305 replies to this topic

[Trauglodyte]

Quote

It makes sense ONLY if you don't see what the "application" of the AC2 happens to be. That's the major discrepancy. Hitting targets at long range with the AC2 is difficult (it guarantees a TT-like spread) but more importantly it requires effective MG-like uptime to realize its DPS. Both things make the suggested nerfs silly. That doesn't even consider the fact that the heat generation on the AC2 is pretty high EVEN if you are avoiding Ghost Heat.

The problem, though, is that people weren't sniping with AC2s. They were abusing the combination of range and speed to do what PGI has since decided isn't how they envision the weapon. The changes that they made to the AC5 way back when and the GR just recently were so they'd be snipeable. The AC2 just happened to have the range benefit from table top. I would venture to guess that the devs saw how people were using the AC2 and felt that if they were going to be nothing but knuckle dragging spammers that they were going to chop the weapon down to where it better fit that play style. The AC5, on the other hand, has been used as a long ranged cannon since the game released. I guess what I'm saying is that they're looking at how we play and making adjustments to both suit that play style and to balance things (lol, I know) around that play style.

Anyway, if we want to look at this by the numbers, this is what you're going to get:

3 AC2s - 18 tons @ 6 damage every 0.52s
2 AC5s - 16 tons @ 10 damage every 1.5s
1 Gauss Rifle - 15 tons @ 15 damage every 4.75s

Now, I'm going to disregard Ghost Heat here because I don't feel like digging up the chalk board presentation and doing the math. By the time that the Gauss Rifle recharges for a second shot, the triple AC2 has fired an additional 8 times for a total of 54 damage at the same exact velocity and slightly longer range than the GR. Yes, it has built up an excess of 27 heat in the process. The point is, though, that for 3 additional tons and less criticals, you've done over 3x the damage. I think that this is the point of the change. PGI has tailored two TT weapons to be THE sniper weapon choices. The AC2 just muddled things up.

As for the UAC5, why the F is it not set at canon range? I understood bumping the AC5 optimum range up but the UAC5 didn't need it for what it is. I swear, as much as people complain about ECM, LRMs, PPCs+ACs being broken, the UAC is absolutely worse than all of those combined. It's almost a 50/50 shot that it won't ever work or will work too well and it is the only weapon in game that is near useless because of that when used alone. Makes the Traug angry!!!

[Deathlike]

Trauglodyte, on 13 April 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

The problem, though, is that people weren't sniping with AC2s. They were abusing the combination of range and speed to do what PGI has since decided isn't how they envision the weapon. The changes that they made to the AC5 way back when and the GR just recently were so they'd be snipeable. The AC2 just happened to have the range benefit from table top. I would venture to guess that the devs saw how people were using the AC2 and felt that if they were going to be nothing but knuckle dragging spammers that they were going to chop the weapon down to where it better fit that play style. The AC5, on the other hand, has been used as a long ranged cannon since the game released. I guess what I'm saying is that they're looking at how we play and making adjustments to both suit that play style and to balance things (lol, I know) around that play style.

The AC2 is great for suppression. It's terrible for dealing massive damage unless your targets are not getting cover.. in which cass, it's glorious dakka hell. Increasing the cooldown will effectively "nerf" its overall role... which in "the meta" makes it equivalent to the pre-LRM buff... a niche.

The AC5 got a range buff for no particular reason, as it was not actually requested. The actual thing that was requested back then a buff to cooldown (lowering it) so that the DPS would match the AC10 or at least closer to it. It took a "2nd buff" to get that to occur, only because the UAC5 AT THE TIME had a superior cooldown. It's easy to obfuscate the issue if you track what ACTUALLY happened over time.

Eventually, UAC5s got it's cooldown "normalized" due to concerns with macros. This was preceded at the time where the chance to jam was being altered... twice (first was an overbuff, the second was to keep things back to a slightly better than pre-buff pace).

Quote

Anyway, if we want to look at this by the numbers, this is what you're going to get:

3 AC2s - 18 tons @ 6 damage every 0.52s
2 AC5s - 16 tons @ 10 damage every 1.5s
1 Gauss Rifle - 15 tons @ 15 damage every 4.75s

6 damage over almost a half second is NOTHING when the damage is scattered like LBX over the distance it must travel. At least one could justify nerfing the AC5 cooldown because it is easier to get a better concentrated shot with PPCs (it's not perfect mind you) within the period of a PPC recharge. For brawling (aka, constant uptime), that would be affected, as the AC5 Jager has been around more (occasionally mixed in with the AC2 for tonnage considerations).

Quote

Now, I'm going to disregard Ghost Heat here because I don't feel like digging up the chalk board presentation and doing the math. By the time that the Gauss Rifle recharges for a second shot, the triple AC2 has fired an additional 8 times for a total of 54 damage at the same exact velocity and slightly longer range than the GR. Yes, it has built up an excess of 27 heat in the process. The point is, though, that for 3 additional tons and less criticals, you've done over 3x the damage. I think that this is the point of the change. PGI has tailored two TT weapons to be THE sniper weapon choices. The AC2 just muddled things up.

Scatter damage. Think long range LBX10. That's what it amounts to as far as I'm concerned. It's very similar to using LL/ERL at long ranges. Same effect. Same thing can be said for bigger LRM launchers.

Quote

As for the UAC5, why the F is it not set at canon range? I understood bumping the AC5 optimum range up but the UAC5 didn't need it for what it is. I swear, as much as people complain about ECM, LRMs, PPCs+ACs being broken, the UAC is absolutely worse than all of those combined. It's almost a 50/50 shot that it won't ever work or will work too well and it is the only weapon in game that is near useless because of that when used alone. Makes the Traug angry!!!

I have no idea. Ask Paul?

I don't remember any particular reason why the UAC has that range... I forget if it had greater range than the AC5 in TT, but for the purposes of THIS GAME, the UAC5 should actually have a LOWER range than the AC5 because of the greater chance of dakka. Of course, it can always get more complicated, but I've learned to deal with it.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 April 2014 - 03:00 PM.

[PoLaR]

[Jonathan Paine]

I'll try to put this as simple as I can, without name calling:

DPS IS NOT HOW WE KILL MECHS!

An ATLAS IS NOT 1000 ARMOR+STRUCTURE

An Atlas is: 33 points of damage to the eye - the end.

What does this mean? You want to do 33+ damage to one location in one press of a button. You do not want to do 1000/DPS.

Was that clear?

Edited by Jonathan Paine, 13 April 2014 - 03:32 PM.

[Solahma]

All I see in this update: Sustained fire mechs and brawlers will be worse. Poptart meta build will be unaffected and/or more attractive now that cool-down time is worse on AC5 (pop-tarts don't care since they only need to alpha once)

So why are DPS build getting hurt and high alpha builds getting promoted? I thought this was the issue atm

[White Panther]

Havn't put a cent into this game since the announcement of clan mechs and will continue to do as such. The current weapon balance is boring and is only getting worse with more weapon nerfs.

[Jakob Knight]

I think a lot of people think the changes to ACs are another attempt to adjust the game against pop-tarts, when the issue is that (U)AC/5s and AC/2s (and Autocannons in general) have been out of their proper place for a long time now. This isn't a corrective issue with a tactic, but a long-overdue adjustment to a weapon system that has avoided being hit with the penalties missiles (ecm, ghost heat), beam weapons (severe ghost heat), and Gauss Rifles (charge mechanic) have endured.

Having the lowest heat generation combined with the highest fire rate and longest maximum ranges in the game (combined again with these same attributes to make these weapons systems all but immune to the ghost heat penalties) have made ballistic weapons (specifically the AC/2 and (U)AC/5) the most powerful weapons in the game and far beyond what they were supposed to be. An AC/5 was in no way supposed to equal or exceed the damage output of a PPC, nor an AC/2 beat out a large laser, yet both of these instances have been the case for so long that people have come to see this as the norm.

While I don't agree with the lowering of the range of the AC/2 below that of the (U)AC/5 (the AC/2 was always supposed to be the lower-caliber, higher projectile speed gun that could strike farther than the larger-bore, slower projectile AC/5 but pay for that with lower damage), the changes to the ACs are about the only thing they could do without either instituting a 'load time' mechanic to mimic the 'charge time' mechanic on Gauss Rifles (for the same reason that both ballistic weapons are all but effectively immune to the ghost heat mechanics intended to control their use), or simple removal of rate-of-fire to make these weapons fire at a similar rate to other heavy weapons (PPCs, Large Lasers), which would make those who need rapid-fire bangs from their weapons to feel good believe there was something wrong with having them now fire at the rate they were supposed to. This is an attempt to put these two weapons systems back more where they should be without instituting harsher measures that, while they might bring the weapons truer to what they should have been all along, would have offended those who enjoy the way the weapons have been mutated into MWO and been too much of a change for most of the playerbase to be able to adapt to.

Ultimately, AC/5s and AC/2s were supposed to be support weapons and light damage dealers to supplement main weapons such as PPCs, Large Lasers, AC/10s, AC/20s, and LRMs (or serve as main weapons on mechs that were too light to mount actual main weapons but still expected to fight at similar ranges), and this puts these weapons a bit more into that place without removing them from being the universal main weapons players have gotten used to them being until now (yes, there are plenty of mechs running around with multiple (U)AC/5s and AC/2s as their main or only weapons), and the introduction of Clantech versions of these weapons will no doubt only push the issue further.

To sum up: Autocannons are simply receiving the adjustment cycle they have avoided up till now, not as another attempt to punish players who have come up with a tactic in the game that is completely reasonable and counterable by other means but as an attempt to nudge them a bit more back into where they should have been from the beginning. While I don't think they went far enough, I can understand why they didn't want to really shock the playerbase by putting them all the way to where they should be.

The lowering of the AC/2 range below the AC/5 is a real mystery, though.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 13 April 2014 - 07:11 PM.

[Fiona Marshe]

Jonathan Paine, on 13 April 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

Biggest balance problem right now is dual PPC plus dual AC, compounded by no reticle shake while on the descent from jump jetting.
Potential real solutions:
Reticule shake for any kind of movement, especially JJ.
Randomize slightly hit locations

Permanent reticule shake looks like a good solution.

0% throttle = 0 shake
50% throttle = 0.5 shake
100% throttle = 1.0 shake
Active JJ = 3.0 shake

Brawlers won't notice as the range is so short, they can still hit somewhere on the mech.
Snipers will need to say still to hit a mech's eye at 1km.

[Quizzical Coconut]

Jonathan Paine, on 13 April 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

You do not want to do 1000/DPS.

Hell yes I do.

[Eglar]

Fiona Marshe, on 13 April 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

Permanent reticule shake looks like a good solution.

0% throttle = 0 shake
50% throttle = 0.5 shake
100% throttle = 1.0 shake
Active JJ = 3.0 shake

Brawlers won't notice as the range is so short, they can still hit somewhere on the mech.
Snipers will need to say still to hit a mech's eye at 1km.

[Eglar]

Solahma, on 13 April 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

All I see in this update: Sustained fire mechs and brawlers will be worse. Poptart meta build will be unaffected and/or more attractive now that cool-down time is worse on AC5 (pop-tarts don't care since they only need to alpha once)

So why are DPS build getting hurt and high alpha builds getting promoted? I thought this was the issue atm

no they are not. most jump sniper builds get a majority of their damage from sustained fire not from jump-sniping.

[Gasoline]

I think... thank you? for the information... but...

Launch Module:
Drop that 3/3/3/3 BS and we're fine. Why wasting ressources on something, that will totally mess with Community Warfare?

Clan Tech:
Just show us already... Just tell me the only thing that's different between Clan and IS tech is, that Clans will have other weapon effects and you have me torches & pitchforks ready.

Weapon Balance:
So... another of this measurements with numbers that are totally irrelevant. To me it looks like you have read a topic about autocannons and consistently missed the point.

DPS is rather irrelevant in current gameplay. You cannot safely stand anywhere long enough just hammering autocannon rounds downrange hoping to do some significant DPS without getting shredded in no time. Especially not with the AC/2 (heat build-up). The current 'meta' consists of pin-point alpha strike builds (PPC & (U)AC/5) that can do high damage potshots on chassis like those DPS builds. The AC/2 is probably already the most underused autocannon because of the fact that it doesn't do any significant alpha damage. The only strong point this thing had, was it's range. Since you're going to nerf that (which makes absolutely no sense to me at all since it's projectile should be lighter than that of an AC/5) where is the point of mounting it? The AC/5 has 2t more, just slightly longer reload time, more alpha damage and a longer range.

Community Warfare:
Holy cow... you keep telling us this same thing since what... 2 years? I and I think most of the playerbase here want to know what your idea of Community Warfare is at the moment..., what are the current pillars of game design? So please stop making vague indications of what might happen when suddenly the sky falls... Give us facts! Now...

Moar Mechs:
Seriously? *yawn* Again? All we need is... moar mechs... What about a new map maybe?

Karl and Matthew have done such a great job lately, but you're really ruining it...

Edited by Gasoline, 14 April 2014 - 03:36 AM.

[Bobzilla]

Chemie, on 11 April 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

AC2 now 3 DPS for 6 tons....
or you could run 6 ML for same tonnage and 7.5 dps.....

I think they want to stop all use of AC and return to energy. They are ignoring dps per ton metric.

AC2 is likely in the bin with LBX10 and MG



Yes. I think they said basically the same thing back in Dec command chair post on CW. 4 months later they are still finalizing the design......

Except for the fact that heat will limit the dps of the MLs to less than 3, unless you add a lot of heat sinks taking up more weight.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Quizzical Coconut, on 13 April 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

Hell yes I do.

You misunderstood his point.

DPS is a measure for MMO's, where you are standing next to a boss with 5 million hit points.

DPS is mostly irrellevant in MW:O.

For instance Poptarts, the scourge of MW:O for a year now.

Their DPS would be like .000001. Because they pop up, shoot for 35 damage (or whatever it is) and drop down. Then wait to pop up to do their next shot.

What is important is how much damage you can put into one spot, while limiting the damage you take.

Which is why nerfing AC/2's completely misses the point.

[Karl Streiger]

dunno - if tripple or quad AC 2 were not effective than i wouldn't have seen so much.

Depends on the time? I don't see much poptarter (maybe they are high-level 12men player only)

The AC 2 was indeed little bit too powerful... have run a Wolverine as a PoC - with 2 AC 2s nothing more... before i did run it with a single AC 5 and SRMs.

In both cases i found myself one on one with another 55t Mech.... the DPS build was much more capable of killing the other guy really fast...while i really had to use all the tricks i knew to have a chance in the engagement using a mixed armament.

But if i have 14t of equipment - than i really should expect that it doesn't matter if i take version 1 or version 2.... there shouldn't be a single version that is better all the time - and in the case of dual AC 2 vs AC5 and SRMs...the small caliber guns were better at long range and they were also much better in short range.

A kill of DPS will remove the "advantage" at short range - that give me a good chance to beat a dual AC 2 build with my "almost stock wolverine" when i charge into short range.

BTW: this tweak wasn't supposed to kill the poptarters

[Shlkt]

IMO the best way to improve autocannon balance is to increase heat for the AC/5. Jump sniping will always be a valid tactic, but the low heat of AC/5s allows common poptart builds to brawl effectively also.

Current values:
3.33 Heat efficiency for AC/20
3.33 Heat efficiency for AC/10
5.00 Heat efficiency for AC/5
2.00 Heat efficiency for AC/2

Notice the outlier? It's no surprise that the AC/5 pairs so well with PPCs. In addition to comparable range and projectile speed, AC/5s also have the best heat efficiency of all the autocannons. Heat efficiency also contributed to the older Gauss + PPC meta - Gauss has even better heat efficiency than the AC/5.

IMO the AC/5 heat should be increased 1 => 2 or 2.5, making it less heat efficient than brawling-range cannons. It would still be better than lasers, though.

The proposed AC/2 range nerfs sound totally nuts to me; don't know what to say other than it's totally inconsistent with the purpose of the weapon.

[Karl Streiger]

Shlkt, on 14 April 2014 - 05:21 AM, said:

IMO the best way to improve autocannon balance is to increase heat for the AC/5. Jump sniping will always be a valid tactic, but the low heat of AC/5s allows common poptart builds to brawl effectively also.

Current values:
3.33 Heat efficiency for AC/20
3.33 Heat efficiency for AC/10
5.00 Heat efficiency for AC/5
2.00 Heat efficiency for AC/2

Notice the outlier? It's no surprise that the AC/5 pairs so well with PPCs. In addition to comparable range and projectile speed, AC/5s also have the best heat efficiency of all the autocannons. Heat efficiency also contributed to the older Gauss + PPC meta - Gauss has even better heat efficiency than the AC/5.

IMO the AC/5 heat should be increased 1 => 2 or 2.5, making it less heat efficient than brawling-range cannons. It would still be better than lasers, though.

The proposed AC/2 range nerfs sound totally nuts to me; don't know what to say other than it's totally inconsistent with the purpose of the weapon.

