404 replies to this topic

[El Space Doctor]

Every time this topic comes up I feel it has it's place, and I'd definately love to hear the roar of several large caliber shots fired within a short period of time. However, it would make one question quite important: who in their right mind would ever equip an ac 20 if it didn't have FLD? For comparison, an effective AC 20 requires 15 tonnes minimum, preferably 16 and occupies 13-14 slots. To make it more heat efficient, you can add 1 ton and 3 crits to it. So the system would probably actually end up being pretty much 17 tonnes and 17 crits. 4 medium lasers and 4 heatsinks weights 8 tonnes and with one heatsink for each they'd end up at 8 tonnes and 16 crits. And unlimited ammo. And ability to lose a body part without becoming useless. So.. would you stil go for an AC for any other reason than the sound and lasers being the dullest weapon of any scifi IP ever?

[Mcgral18]

El Space Doctor, on 04 March 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

Every time this topic comes up I feel it has it's place, and I'd definately love to hear the roar of several large caliber shots fired within a short period of time. However, it would make one question quite important: who in their right mind would ever equip an ac 20 if it didn't have FLD? For comparison, an effective AC 20 requires 15 tonnes minimum, preferably 16 and occupies 13-14 slots. To make it more heat efficient, you can add 1 ton and 3 crits to it. So the system would probably actually end up being pretty much 17 tonnes and 17 crits. 4 medium lasers and 4 heatsinks weights 8 tonnes and with one heatsink for each they'd end up at 8 tonnes and 16 crits. And unlimited ammo. And ability to lose a body part without becoming useless. So.. would you stil go for an AC for any other reason than the sound and lasers being the dullest weapon of any scifi IP ever?

Because PGI can't fix convergence to make those 4 MLs hit different spots, and multiple ACs+PPCs not all hit the same spot either.

As such, we have to mitigate FLD. Your AC20 would be doing 20 damage over .2-.6 seconds for 7 heat, while your 4 MLs are doing 20 damage over 1 full second, for 16 heat. A large tonnage savings, but you'll still need quite a few heatsinks to cover that, and it will never be heat neutral.

Of course, in PGIs infinite wisdom, both the weapons also have the same cooldown. It will still be used, and maybe even abused, but you can now torso twist. A built in feature that ALL other weapon types have, a mechanic to spread damage.

[Lightfoot]

Mac, come on now, the weapons all have different travel times or durations. All you need to do is move laterally to your opponent and they either fire one weapon type at a time or the damage is spread across 2-3 sections. Ghost Heat severely blocks group-fire in MWO (but group-fire is normal for MechWarrior of course).

I remember MW3 had the ACs all fire a stream of like 5 shells to do the damage. Surprisingly easy to make them all hit the CT, but virtually guaranteeing a hit if you were anywhere close to on target.

[stjobe]

Varent, on 04 March 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

Bla bla bla more ad hominems and no substantial argument

You know, it's funny; you started this whole ad hominem extravaganza when I remarked that the suggestion Eldagore made, about limiting engine rating to a factor of chassis weight, might be a good idea because it would buff mediums:

stjobe, on 03 March 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

That would be a REAL trade-off, and it would slow the heavies and assaults right down; giving the mediums a chance to be what the fast heavies are right now.

From this you took that I wanted it just because I wanted to buff lights (I didn't even mention lights, I was arguing it as a buff to mediums), and off you went.

Well, it would be funny if it wasn't so trite.

Anyway, if you want to discuss the actual TT build mechanic and what its implementation in MWO would possibly entail, I'm up for that. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of FLD, I'm up for that as well. I never said no to a good argument.

For the sake of argument then: An Atlas would have a choice of four engines (unless he wanted to downgrade to a 200, which I don't see many people wanting to do):

* STD 300 with 45.8 tons left for weapons and equipment.
* XL 300 with 55.3 tons left
These would let it have a top speed of 48.6 (53.5) kph

* STD 400 with 11.3 tons left
* XL 400 with 37.3 tons left
These would let it have a top speed of 64.8 (71.3) kph

Realistically then, the STD 400 wouldn't be much of a choice (as the Charger also can attest to), but the other options are valid. Go XL 300 for more weaponry at the cost of durability, or XL 400 for more speed at the cost of durability and reduced weaponry. A real and valid trade-off, and no easy choice. Each option has a benefit and a drawback, as it should be.

What are your thoughts on that?

