook Tactical Operations) for "walking" AC fire across multiple adjacent targets and dividing the damage between said targets.
Edited by Strum Wealh, 08 January 2014 - 05:57 AM.
You're talking about effectively making AC's do DOT like lasers.... only in kind of chunks, making them even harder to use.
Thats exactly what im talking about. Raising the skill cap on Autocannons.
Lasers have a higher skill cap than Autocannons because you actually have to hold the laser on the same location for the entire beam duration. It defies logic that lasers are harder to use than autocannons while also being significantly weaker. Shouldnt the power level of weapons be proportional to the skill required to use a weapon?
Since im generally against making the game even easier... the logical solution is raise the skill cap on autocannons by making them burst fire weapons.
LocationStomping around in a giant robot, of course.
Posted 08 January 2014 - 05:57 AM
Mister Blastman, on 07 January 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:
And then brawling will come to life again. Problem solved. Happy times to be had by all.
I'm exaggerating. PPCs need to spread damage too for that to happen.
Make PPC bolts actually deal a "splash" of damage vs. a single pinpoint hit on impact and switch autocannons over to burst fire vs. single pinpoint hits and you solve a lot of problems (and will require rebalancing, but DUH).
Many of MWO's biggest problems involve being able to deliver a large amount of damage to a single spot easily- and so have the fixes for same often revolved around amending this. Spread that damage around even a little bit and you're doing a lot better in the long run. Amusingly enough, this would also allow for burst customization much like we have missile salvo customization based on model.
Take a Blackjack. Normally, AC/2 mounts. Strap an AC/10 on it. The gun fires a longer burst of shells instead, hosing the target down.
Meanwhile, the Hunchback that has a normal AC/20 mounts an AC/10. The gun fires a short burst instead, each shell inflicting higher damage. Both deal the damage of an AC/10, but the Blackjack delivers it closer to a standard beam weapon while the Hunchback fires it more like a pulse laser.
203mm, the largest directly-quoted AC caliber (from the TRO for the UAC/20-equipped Cauldron-Born A) is equal to 7.992 inches.
Moreover, AC/20 ammunition comes in 5-salvo units per metric ton (1000 kg); (1000 kg/ton)/(5 salvos/ton) = 200 kg/salvo, where 200 kg is equal to 440.925 pounds.
A single-shell-per-salvo 203mm AC/20 is essentially a M115 howitzer (except the M115's shell weighs half as much and has ~62 times the effective range ), which had a muzzle velocity of 587 m/s (1925.85 ft/s, 1313.08 mph).
For comparison, the Smart Fortwo subcompact (the "SmartCar") weighs 730-820kg (1600-1808 lbs), while a typical modern sedan (e.g. Honda Accord, Toyota Camry) is substantially heavier (usually on the order of 1200 kg).
Also, Nebfer made an excellent post some time ago with the different calibers of various weapons (mainly the ACs) and the sources of those calibers.
It should also be noted that single-shell-per-salvo ACs are actually the exception rather than the norm in the BattleTech universe; the vast majority of ACs fired in bursts of 3-10 shells (or up to 100 individual shells per burst, in the case of the 100mm Pontiac 100), with each unit in the "ammo per ton" count representing a cassette/magazine containing a number of individual shells.
"Ardan ran a hurried check on his Victor's main armament. The right arm Pontiac 100 autocannon had the best chance of scoring a crippling hit on the Thunderbolt, but he was afraid that his swim in the mud might have fouled its feed mechanism. The autocannon was a devastating weapon. It fired high-speed, rapid-fire streams of explosive, armor-piercing shells from cassettes or carousels fed into the gun one at a time by a complex and occasionally balky autoloader mechanism. Each cassette held 100 shells, and by a widespread but commonly accepted looseness of terminology, each cassette was itself considered to be one round. One cassette round was already loaded. Nineteen more were stored in the autoloader chamber high up in his Victor's right torso. He would have to use that single round carefully, because if the loader jammed, he would not get another chance."
There are also BT gameplay rules (found in the rulebook Tactical Operations) for "walking" AC fire across multiple adjacent targets and dividing the samage between said targets.
The problem with "walking(-in)" AC fire is that particular mechanic would only be possibly with a UAC-20, since the UAC-20 fired in much faster progression then the AC-20, and even had a chance of "popping-off" an extra shot per-trigger squeeze.
The AC-20 I would consider more like a bolt-action with with a rotary clip that needs it's action reset repeatedly by the internal mechanisms of the 'mech, as opposed to the UAC-20 that was just basically a rotary, blowback-action cannon.
You could hold-down the trigger with the UAC-20 and fire MUCH faster then an AC-20, but there would be a chance that the blowback-action of the cannon would jam from a feeding malfunction.
Thats exactly what im talking about. Raising the skill cap on Autocannons.
Lasers have a higher skill cap than Autocannons because you actually have to hold the laser on the same location for the entire beam duration. It defies logic that lasers are harder to use than autocannons while also being significantly weaker. Shouldnt the power level of weapons be proportional to the skill required to use a weapon?
Since im generally against making the game even easier... the logical solution is raise the skill cap on autocannons by making them burst fire weapons.
But no one will use AC's then.
If AC's are generally inferior to Lasers in every category, and you take away the ONE benefit they have, then they become useless.
You are suggesting to make them harder to use than lasers in EVERY way.. you'd still need to lead the target, but you'd also have to track the target through the firing process. Wheras a laser needs to track through the firing process, but requires no lead time and is hitscan.