Sounds for me to be between a rock and a hard place....
a increased heat for the AC 5 makes it necessary to remove the single one from builds like my Marodeur Orion - you know i have those hot running PPCs....darn... those lousy Vanilla Players are always killing my builds....

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Shlkt, on 14 April 2014 - 05:21 AM, said:

IMO the best way to improve autocannon balance is to increase heat for the AC/5. Jump sniping will always be a valid tactic, but the low heat of AC/5s allows common poptart builds to brawl effectively also.

Current values:
3.33 Heat efficiency for AC/20
3.33 Heat efficiency for AC/10
5.00 Heat efficiency for AC/5
2.00 Heat efficiency for AC/2

Notice the outlier? It's no surprise that the AC/5 pairs so well with PPCs. In addition to comparable range and projectile speed, AC/5s also have the best heat efficiency of all the autocannons. Heat efficiency also contributed to the older Gauss + PPC meta - Gauss has even better heat efficiency than the AC/5.

IMO the AC/5 heat should be increased 1 => 2 or 2.5, making it less heat efficient than brawling-range cannons. It would still be better than lasers, though.

The proposed AC/2 range nerfs sound totally nuts to me; don't know what to say other than it's totally inconsistent with the purpose of the weapon.

Increasing the heat doesn't do anything, because typically if you get into brawl range with a poptart, they are starting at pretty minimal heat to begin with.

And Paul in his infinite wisdom has decided to keep our gigantic heat cap, with no penalities. So if you do get into range, he'll have more than enough heat available to kill you.

You'd have to up the AC/5 heat an insane amount to make it matter.

[Wildedge]

These earlier comments sum up my opininion on the AC2 Nerf:

"The AC 2 is currently mostly a NOVELTY weapon whose only claim to life is pestering LRM's (and energy snipers) at extreme range. Landing consecutive hits in the same location (explanation: this is how we destroy mechs) is very hard with AC 2's compared to the current ruling combo of the battlefield:

2xPPC + 2x(U)AC5.

For your info, dropping DPS from 3.8 to 3 IS NOT A SLIGHT NERF. A slight nerf would be LESS THAN 10%, not close to 30%.

The powers that be must be playing a different game if they think that the AC2 requires a nerf.

AND:

Autocannon Changes - This is just dumb. The AC/2 and AC/5 are in a good place. The AC/2's DPS is limited by its excessive heat. They're already only good when you've got three of them. They should have higher DPS because they require you to face your target. That's the whole point of fire support.

Edited by Wildedge, 14 April 2014 - 08:26 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

Deathlike, on 13 April 2014 - 02:56 PM, said:

The AC2 is great for suppression. It's terrible for dealing massive damage unless your targets are not getting cover.. in which cass, it's glorious dakka hell. Increasing the cooldown will effectively "nerf" its overall role... which in "the meta" makes it equivalent to the pre-LRM buff... a niche.

The AC5 got a range buff for no particular reason, as it was not actually requested. The actual thing that was requested back then a buff to cooldown (lowering it) so that the DPS would match the AC10 or at least closer to it. It took a "2nd buff" to get that to occur, only because the UAC5 AT THE TIME had a superior cooldown. It's easy to obfuscate the issue if you track what ACTUALLY happened over time.

Eventually, UAC5s got it's cooldown "normalized" due to concerns with macros. This was preceded at the time where the chance to jam was being altered... twice (first was an overbuff, the second was to keep things back to a slightly better than pre-buff pace).

6 damage over almost a half second is NOTHING when the damage is scattered like LBX over the distance it must travel. At least one could justify nerfing the AC5 cooldown because it is easier to get a better concentrated shot with PPCs (it's not perfect mind you) within the period of a PPC recharge. For brawling (aka, constant uptime), that would be affected, as the AC5 Jager has been around more (occasionally mixed in with the AC2 for tonnage considerations).

Scatter damage. Think long range LBX10. That's what it amounts to as far as I'm concerned. It's very similar to using LL/ERL at long ranges. Same effect. Same thing can be said for bigger LRM launchers.

I have no idea. Ask Paul?

I don't remember any particular reason why the UAC has that range... I forget if it had greater range than the AC5 in TT, but for the purposes of THIS GAME, the UAC5 should actually have a LOWER range than the AC5 because of the greater chance of dakka. Of course, it can always get more complicated, but I've learned to deal with it.

You're killing me, Death (nice pun).

KILLING ME!!!