Also, I have to comment on this: Removing FLD is not "destroying a play style" - FLD is not a play style, it's an overpowering damage dealing mechanic that has no counterpart or compensation on any of the other weapons.

It's no more a play style than "I want the weapons I like to use to be better than the other weapons" is a play style. Or can you honestly say you'd stick to ACs and PPCs if they were made burst-fire and lasers were made FLD?

[El Space Doctor]

Mcgral18, on 04 March 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Because PGI can't fix convergence to make those 4 MLs hit different spots, and multiple ACs+PPCs not all hit the same spot either.

As such, we have to mitigate FLD. Your AC20 would be doing 20 damage over .2-.6 seconds for 7 heat, while your 4 MLs are doing 20 damage over 1 full second, for 16 heat. A large tonnage savings, but you'll still need quite a few heatsinks to cover that, and it will never be heat neutral.

Of course, in PGIs infinite wisdom, both the weapons also have the same cooldown. It will still be used, and maybe even abused, but you can now torso twist. A built in feature that ALL other weapon types have, a mechanic to spread damage.

I'm sorry, I'm not a native english speaker and it might be the reason why I fail to understand your point. Yes, multiple ac's and ppc's don't hit the same spot. That's why boating would be better than different weapon groupings, but.. how is that relevant when talking about taking the single reason to use the heaviest weapons in the game away? Most builds get this synergy -1 thing anyway.

And don't get me wrong, the FLD problem is a very real one, I'd love to see a good fix to that. But still, with this hypothetical 20 alpha build of ac20 and ML, I'd take the tonnage savings any day as the build with a double heat sink for every medium laser and throw the rest on bigger engine and even more internal heatsinks. And even if the end result wasn't heat neutral, it wouldn't matter one bit as that's not exactly the objective and it would definately be cool enough to be effective. So the ability to save what would be merely a slight amount in heat after the heatsink increases for the price of ten or so tons would only be remotely viable for assault mechs. Of course it could be argued that it's exactly how it should be given it's a 15+ ton monster when ammo included.

As said, I'd love the idea of roaring auto cannons with multiple shots and completely agree that FLD is simply ridiculously better in this game than DOT. However, and I'm not about to pull the TT card here, but when the base values of weapon stats mostly come from TT where this whole problem of damage types doesn't excist in the same sense, I feel the weight downside of AC's would simply be far too great if their only real upside was taken away. So to combat that, they'd have to tweak the weight or possibly ammo counts which would be a whole other can of worms buried on the bottom of a barrel full of snakes.

[Mcgral18]

El Space Doctor, on 04 March 2014 - 05:56 PM, said:

I'm sorry, I'm not a native english speaker and it might be the reason why I fail to understand your point. Yes, multiple ac's and ppc's don't hit the same spot. That's why boating would be better than different weapon groupings, but.. how is that relevant when talking about taking the single reason to use the heaviest weapons in the game away? Most builds get this synergy -1 thing anyway.

And don't get me wrong, the FLD problem is a very real one, I'd love to see a good fix to that. But still, with this hypothetical 20 alpha build of ac20 and ML, I'd take the tonnage savings any day as the build with a double heat sink for every medium laser and throw the rest on bigger engine and even more internal heatsinks. And even if the end result wasn't heat neutral, it wouldn't matter one bit as that's not exactly the objective and it would definately be cool enough to be effective. So the ability to save what would be merely a slight amount in heat after the heatsink increases for the price of ten or so tons would only be remotely viable for assault mechs. Of course it could be argued that it's exactly how it should be given it's a 15+ ton monster when ammo included.

As said, I'd love the idea of roaring auto cannons with multiple shots and completely agree that FLD is simply ridiculously better in this game than DOT. However, and I'm not about to pull the TT card here, but when the base values of weapon stats mostly come from TT where this whole problem of damage types doesn't excist in the same sense, I feel the weight downside of AC's would simply be far too great if their only real upside was taken away. So to combat that, they'd have to tweak the weight or possibly ammo counts which would be a whole other can of worms buried on the bottom of a barrel full of snakes.

Well, they really aren't TT stats. They used to be before the tripled the RoF, which lead to doubling of the armor.

Anyhow, I imagine there will still be many ballistic boats out, since even if they arn't frontloaded, they have the lowest heat and some of the highest DPS, which will still tear into mechs long after lasers are overheating like mad due to our heat system.

