I know realism doesnt exactly fit into this game, but it hurts me that all of these cannons are firing at pathetic ranges, that would make modern wepon systems laugh. Im not against 2X range for ACs its just sad that the range is so short in general (for all weapons)
After reading about the Zumwalt Railgun, I felt the exact same way.
Have you ever watched the movie Wing Commander, though? Even though the acting was pretty horrible, it gave a very good look at how you can have very advanced space-flight-level technology, that also happens to be mostly junk held together by space-duct tape and 550 cord. Serenity is another good example.
That is how I imagine the Inner Sphere to be. It is a war torn, demolished universe full of war machines that are both advanced AND junk at the same time. They are powered by fusion reactors and fire blazing laser bolts, but the ravages of war have made precision long-range weapons a thing of the past.
Koniving, on 17 April 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:
Spoiler
The ranges set in tabletop and by extension here are not actually meant to represent a single bullet and bullet drop.
It's to represent a burst-fire or automatic weapon churning tank-cannon-sized shots out in a series while resisting recoil. That, at that range (270 for example for AC/20s) could not maintain all shots on target and would waste ammunition into the air. In Battletech, either all your AC shots had to hit the same bodypart or there wasn't a point in firing.
As an example, the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 10 shot AC/20 described as a "rapid burst" from a 10 shot cassette [magazine]. The recoil from this is immense, jerking the gun toward the sky and is quite overpowering. (TRO 3026; 150mm. Note, could not find a 150mm weapon but I found a 155mm weapon. Yes I know that's a howitzer).
Lets put it this way, the AC/20s in MWO are essentially BT's 203mm "UAC/20." It's exclusively on the Cauldron Born (TRO 3026). A mech as long as the Stalker, as wide as a Dragon, yet as short as a Jenner with legs as thick as MWO's Catapult's. If you were to put this on an Atlas, it would have to put a leg behind itself and brace itself to fire, otherwise the Atlas would topple over.
So, that said, if you were to put that on either end of a Jager and have it fire, that dual AC/20 Jager sporting twin 203mm single shot = 20 damage AC/20s should by all rights result in the following: Immediately falling backwards. The pilot, not seat-belted, smashing his head open against the interior after falling from his seat. Assuming he didn't hit the transplast windshield during the fall because it'd be quite sudden. Then again that's why they wear hardened neuro-helms. As for the Jager, it'd take some massive damage on the fall, the arms would probably be loosened and just to run it again it'd need some massive repairs. Keep in mind a Jager isn't even supposed to have more armor than it has structure.
This video is rather old. However, it represents an example of how the autocannons should have been according to the books. Keep in mind when I made the video it was before I studied into it. I just really liked someone's idea. But then I discovered that in every single book I've picked up since then... every autocannon. Every. Single. Autocannon works that way.
Spoiler
It should be noted that the Chemjet Gun -- the Inner Sphere's largest AC/20 mounted on a mech or tank (185mm) deals 5 damage per shot, with a 4 shot 'slow burst'. Not entirely sure how slow a 'burst' can be... Anyway, I'm noting that because at the time I got my shot counts from the person's modified UI 1.5 photoshop image for choosing AC/20 variants. I've since gone and read up on them and came across some accurate ones on that list, and some inaccurate ones that I've noted.
TL;DR. The Battletech autocannons aren't entirely unrealistic. Their range is based on tight shot groupings with heavy recoil on automatic and burst firing tank cannons.
(Psst. One of the largest AC/5s I've found is the GM Whirlwind/5. 120mm. 3 shots = 5 damage. 120mm is also the same caliber as this. Also note: 3 shots didn't just equal 5 damage but also only 1 unit of heat. This is why Jagermechs were able to shoot down aerotech fighters -- massive rapid fire -- and yet according to lore be perfectly heat neutral even firing both AC/2s and both AC/5s with 10 SHS. Mechs didn't dedicate all that weight for 'power', they dedicated that weight for heat neutrality despite the inferior nature of autocannons and conventional ballistic weaponry.)
If it says anything.. the MG is 20 to 25mm for mechs. The AC/2 is 30mm to 80mm. (Here's a 40mm single shot; watch the recoil when he does rapid fire). Both do 2 damage in 10 seconds in Battletech, although there's a boatload of ways for them to fire. Each "ammo" is a use per turn or a "cassette." Think box of ammunition or magazine.
