424 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:

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.

Funny you should say that. -All- autocannons in BT actually fire a burst of shells, not a single round. Even the big ol' killer AC/20's or the dorsal 120mm on the old Unseen Marauders did- at least 3 shells per burst, and many had a far higher firing rate. Ultra AC's took that volume of fire still further (and rolled on the cluster hits to boot!), and rotary AC's go full "gatling gun" with the number of shells they pump out.

Single-shot explosive-shell guns in the BT universe are "rifles" - light, medium, large - and actually deal reduced damage vs. properly armored targets. Single-shell AC's are actually not even close to "right" by Battletech standards.

[Joseph Mallan]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 06:15 AM, said:

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 propellant.

You mean that car with the 2,500Lbs Curb weight???

[Khobai]

Quote

The only weapons that would make sense for is the UAC class autocannons..

No it makes sense for all autocannons. Autocannons are described in the lore as firing 3-10 round bursts. You cant argue that it wouldnt make sense when the game's own fiction says that's how they work.

What doesnt make sense is having precise aiming in mwo when it uses armor values derived from a game with random hit locations. Thats where sense and reason break down and why pinpoint damage doesn't belong in MWO. Burst fire/splash damage is simply an intuitive way to transition from a system with random hit locations to a system with precise aiming, without the weapons becoming overpowered.

Quote

And DPS is a Lie

No its not. Go run four AC/5s and tell me DPS is a lie. Even dual AC/20 fires fast enough to be considered a dps weapon, once every 2 seconds. Autocannons are very much dps weapons. More so than lasers. Lasers are some of the slowest firing weapons in the game.

Edited by Khobai, 08 January 2014 - 06:28 AM.

[ReXspec]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:

You mean that car with the 2,500Lbs Curb weight???

I ammended that post, good sir. :I

wanderer, on 08 January 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:

Funny you should say that. -All- autocannons in BT actually fire a burst of shells, not a single round. Even the big ol' killer AC/20's or the dorsal 120mm on the old Unseen Marauders did- at least 3 shells per burst, and many had a far higher firing rate. Ultra AC's took that volume of fire still further (and rolled on the cluster hits to boot!), and rotary AC's go full "gatling gun" with the number of shells they pump out.

Single-shot explosive-shell guns in the BT universe are "rifles" - light, medium, large - and actually deal reduced damage vs. properly armored targets. Single-shell AC's are actually not even close to "right" by Battletech standards.

I'm sorely confused... if you are referring to the AC model, we can assume that PGI are using the canon "single-shot" cannons.

I thought the burst-firing AC's were strictly relegated to rotary AC's and UAC's?

[Joseph Mallan]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 06:15 AM, said:

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.

I ammended that post, good sir. :I

VW Bug=1,800lbs
Nash Metro=1,785 lbs
Ford Pinto=2,015-2,270 lbs
Toyota iQ= 1,896 lbs
BMW Mini=1,360-1,512 lbs
Tata Nano=1,300lbs

Lightest was the Gordon Murray T 25 at just over 1,260 lbs

Not a one is 500 lbs...

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 January 2014 - 06:35 AM.

[Roland]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 06:15 AM, said:

There are many cars that weigh five-hundred pounds... refer to my earlier link.

Which of those economy cars weighs less than 500lbs? Because It appears that all of them weigh well over a thousand lbs.

Quote

-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.

And, since it's effectively solid, it will always be OF MUCH LESS VOLUME than a car of equal weight, since the car is not a solid object.

[ReXspec]

Khobai, on 08 January 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

No it makes sense for all autocannons. Autocannons are even described in lore as firing 3-10 round bursts. You cant argue that it wouldnt make sense when the game's own fiction says that's how they work.

What doesnt make sense is having precise aiming and pinpoint damage in a game that uses armor values from another game which is based on random hit locations.



No its not. Go run four AC/5s and tell me DPS is a lie. Autocannons are very much dps weapons. More so than lasers.

Well, again, I imagine it would depend specifically on the make, model, and caliber of the specific AC they were using. True, variated calibers had higher bursts then the same type of AC but there were also accounts of a specific type of AC's using single shots. My guess is, the "single-shot" model is what PGI is going with. In that case, you have to make the projectiles consistent, while still have their own drawbacks so that they are not perfectly consistent.

[Zolaz]

AC20 nerf is just a "buff" to their new hero mech. That way chumps will buy their new toy, PGI will get their cash grab. In 2 months they will "fix" the AC20. CW and all the other things they promised will still be 3 months out. More people will quit the game never to return.

If you want to keep giving PGI money to put out mechs go right ahead. PGI employees rarely come to the forums. PGI hardly ever listen to the people who play the game. What PGI wants is your money, if you are happy with the game give it to them.

[ReXspec]

Roland, on 08 January 2014 - 06:27 AM, said:

Which of those economy cars weighs less than 500lbs? Because It appears that all of them weigh well over a thousand lbs.