[Zordicron]

stjobe, on 04 March 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

You know, it's funny; you started this whole ad hominem extravaganza when I remarked that the suggestion Eldagore made, about limiting engine rating to a factor of chassis weight, might be a good idea because it would buff mediums:

I never suggested that. In fact, I said it doesnt have a place in a video game/Mechwarrior, and hasnt ever been used in one so far as I know, as there are no hex markers or various other things in a mostly real time setting. It is a tabletop rule that does not translate worth a crap to a real time type game.

If you are going to drop my name, make sure you actually read my posts first.

[Cimarb]

Eldagore, on 04 March 2014 - 08:52 PM, said:

I never suggested that. In fact, I said it doesnt have a place in a video game/Mechwarrior, and hasnt ever been used in one so far as I know, as there are no hex markers or various other things in a mostly real time setting. It is a tabletop rule that does not translate worth a crap to a real time type game.

If you are going to drop my name, make sure you actually read my posts first.

Actually, he quoted Varent - scroll up.

[Cimarb]

Spoiler

So, while I was going to start a new thread about this, I thought that would be going against the very thing that irritates me about these forums - duplicate threads - so instead, I am resurrecting this great thread from its two week nap!

Here goes, and let me know your thoughts on it:

Autocannons as a whole need to be realigned. Currently, we have four versions of the AC20, since every one of them does roughly 20 damage in the same time period. Here are the stats:

AC2
Damage: 2
Cooldown: 0.52
DPS: 3.85
Damage per 5 seconds: 19.23

AC5
Damage: 5
Cooldown: 1.50
DPS: 3.33
Damage per 5 seconds: 16.65

UAC5
Damage: 5
Cooldown: 1.50 (if only fired at normal rate)
DPS: 3.33 (varies)
Damage per 5 seconds: 16.65 (varies)

AC10
Damage: 10
Cooldown: 2.50
DPS: 4.00
Damage per 5 seconds: 20.00

AC20
Damage: 20
Cooldown: 4.00
DPS: 5.00
Damage per 5 seconds: 25.00

So, in a "normalized" turn of five seconds (since all weapons in MWO can fire at least once in that time), the range of damage between all autocannons is 16.65-25.00. According to the definition of an autocannon in Sarna:

"Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage versus armor. The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors. Autocannon are grouped into the following loose damage classes: (ac2-ac20)... Caliber is fluff for the size of the barrel that the shell or shells are fired from and no standard caliber has been set for any of the classes of Autocannon. Autocannon in a class vary by manufacturer and model. With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each 'round' or burst of fire. Probable exceptions are (185mm Demolisher cannon and 203mm Cauldron Born cannon, which is actually a clan mech, btw)"

According to this definition, every autocannon currently in the game would be considered an AC20, as their DPS are all closer to 20 than any other classification.

Side note: Oddly, the AC5/UAC5 are the most common autocannons, yet they are also the lowest DPS of all of them... This means they happen to fit in the sweet spot of weight/space versus firepower that people like most. Anyways...

What should happen is all autocannon need to be normalized to each other. That means, in 5 seconds of time, an AC2 should do roughly 2 damage, an AC5 should do 5 damage, an AC10 should do 20 and an AC20 should do 20. While this would dramatically nerf the lower class ACs in damage potential compared to currently, this can be offset by making the optimum/max ranges actually matter again! An AC2 may not do nearly as much damage, but they are the longest range weapons of the bunch. As the class gets higher, the range gets significantly lower, so on the other end you have the devastating damage of the AC20, but it can only be used at very short ranges, similar to how SRMs are used.

Here would be my proposed adjustments:
AC2 - damage 0.2 - cooldown 0.52 - DP5S 2.0 - range 720 - max range 1440
AC5 - damage 1.5 - cooldown 1.50 - DP5S 5.0 - range 620 - max range 1240
AC10 - damage 5.0 - cooldown 2.50 - DP5S 10.0 - range 450 - max range 900
AC20 - damage 16 - cooldown 4.00 - DP5S 20.0 - range 270 - max range 540

These would be the "standard" versions. Once CW gets implemented, you could then adjust the "damage" and "cooldown" numbers all over the place to represent different manufacturers, as long as the "DP5S" value stays within a small range of that classification. Here are some examples for possible AC20 variants:

185mm ChemJet AC/20 - damage 20 - cooldown 5.00 - DP5S 20.0
Pontiac 100 AC/20 - damage 0.2 - cooldown 0.50 - DP5S 20.0
Imperator Zeta-A - damage 5 - cooldown 1.25 - DP5S 20.0

On top of this, to give some real variety, you could also have burst-fire versions, such as:

Kali Yama Big Bore AC/20 - damage 5.0/tick - 1.0 second burst with 4 ticks - cooldown 4.0 - DP5S 20.0
Armstrong Requiem AC/20 - damage 1.0/tick - 4.0 second burst with 20 ticks - cooldown 1.0 - DP5S 20.0

You now have balanced autocannons (both compared to other weapons and also compared to each other), enough variety for every person imaginable, and a reason to own certain manufactory plants, as you could limit ammo supplies/cost for certain weapons based upon the current ownership and faction difference.