Couple that with the dramatic weight and size advantages of lasers, and your suggestion is basically a recipe for eliminating AC's from the game completely.
Make PPC bolts actually deal a "splash" of damage vs. a single pinpoint hit on impact and switch autocannons over to burst fire vs. single pinpoint hits and you solve a lot of problems
Definitely. And PPC splash damage doesnt have to be random. Splash damage can work in a consistent and predictable manner (i.e. the location you hit takes 6 damage, and each adjacent location takes 2-4 damage depending on the number of adjacent locations). Youre still doing the same 10 damage, but instead of hitting one location, youre hitting 2-3 locations.
Quote
But no one will use AC's then.
If AC's are generally inferior to Lasers in every category, and you take away the ONE benefit they have, then they become useless.
Not sure what youre talking about. ACs have more than one benefit over lasers.
1) range
2) heat
3) dps
4) even with burst fire, they still do damage instantly, just in smaller chunks.
The only benefit thats being removed is pinpoint damage, which is currently the reason ACs are outright better than lasers. Removing that simply equalizes them with lasers.
Quote
You are suggesting to make them harder to use than lasers in EVERY way.
Of course. Theyre better than lasers so they should be harder to use. Thats common sense. But they shouldnt be so hard to use that it tips the scale the opposite direction. Thats what PGI did with Gauss, and thats not at all what im advocating. Burst fire wouldnt make autocannons tedious to use like Gauss; it simply fixes whats overpowered about them.
Yes, many of those cars are 500 pounds. And yet they are bigger then an Average AC-20 shell... why is that?
Well, again, as science tells us volume does not necessarily equal mass... an AC-20 shell holds heavier material in a much more compact space, but is, nonetheless, HUGE.
First off, I can't think of a single car in the entire world that only weighs 500 lbs.
Second, no shell would ever be the same size as a car of equal weight, because it's a SHELL. A car, by virtue of its need to carry people, is always going to be mostly empty space inside.
You're right that mass doesn't equate to volume. But in the case you are discussing here, a shell would always be WAY SMALLER than a car of equal weight.
The AC20 is back to where it started and should have stayed. I have no problem with this change. The change to the AC10 though I really don't understand as others have repeatedly said no one thought the AC10 was OP. I can live with the new AC10 speed but I'd like to see them shave a little off the cooldown.
LocationBetween the Flannagan's Nebulea and the Pleiades Cluster
Posted 08 January 2014 - 06:08 AM
DeadlyFred, on 07 January 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:
It was effective, weapons in MWO are not allowed to be effective. Not sure why the AC/10 was included though. AC/20 and AC5/2 seem to be the popular choices.
You are damn right, they literally nerf every corner. Hopefully PGI won't nerf the Clans too much!
Thats exactly what im talking about. Raising the skill cap on Autocannons.
Lasers have a higher skill cap than Autocannons because you actually have to hold the laser on the same location for the entire beam duration. It defies logic that lasers are harder to use than autocannons while also being significantly weaker. Shouldnt the power level of weapons be proportional to the skill required to use a weapon?
Since im generally against making the game even easier... the logical solution is raise the skill cap on autocannons by making them burst fire weapons.
The only weapons that would make sense for is the UAC class autocannons... if PGI would want to brings lasers back up to the same playing field as AC's, then a better alternative would be to remove the heat scaling (or, at the very least, tone down the heat scaling) from lasers.
First off, I can't think of a single car in the entire world that only weighs 500 lbs.
Second, no shell would ever be the same size as a car of equal weight, because it's a SHELL. A car, by virtue of its need to carry people, is always going to be mostly empty space inside.
You're right that mass doesn't equate to volume. But in the case you are discussing here, a shell would always be WAY SMALLER than a car of equal weight.
There are many cars that weigh five-hundred pounds... refer to my earlier link.
-sigh- Again, mass=/=size. I expressed that a shell will be small, but of equatable weight. Which means the primary reason WHY a shell would be of that weight is because of the casing and propellent.
LiGhtning90, on 08 January 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:
You are damn right, they literally nerf every corner. Hopefully PGI won't nerf the Clans too much!
Definitely. And PPC splash damage doesnt have to be random. Splash damage can work in a consistent and predictable manner (i.e. the location you hit takes 6 damage, and each adjacent location takes 2-4 damage depending on the number of adjacent locations). Youre still doing the same 10 damage, but instead of hitting one location, youre hitting 2-3 locations.
Though this is an interesting idea It would not feel like BattleMech damage. A PPC did its damage to one location in all but some of the fiction.
Quote
Not sure what youre talking about. ACs have more than one benefit over lasers.
1) range
2) heat
3) dps
The only benefit thats being removed is pinpoint damage, which is currently the reason ACs are outright better than lasers. Removing that simply equalized them the lasers.
Of course. Theyre better than lasers so they should be harder to use. Thats common sense. But they shouldnt be so hard to use that it tips the scale the opposite direction. Thats what PGI did with Gauss, and thats not at all what im advocating.
ACs could take a reduction of range with little to no problem(and I like killing before seeing the glint on a canopy)... And DPS is a Lie, An AC20 doesn't do 5 points of damage a second. It does 20 points of damage every 4 seconds... IF it hits. I could fire 3 AC20 rounds and only hit once. 20 damage in 12 seconds or 1.666 DpS. Tracking DpS on a front loaded weapon is just not accurate.
10
ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 05:19 AM, said:
