#301
Posted 02 April 2014 - 06:21 AM
Using burst fire would make the biggest & best change imho.
Lot harder to hit faster/further targets and also more difficulat to hit with all shells while jumping.
The fight of slow assaults vs each other would not change that much, but you could finally use twisting to spread damage better (like with every other weapon).
With burstfire and a bit lower max-range (drop off) you could even increase AC projectile speed again or change amount of ammo (up).
#302
Posted 02 April 2014 - 06:52 AM
Coralld, on 21 March 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:
I know that most of the art work don't show a belt feeder system on but I think that's mainly because the ammo is normally located where the weapon is and such no need for a belt feeder.
Disintergrating belt feed is the only way the ammo has a chance to work in mechwarrior, without nerfing the rate of fire big time to reflect replacing a drum or caset, but it still has to get past engines, Extremely hot likely to cause ammo to explode before it reaches the guns.
Joints..belt feed is only so flexible, pretty much all motion of a mech would jam a belt feed.
There has all ways been a massive reality gap in Battle tech Mech warrior.
Old table top there wasn't really much in it, AC's had extra weight and ammo that could explode energy weapons lighter generated alot more heat, wouldn't explode,
Taking a few rough examples
BT ac5 and medium lasers do the same damage the AC5 has twice the range of a medium laser.
Ac10 and Large laser have exactly the same range but the LL does 8 damage compared to an AC10..well 10 duh
An interesting note which I won't expand on Long range missiles had a 400 meter extra range on AC5.. so they were..actually long range..and not either joke weapons or rain storms but then in a semi sensible world the maximum load out was 40lrm in only a few mech designs (game stopped being semi sensible th moments clans arrived and it went into easy mode).
Now then back to the main point all weapons had a rate of fire of one because it was turn based, pc shooters don't have that limitation and this is the other big corner stone which PGI failed to grasp or totally ignored in the we know best mode, they have had since pretty much day one.
In MWO ballistic weapons have a vastly increased range and or DPS which is why the meta is so bullet shaped or missile at present., this will never change until balistics get range cut and or dps cut, its that old cause and effect they handed the game to the ac5 when they added ghost heat, to curb ppc crazy builds, which they had to add as an attempt to stop the pinpoint damage they caused by allowing mechs to carry 6 ppc, 3 gauss 60lrm yawn ywan..
best way of dealing with it isn't nerfing buffing any weapon the bottom line is what you can carry and until that is altered they can add this take away that and the game still won't balance
#303
Posted 02 April 2014 - 06:57 AM
#304
Posted 02 April 2014 - 08:31 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:
I can't say I did, as that wasn't a part of the sentence I quoted.
Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:
"Most" in this case meaning "all but possibly one single variant of the UAC/20, and that one's debatable too".
I will concede (as I have before) that there's nothing in the lore or rules stopping autocannons from being single-shot (given that you want to fire a single 200 kg shell - or 142.8 kg shell in MWO), but again, the ACs in BattleTech are described as burst-fire in all but a single instance (and that may still be burst-fire as well, depending on how you interpret the word "shot").
And yet, every single AC in MWO is single-shot, and it gives them a very hard-to-balance edge over every other weapon system.
Take two imaginary weapons; they have the same weight, slots, damage, heat, ammo count - they are identical in all respects except one: One delivers its damage in one shot, and the other delivers its damage in ten shots over 1 second.
Which is the better weapon?
Until you understand this, I'm going to continue beating you over the head with it.
#305
Posted 02 April 2014 - 08:35 AM
stjobe, on 01 April 2014 - 09:46 PM, said:
I cannot remember which one - but Koniving found one (mounted on a tank) that fired a single round.
It was a point he kept bringing up when he was trying to get the AC turned into burst fire weapons though.
In other words I am throwing around 2nd hand knowledge so don't shoot me -especially not with any AC/20s
#306
Posted 02 April 2014 - 08:41 AM
stjobe, on 02 April 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:
"Most" in this case meaning "all but possibly one single variant of the UAC/20, and that one's debatable too".
I will concede (as I have before) that there's nothing in the lore or rules stopping autocannons from being single-shot (given that you want to fire a single 200 kg shell - or 142.8 kg shell in MWO), but again, the ACs in BattleTech are described as burst-fire in all but a single instance (and that may still be burst-fire as well, depending on how you interpret the word "shot").
And yet, every single AC in MWO is single-shot, and it gives them a very hard-to-balance edge over every other weapon system.
Take two imaginary weapons; they have the same weight, slots, damage, heat, ammo count - they are identical in all respects except one: One delivers its damage in one shot, and the other delivers its damage in ten shots over 1 second.
Which is the better weapon?
Until you understand this, I'm going to continue beating you over the head with it.
Also as I have said before, All>most>some. Most could mean all but one! I do not want to lose that one.
To me the one delivering the damage in one shot... Bu tthe folks who love that AC2 and AC5 would disagree which is their right as the are throwing the same weight of ammo as my Single shot AC20. AND they are doing it for less tonnage and Space and for an increase in heat!
#307
Posted 02 April 2014 - 08:49 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:
Of course you don't, since that one makes all the other ones obsolete.
And that discrepancy is the actual weapon-balance reason why you have to give it up.
I wish it wasn't so; I wish PGI could fix convergence or do something about pin-point aim, but they can't and/or won't. The only way left for them to balance ACs and PPCs is to make them spread their damage - like every other weapon in the game - and the easiest way to do that is to re-implement them as burst-fire and beam-duration weapons.