Now, for all Ultra versions (including future releases), you can then have a toggle to double the rate of fire, but with an increasing chance to jam based upon how long you hold the trigger. The chance starts at 5%, then increases every second by another 5%, until it jams. Once the weapon jams, it is unusable for 5-10 seconds, but then the jam rate resets to 5%.

EDIT: just for clarification, when I mention a "tick" in terms of an autocannon, I'm not saying to make them hitscan like a laser. Each AC tick would be a separate projectile, but the ammo amounts would have to be adjusted to compensate for the rate of fire of that specific caliber. In the case of the burst-fire versions above, each pull of the trigger would let off the burst as described. For instance, a ChemJet AC/20 would have the current 7 rounds per ton, since it only fires one round per cooldown, while the Armstrong AC/20 would fire a burst of twenty projectiles per trigger pull and have 140 rounds per ton (7x20) and an Imperator AC/20 would have 80 rounds per ton (4x20). This is where supply and demand could be used to balance different manufacturers, such as the huge ChemJet rounds being extremely expensive to reload, countering the FLD advantage they provide.

That is my proposed way of handling autocannons. It does not completely remove FLD, as there could still be versions that did 20 damage in one slug, but that could be balanced by RnR or many other methods. I have a solution for PPCs as well, but I have to find a recent post...

Anyways, see the link in my signature for a very good debate we are having about this very topic, which could use some fresh input anyways.

[Varent]

Putting in versions of different auto cannon and lasers and ppc that have different ways of doing damage and are balanced with cooldown/heat/etc etc makes both sides happy.

(except the whiners)

[El Space Doctor]

Mcgral18, on 04 March 2014 - 06:04 PM, said:

Well, they really aren't TT stats. They used to be before the tripled the RoF, which lead to doubling of the armor.

Anyhow, I imagine there will still be many ballistic boats out, since even if they arn't frontloaded, they have the lowest heat and some of the highest DPS, which will still tear into mechs long after lasers are overheating like mad due to our heat system.

I know the TT stats went out of the window a long time ago, but the weights and crit slots, are atleast to my understanding, still from TT. And you're right, some people might still use AC's, I'd personally be very tempted to use one just because I hate the idea of tens of tons of futuristic war machines stomping around and shooting each other with glorified flash lights.

But we'd still need a complete overhaul of all the AC's stats to make the burst fire at least remotely viable. Because, let's suppose someone, for whatever reasons, wouldn't want to replace an ac20 with pretty much guaranteed to hit lasers, why would he still employ an AC20 as a DPS weapon, when two AC 2's weight less, require far less crits, deliver significantly more DPS, carry more damage potential per ton in ammo, have much faster projectie speed and far greater range? The ac 20 would be cooler again, yes, but in every other aspect it would be totally useless. Of course the AC 2's could be spread to fire over a period of time too with pellets of 0.5 damage per shot for absolutely no heat and then significantly increasing the cooling time, but then again, who in their right mind would pick that over an ER large if only thing it was good for a scratching the enemies paint job?

At PGI's working pace taking on a complete overhaul of the whole group of AC's that would be, in my view, absolutely necessary to make them usable with burst fire would probably mean that we wouldn't see a balanced AC on the field before CW, Clans, SRMfix... In other words, somewhere around the year 2031. Not to mention that the required changes would probably throw the build balance off horribly.

So, that's mostly the reason why I'd vote no for the burst mechanic as a way to fix the AC imbalance. But if PGI is willing to work that in in a timely manner without making things a whole lot worse ( which I realize is pretty gigantic if) I'd be all for it.

Edit. But I do admit that as an easy "let's see how it works" it would probably be worthwile to implement a very, very quick burst on the 20 and 10. Maybe even the fives. But it would have to be at least as fast as pulse lasers not to turn the ac's into wasted tonnage.

Edited by El Space Doctor, 05 March 2014 - 10:15 AM.