Here's an example: The Blackjack BJ-1's GM Whirlwind/L is a 30mm weapon (Threads of Ambition; 32mm in Binding Force but both describe 10 shots). It requires 10 shots to do 2 damage, and as such each 30mm round is doing 0.2 damage. This is supposed to be in a 10 second time slot which can work out like this -- it fires 1 shot every half-second, and in 5 seconds it has expended the cassette. The next 5 seconds is feeding that next magazine of tabletop's 45 cassettes per ton through the mech and into the arm's cannon, securing the cassette, loading the first round, and letting the pilot know it's ready to go. You saw how much recoil that 40mm does. Try to picture handling firing two of them at once, while maintaining your own sense of balance, in a mech that bounces, hobbles, etc. Thus the 720mm 'max range' for handling the recoil with all shots dead on target makes a lot more sense.
The ranges in MWO are, well... lets put it this way. The autocannons never should have been single shot. But then again the heat threshold should never have risen above 30 either.
I absolutely LOVE this post! I hope you don't mind if I reference that amazing video in my suggestion post - it is awesome..
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. The recent changes to the AC2 and (U)AC5 have helped, but only slightly - it's at least a start. Here are the current stats:
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 now 14.92-25.00. 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 0.3 - cooldown 0.67 - DP5S 2.23 - range 720 - max range 1440
AC5 - damage 1. - cooldown 1.66 - 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:
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
For a visual of this, please watch Koniving's amazing video:
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 a minimum of {5} seconds, or as long as the trigger was held before the jam, whichever is longer, 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 or trace like a MG. 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. (NOTE: Koniving addresses this ammo issue in his video/post, and does a better job of it than I do.)
Also, since it has come up in discussions, projectile speed can also be adjusted to balance the autocannons. Larger rounds can have more falloff and slower flight times, while smaller rounds would have little to no falloff and near instant flight time (2000+ m/s)
I absolutely LOVE this post! I hope you don't mind if I reference that amazing video in my suggestion post - it is awesome..
Not at all. But it sounds like I need to get off my rear and actually make the new one to fix lore-mistakes found in that video as well as demonstrate other autocannons and autocannon types. What's been holding me back is it's very difficult to recreate some autocannons with what MWO has, ghost heat, and other factors.
LocationPeriphery of the Inner Sphere, moving toward the core worlds with each passing day.
Posted 21 April 2014 - 08:03 PM
The only reasons AC5 are the most common are the following:
(1) UAC5 is currently borderline unplayable...they jam so much that it is not even much worth the effort outside of situations like a 3xUAC5 muromets build, and even then it is tempting to do something else.
(2) 2xAC5 weighs 1 ton more than Gauss and does more DPS than AC20 with less heat
(3) AC2 are now completely useless...seriously...they might have been seen in competitive 12 mans before as an edge case loadout. Now, they are completely gone again.
(4) AC10/LBX10 are currently in such a sad state it really is basically not worth it to run 1 of these versus 2xAC5 for more weight.
(5) Gauss is currently non-competitive in terms of DPS with the other ACs, also has a mechanic which further limits DPS and hinders otherwise available shots to some degree, and is the most fragile weapon of the bunch causing massive damage if it gets critted. All those drawbacks for low DPS? Maybe in a cataphract or jager with 2 of them as a play toy, other than that...no thanks...
The issues with ACs are not being solved, they are being magnified by making changes to the systems that only exaggerate the flaws in the areas where they were broken before. The AC10/AC20 velocity nerfs made them less useful for people who were not whoring around in AC40 Jagers.
As to the example above, if the weapons that do not do HIGH PINPOINT ALPHA damage, do less DPS...then how on earth are they ever going to get used? You are seeing the shift now. The devs are driving the jump snipe meta and pushing people to use AC5/PPC mechs because they refuse to adjust PPCs and instead insist on nerfing the already poor state of ACs.
The only reasons AC5 are the most common are the following:
(1) UAC5 is currently borderline unplayable...they jam so much that it is not even much worth the effort outside of situations like a 3xUAC5 muromets build, and even then it is tempting to do something else.