Even you know that makes sense, Joe
#308
Posted 02 April 2014 - 12:23 PM
#309
Posted 02 April 2014 - 01:22 PM
Nik Van Rhijn, on 02 April 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:
Except for two things:
1. Those 1-shot ACs would be better than any other ACs due to how they deal damage.
2. The HunchbackTomodzuru Autocannon Mount 20 180mm AC/20 should fire 5-shot bursts according to lore (Era Report 3052), and the DeathGiver 100 100mm AC/20 on the Atlas should fire 10-shot bursts according to lore (Heir to the Throne).
So either way you want to look at it; from a lore perspective or from a game-mechanic perspective, MWO does ACs wrong and it's hurting the game.
Edited by stjobe, 02 April 2014 - 01:24 PM.
#310
Posted 02 April 2014 - 01:41 PM
Edit: Never mind, it was changed in the first patch of the year.
Edited by Deathlike, 02 April 2014 - 01:47 PM.
#311
Posted 02 April 2014 - 02:44 PM
Deathlike, on 02 April 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:
Edit: Never mind, it was changed in the first patch of the year.
Nope, in the Dev blog #3 I do believe Paul commented on that the TTK is to short and that they are looking at the ACs as a whole to be retune, but he didn't give any specifics on what that retuning is.
Edited by Coralld, 02 April 2014 - 02:47 PM.
#312
Posted 02 April 2014 - 04:18 PM
Coralld, on 02 April 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:
I should've just use
Paul's great at being vague. Then the results will be unleashed and the complaining will commence.
#313
Posted 02 April 2014 - 06:24 PM
stjobe, on 02 April 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:
And that discrepancy is the actual weapon-balance reason why you have to give it up.
I wish it wasn't so; I wish PGI could fix convergence or do something about pin-point aim, but they can't and/or won't. The only way left for them to balance ACs and PPCs is to make them spread their damage - like every other weapon in the game - and the easiest way to do that is to re-implement them as burst-fire and beam-duration weapons.
Even you know that makes sense, Joe
I'm not quite so absolute, though I 99.99999999% agree with all of your well-informed posts otherwise.
You CAN still have a single-shot AC of each type, but the downside has to balance it against all the burst-fire types. For instance, if the single-shot has a really long cooldown. Say the burst-fire AC20 does 25 damage "per turn" (whatever time span we are judging it by) and the single-shot AC20 does 16 damage "per turn". That way, you are giving up a considerable amount of overall damage by lumping it into one hit.
#314
Posted 03 April 2014 - 06:36 AM
Quote
There's a reason engines carry so much shielding and always have a "built-in" 10 heat sinks, and controlling thermal leakage is part of it.
Heck, there's 'Mechs in TT that had flaws in said shielding that could result in torso weapons overheating, jamming, or causing ammo explosions- but normally that's not the case.
#315
Posted 03 April 2014 - 08:47 AM
AC20 becomes scary as **** at close range,
AC5s and AC2s become long range AA and suppression weapons with close range capabilities
AC10 becomes the middleground
Adjust damage per shot based off of time intervals
ACs fire X shots over Y amount of time
Edited by AntiCitizenJuan, 03 April 2014 - 08:48 AM.
#316
Posted 03 April 2014 - 08:53 AM
AntiCitizenJuan, on 03 April 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:
AC20 becomes scary as **** at close range,
AC5s and AC2s become long range AA and suppression weapons with close range capabilities
AC10 becomes the middleground
Adjust damage per shot based off of time intervals
ACs fire X shots over Y amount of time
Is an AC2 scarier at close range then a present AC20? I don't think so. That is what you are saying/suggesting. I don't find an AC2 scary... at any range.
#317
Posted 03 April 2014 - 08:57 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:
Its not, but I'm not seeing AC20's much anymore in my ELO bracket, which I'm assuming is at least at the average skill level.
2 and 5s are the most common type used. The 20 is supposed to be one of the premier brawling weapons, so it should be very efficient and better at close range than its more common AC5 counterpart
#318
Posted 03 April 2014 - 09:03 AM
AntiCitizenJuan, on 03 April 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:
Its not, but I'm not seeing AC20's much anymore in my ELO bracket, which I'm assuming is at least at the average skill level.
2 and 5s are the most common type used. The 20 is supposed to be one of the premier brawling weapons, so it should be very efficient and better at close range than its more common AC5 counterpart
I think it is a matter of DpS Juan. One AC20 does 5.0DpS but two AC5 can throw 6.66DpS (...I do like that number!) and 2 AC2 throws 7.7 DpS. So the damage over time olks like the whole higher DpS vs us FLD players who like to smash faces and break mechs with heavy hitting weapons.
#319
Posted 03 April 2014 - 09:24 AM
Cathy, on 02 April 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:
The problem isn't range or DPS; it's pinpoint. Nobody worries about one AC/5.
Break the duct tape and only then is the problem solved.
Quote
Your timeline is off, and that's coloring your results.
Heat scale discouraged the highest all-energy or energy/ballistic groups. Gauss charge discouraged PPC/Gauss. Velocity nerfs discouraged the highest extant energy/ballistic combo (AC/20) and preempted the first refuge (AC/10) and forced use of the last remaining (AC/5).
No matter the methods, the meta has moved to smaller and smaller, or less efficient, pinpoint volleys.
#320
Posted 03 April 2014 - 09:30 AM
stjobe, on 02 April 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:
And that discrepancy is the actual weapon-balance reason why you have to give it up.
I wish it wasn't so; I wish PGI could fix convergence or do something about pin-point aim, but they can't and/or won't. The only way left for them to balance ACs and PPCs is to make them spread their damage - like every other weapon in the game - and the easiest way to do that is to re-implement them as burst-fire and beam-duration weapons.
Even you know that makes sense, Joe
Then why are AC5s an AC2s so popular Jobe?
40 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 40 guests, 0 anonymous users