And, since it's effectively solid, it will always be OF MUCH LESS VOLUME than a car of equal weight, since the car is not a solid object.

Volume yes. Mass? Not necessarily. It depends on the material of the shell itself as well as the propellent.

As for the cars, there are light-weight ones mentioned in the sources of that article in particular.

Edited by ReXspec, 08 January 2014 - 06:39 AM.

[Butane9000]

Jaguar Prime, on 07 January 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

So it looks like the AC20 took a small nerf...... along with the AC10.......smh. I have to ask, what was wrong with it as it was?

Gameplay
Weapon Tuning:

• AC/20 - Projectile speed decreased from 900m/s to 650m/s (250m/s decrease)
  
• AC/10 - Projectile speed decreased from 1100m/s to 950m/s (150m/s decrease)

Personally I believe it was their attempt to decouple it from PPCs similarly like the change to the Gauss Rifle. As the meta was becoming AC20 + 1 or 2 PPCs. Usually on a Highlander or Victor with jump sniping capability. Not sure how this will ultimately effect that meta though.

[Roland]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

Volume yes. Mass? Not necessarily. It depends on the material of the shell itself as well as the propellent.

The Mass effectively the equivalent to the weight in this discussion, since we're assuming a fixed gravitational pull. So it's 500lbs for both.

So for 500lbs, a 500lb shell is ALWAYS going to be far far smaller than a car of equal weight, because the shell (even with propellent) is going to be far denser than the car. Thus, for a given mass, it will take up less space.

Also, this discussion is totally meaningless, since none of this {Scrap} matters for a game.

[Joseph Mallan]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

Volume yes. Mass? Not necessarily. It depends on the material of the shell itself as well as the propellent.

But since our AC20 rounds are 285lbs per shell... I don't see a car "on the road" that weighs as little as...Me?

[Craig Steele]

Who do you play linebacker for Joseph?

[ReXspec]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

But since our AC20 rounds are 285lbs per shell... I don't see a car "on the road" that weighs as little as...Me?

Roland, on 08 January 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

The Mass effectively the equivalent to the weight in this discussion, since we're assuming a fixed gravitational pull. So it's 500lbs for both.

So for 500lbs, a 500lb shell is ALWAYS going to be far far smaller than a car of equal weight, because the shell (even with propellent) is going to be far denser than the car. Thus, for a given mass, it will take up less space.

Also, this discussion is totally meaningless, since none of this {Scrap} matters for a game.

But the magic question is how much space. And I agree... yet more digression aside I'll just close with my thoughts on PGI's idea of "balance" for the AC-20:

-They're catering to people who don't know how to deal with the AC-20.

-They *believe* the AC-20 is over-powered, thus mangling the weapon in the process (anyone remember the preludes to the Gauss Rifles nerfs?).

TL;DR -- The ideas behind the nerfs make sense, but the implementation of the mechanics of this weapon are... off. To say the least.

[Joseph Mallan]

Craig Steele, on 08 January 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

Who do you play linebacker for Joseph?

Back in the day I was a Defensive Tackle... but that was High school and I was a mere 155 Lbs
This is 280 lbs last summer.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 January 2014 - 06:49 AM.

[Hexenhammer]

FupDup, on 07 January 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

I don't think that can be it, because PGI doesn't usually balance the game around experienced players. They prefer to use the Silent Majority™.

Silent Majority™ : PGI employees. They never play and they never post on the forums.




Why nerf the AC?

How about we slow down IS weapons to give Clan Tech an edge?

Edited by Hexenhammer, 08 January 2014 - 06:50 AM.

[ReXspec]

Hexenhammer, on 08 January 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:

Silent Majority™ : PGI employees. They never play and they never post on the forums.

Funny thing is, I've seen the graphical devs play more than our "beloved" Paul or Russ.

[3rdworld]

Hexenhammer, on 08 January 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:

Silent Majority™ : PGI employees. They never play and they never post on the forums.

They are too busy adding the mountains of content into mwo we get to enjoy.

hrmm.....

Giving Paul piggy-back rides.

[Craig Steele]

@Joseph,

Dear God, If your 280 your Dad is HUGE

Edited by Craig Steele, 08 January 2014 - 06:53 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 06:46 AM, said:

But the magic question is how much space. And I agree... yet more digression aside I'll just close with my thoughts on PGI's idea of "balance" for the AC-20:

-They're catering to people who don't know how to deal with the AC-20.

-They *believe* the AC-20 is over-powered, thus mangling the weapon in the process (anyone remember the preludes to the Gauss Rifles nerfs?).

TL;DR -- The ideas behind the nerfs make sense, but the implementation of the mechanics of this weapon are... off. To say the least.

The bold we agree on. Some players are afraid for their toons to die in digital combat as if it is an affront to their manliness or something.