[Varent]

found another example of a single shot ac20. Not that I really like using sarna but since people keep throwing out sarna examples of why its not BT.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Thunder

Weapons and Equipment
The primary weapon on the Thunder is the massive Kali Yama Big Bore Autocannon/20 which is capable of devastating most lighter 'Mechs with a single shot.

Anyways...

One shot 20 damage, increase CD abit.

One shot 5 damage per round burst 4 total of 20 damage over .4 seconds. Less heat or lower cd (take your pick)

One shot 2 damage per round burst 10 total of 20 damage over .25 seconds. (ditto of above options)

One shot delay mechanic allow for firing every .5 seconds (5 damage per round) over 2 seconds, 1 second cool down repeat.


These would all be interesting ways you could setup the different manufacturers of the ac20 while retaining the damage and making both parties happy.

[Cimarb]

El Space Doctor, on 05 March 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

I know the TT stats went out of the window a long time ago, but the weights and crit slots, are atleast to my understanding, still from TT. And you're right, some people might still use AC's, I'd personally be very tempted to use one just because I hate the idea of tens of tons of futuristic war machines stomping around and shooting each other with glorified flash lights.

You must hate GI Joe....

El Space Doctor, on 05 March 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

But we'd still need a complete overhaul of all the AC's stats to make the burst fire at least remotely viable. Because, let's suppose someone, for whatever reasons, wouldn't want to replace an ac20 with pretty much guaranteed to hit lasers, why would he still employ an AC20 as a DPS weapon, when two AC 2's weight less, require far less crits, deliver significantly more DPS, carry more damage potential per ton in ammo, have much faster projectie speed and far greater range? The ac 20 would be cooler again, yes, but in every other aspect it would be totally useless. Of course the AC 2's could be spread to fire over a period of time too with pellets of 0.5 damage per shot for absolutely no heat and then significantly increasing the cooling time, but then again, who in their right mind would pick that over an ER large if only thing it was good for a scratching the enemies paint job?

At PGI's working pace taking on a complete overhaul of the whole group of AC's that would be, in my view, absolutely necessary to make them usable with burst fire would probably mean that we wouldn't see a balanced AC on the field before CW, Clans, SRMfix... In other words, somewhere around the year 2031. Not to mention that the required changes would probably throw the build balance off horribly.

So, that's mostly the reason why I'd vote no for the burst mechanic as a way to fix the AC imbalance. But if PGI is willing to work that in in a timely manner without making things a whole lot worse ( which I realize is pretty gigantic if) I'd be all for it.

Edit. But I do admit that as an easy "let's see how it works" it would probably be worthwile to implement a very, very quick burst on the 20 and 10. Maybe even the fives. But it would have to be at least as fast as pulse lasers not to turn the ac's into wasted tonnage.

Read my post - please - it's not very difficult at all, as all it would take is the addition of a few dozen "versions" of each weapon in the database with different rates of fire and damage. Shoot, I would be happy to do the work myself if they wanted to pay me for my time, lol.

One of the most important parts of fixing ACs, for example, is to normalize them against each other, which would fix the issue you mention about two AC2s being better than an AC20.

EDIT: it's in my sig, but in case it isn't obvious enough, here is the post: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3113813

Edited by Cimarb, 05 March 2014 - 11:54 AM.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 05 March 2014 - 11:53 AM, said:

You must hate GI Joe....


Read my post - please - it's not very difficult at all, as all it would take is the addition of a few dozen "versions" of each weapon in the database with different rates of fire and damage. Shoot, I would be happy to do the work myself if they wanted to pay me for my time, lol.

One of the most important parts of fixing ACs, for example, is to normalize them against each other, which would fix the issue you mention about two AC2s being better than an AC20.

EDIT: it's in my sig, but in case it isn't obvious enough, here is the post: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3113813

I think the problem is some people dont agree with those numbers. Though I could be wrong. I dont particularly myself since im more a fan of different weapons in different roles then balancing overall by dps. Just an opinion though. Or at least the examples you gave personally I wasnt huge on.

Id offer to sit down and make a comprehensive list with you.... but... Id rather see pgi respond first before I get my hopes up to much.

Edited by Varent, 05 March 2014 - 12:01 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

ACs just need to be worked to act similar to LRMs. You've got the 5/10/15/20 with each a different weight just like ACs. The bigger the rack, the slower it fires which means that the bigger racks have higher DPS. The more weight you invest, the more damage you get and the greater DPS. The faster you fire, the less weight needed and the more opportunities you have for dealing damage.