The UAC/5 is, as it was designed, of doubtful reliability over long periods of double-firing. A single UAC/5 can be useful on a medium mech, and two or three on heavier mechs. It really depends on what your backup weapons are, more than anything, that will determine whether or not you can use a UAC.
Gyrok, on 21 April 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:
(2) 2xAC5 weighs 1 ton more than Gauss and does more DPS than AC20 with less heat
I have felt for a while that the AC/5 needed a tad more heat. Don't know exactly how much.
Gyrok, on 21 April 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:
(3) AC2 are now completely useless...seriously...they might have been seen in competitive 12 mans before as an edge case loadout. Now, they are completely gone again.
When the 2x falloff is applied to the rest of the ACs, the AC/2 will retake its place as ammo-based range king. I can't speak about whether or not that matters in 12 mans.
Gyrok, on 21 April 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:
(4) AC10/LBX10 are currently in such a sad state it really is basically not worth it to run 1 of these versus 2xAC5 for more weight.
AC/10 is a bit hot, and in a tough place tonnage-wise. I would not compare it to 2xAC/5 because 12 tons is quite a bit less than 16. The current 3x falloff makes it a lousy choice because the AC/20 heavily encroaches on its range territory. The LBX is going to be scrap until they increase its crit rate and/or give it a cylindrical pattern that doesn't widen with range rather than a cone that does.
Gyrok, on 21 April 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:
(5) Gauss is currently non-competitive in terms of DPS with the other ACs, also has a mechanic which further limits DPS and hinders otherwise available shots to some degree, and is the most fragile weapon of the bunch causing massive damage if it gets critted. All those drawbacks for low DPS? Maybe in a cataphract or jager with 2 of them as a play toy, other than that...no thanks...
I use a single Gauss in combination with 2xPPC on my K2 and I do fine with it. Still, it is very low DPS for the mass it takes up. I'm considering dropping it for an AC/10. A situational weapon.
Gyrok, on 21 April 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:
The issues with ACs are not being solved, they are being magnified by making changes to the systems that only exaggerate the flaws in the areas where they were broken before. The AC10/AC20 velocity nerfs made them less useful for people who were not whoring around in AC40 Jagers.
As to the example above, if the weapons that do not do HIGH PINPOINT ALPHA damage, do less DPS...then how on earth are they ever going to get used? You are seeing the shift now. The devs are driving the jump snipe meta and pushing people to use AC5/PPC mechs because they refuse to adjust PPCs and instead insist on nerfing the already poor state of ACs.
ACs were not in a poor state. A build without ACs is a build not worth running if the mech is capable of taking them. PPCs really can't be nerfed much more before they become pretty worthless. ACs need the across-the-board 2x falloff.
PPC - 10 damage / no ammo / 7 tons
AC/2- 2 damage / 75 ammo to the ton / 6 tons
Nerf da AC/2 moar, needs moar nerf!
I think that comparison is a little unfair, so I'll list some of the pros to the ac/2.
Tonnage: Yes PPC by itself is lighter than an ac/2 + a couple tons of ammo. However if you include the amount of double heatsinks you realistically need to add to compensate for the +10 heat it's likely heavier. We're talking 10 heat vs 1 heat.
Damage: yes ppc does more damage than the ac/2, however the DPS is higher on the ac/2 (2.5 vs 2.99). DPS is important for many dakka builds that rely on the ac/2.
Range: PPC is 90-1080, AC/2 is 0-1440 advantage goes to ac/2. Plus the ac/2 does not have that crippling minimum range restriction. This is a big deal imo.
Projectile speed: PPC is 1500, the ac/2 is 2,000. That makes the ac/2 easier to hit things further out.
Slot size: PPC is 3 slots while ac/2 is 1 slot. One or two slots can often have a huge difference in the options and capabilities when you're designing a mech. Particularly for ballistics which have a tendency to be placed together. A good example is the Banshee 3E which has 4 ballistic hardpoints in its left torso. You can't do 4 AC/5s or 4 UAC/5 or even 3 UAC/5. However you can do 2 UAC/5 + 2 AC/2. PPCs also have a tendency to be slot heavy because you have to put in a bunch of double heatsinks. Autocannon ammo is usually fewer slots and has the added capability of fitting in the legs and head.
Ghost Heat: Can't fire more than 3 PPCs trigger ghost heat. ac/2 however is 4 simultaneous shots. Winner: ac/2!