[Joseph Mallan]

Not to burst your bubble... Cause I like single shot ACs. The 3055 (Update) TRO does not mention a single shot. There are at least 4 of Each TRO (original, Update, Upgrade, Revised). So only the newest fluff counts in some cases.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 05 March 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

I think the problem is some people dont agree with those numbers. Though I could be wrong. I dont particularly myself since im more a fan of different weapons in different roles then balancing overall by dps. Just an opinion though. Or at least the examples you gave personally I wasnt huge on.

Id offer to sit down and make a comprehensive list with you.... but... Id rather see pgi respond first before I get my hopes up to much.

People are far too hung up on minutiae. Should I edit the post to have brackets around every number like PGI does, lol? You shouldn't get hung up on the "role" thing, as you would have the exact same roles fulfilled by ACs that are normalized, but with the added bonus of being able to choose the rate of fire as well. Want something that hits hard occasionally? Get a slow-rate AC20. Want something that hits pretty hard more often? Get a faster firing rate version or move down to an AC10. Want something that harasses from a long distance, get a sniper version of the AC2, or get an AC5 with a fast firing rate. This would only improve the variety by magnitudes, not limit roles.

[Varent]

Joseph Mallan, on 05 March 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Not to burst your bubble... Cause I like single shot ACs. The 3055 (Update) TRO does not mention a single shot. There are at least 4 of Each TRO (original, Update, Upgrade, Revised). So only the newest fluff counts in some cases.

Varent, on 05 March 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

Not that I really like using sarna but since people keep throwing out sarna

Bad system is bad. And not made for online gaming. In fact it predates it so far back that it wasnt even a mild consideration. Point was showing another example for the lols. Larger point is you can have your cake and eat it too AND it makes both sides happy.

[El Space Doctor]

Cimarb, on 05 March 2014 - 11:53 AM, said:

You must hate GI Joe....


Read my post - please - it's not very difficult at all, as all it would take is the addition of a few dozen "versions" of each weapon in the database with different rates of fire and damage. Shoot, I would be happy to do the work myself if they wanted to pay me for my time, lol.

One of the most important parts of fixing ACs, for example, is to normalize them against each other, which would fix the issue you mention about two AC2s being better than an AC20.

EDIT: it's in my sig, but in case it isn't obvious enough, here is the post: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3113813

GI Joe? I remember some kid had a GI Joe figurine when I was a kid, but that's about all I know about the IP. And that they did movies, which I'm not really in rush to see. Did they have laser warmachines? Also, just think about how cool star wars would've been if they instead of those light sabers had machine cannon sabers? Missile sabers? Railgun sabers? MECH SABERS!?!?!? That wrinkly green midget bashing those black metal guys on top of the head with a cataphract that has an old persian saber duct taped to it's hand. That I'd watch.

Ah, I usually ignore sigs (you know, they're often filled with silly brigade emblems and links to silly ways to improve games ) so after reading your not silly original proposal what you wrote later on about makes more sense. Still, an eight-nine ton 2 DPS system doesn't really seem like the most competitive and balanced weapon around, but your basework is definately something that could be used for a baseline to start testing.

Ahh... the idea of the racket a six AC 2 jager would make firing roughly 110 shots per second. With a party mix: one third tracer, one third incediary armor piercing and one third high explosives, simply for the effect... Yeah. I could get behind that provided they lessened the heat and dumped ghost. Even if it ended up doing just 12 dps, those light bridges woven across the battlefield with sound resembling an a-10 on a strafing run would make it worth playing that completely useless build.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 05 March 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

People are far too hung up on minutiae. Should I edit the post to have brackets around every number like PGI does, lol? You shouldn't get hung up on the "role" thing, as you would have the exact same roles fulfilled by ACs that are normalized, but with the added bonus of being able to choose the rate of fire as well. Want something that hits hard occasionally? Get a slow-rate AC20. Want something that hits pretty hard more often? Get a faster firing rate version or move down to an AC10. Want something that harasses from a long distance, get a sniper version of the AC2, or get an AC5 with a fast firing rate. This would only improve the variety by magnitudes, not limit roles.

Oh I agree. I was simply saying I didnt like the examples wich might be why your not getting many people agreeing? I would suggest maybe just doing what I do and break down one thing, like the ac20 since it gets so many complains and show how it can be edited and altered in many ways to make everyone happy. However.....

Varent, on 05 March 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

Id offer to sit down and make a comprehensive list with you.... but... Id rather see pgi respond first before I get my hopes up to much.

This.