This isn't to say that I think PPC's are fine. I don't think they are. I just don't agree that ac/2s are as bad as everyone is saying. Particularly if they go ahead and adjust range on the other autocannons.
LocationPeriphery of the Inner Sphere, moving toward the core worlds with each passing day.
Posted 22 April 2014 - 12:47 PM
Daekar, on 21 April 2014 - 09:11 PM, said:
The UAC/5 is, as it was designed, of doubtful reliability over long periods of double-firing. A single UAC/5 can be useful on a medium mech, and two or three on heavier mechs. It really depends on what your backup weapons are, more than anything, that will determine whether or not you can use a UAC.
I have felt for a while that the AC/5 needed a tad more heat. Don't know exactly how much.
When the 2x falloff is applied to the rest of the ACs, the AC/2 will retake its place as ammo-based range king. I can't speak about whether or not that matters in 12 mans.
AC/10 is a bit hot, and in a tough place tonnage-wise. I would not compare it to 2xAC/5 because 12 tons is quite a bit less than 16. The current 3x falloff makes it a lousy choice because the AC/20 heavily encroaches on its range territory. The LBX is going to be scrap until they increase its crit rate and/or give it a cylindrical pattern that doesn't widen with range rather than a cone that does.
I use a single Gauss in combination with 2xPPC on my K2 and I do fine with it. Still, it is very low DPS for the mass it takes up. I'm considering dropping it for an AC/10. A situational weapon.
ACs were not in a poor state. A build without ACs is a build not worth running if the mech is capable of taking them. PPCs really can't be nerfed much more before they become pretty worthless. ACs need the across-the-board 2x falloff.
(1) Not significantly reduced reliability, it is supposed to be a weapon that jams occasionally, not every single time you fire them at all. They jam a horrendous amount now...
(2) Please do not say another word about the AC5. They have broken enough autocannons already.
(3) There should be no 2x falloff for ACs. Fun fact, if you shoot a .22LR in the air, it has an effective range of 2.2 miles at the proper trajectory. Lasers, meanwhile, will run out of energy predictably at a specific distance based on power used by the laser.
(4) AC10/LBX are in a terrible place, and this is where the rest of the autocannons will end up.
(5) Sub Gauss for AC20, it is far more worth carrying. Unless you rely on an XL, in that case...you are pretty much borked for options because what you should put in there is below optimal in terms of heat and DPS.
(6) Really...? So then why are all the ballistic mediums in competitive matches running around with maxed engines, 4 streak launchers, JJs and a pair of LLs? In shadow hawks or Griffins, and the shadow hawks rarely carry anything beyond MGs if they even bother to use the ballistic slots now. But, wait...some guy on the forums said ACs were OP, so that must be why people are dropping them left and right for something more useful...right?
Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 22 April 2014 - 01:19 PM
Gyrok, on 22 April 2014 - 12:47 PM, said:
(1) Not significantly reduced reliability, it is supposed to be a weapon that jams occasionally, not every single time you fire them at all. They jam a horrendous amount now...
Yes, in in early CB...they did that. Of course, used "Correctly" once jammed, they could not be unjammed in the field. Is that what you desire? because the devs figured out pretty fast that players weren't kosher with that. Because you also forget that a UAC was meant to be used primarily as a standard AC, able to burst fire in emergencies. At only a 1 ton tax, they were never meant to be full time double fire ACs.
LocationPeriphery of the Inner Sphere, moving toward the core worlds with each passing day.
Posted 22 April 2014 - 01:52 PM
Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:
Yes, in in early CB...they did that. Of course, used "Correctly" once jammed, they could not be unjammed in the field. Is that what you desire? because the devs figured out pretty fast that players weren't kosher with that. Because you also forget that a UAC was meant to be used primarily as a standard AC, able to burst fire in emergencies. At only a 1 ton tax, they were never meant to be full time double fire ACs.
Yes, however, now you get 1 shot off and wait a good 5-10 seconds to fire the next shot before it jams up again.
I think that somewhere around 15% jam rate would be enough....20% results in far too many jams. I concede that 10% may have been a tad OP, however, what we have now is not conducive to balance...
EDIT: I had a match last night where I bet you I had minimum 1 of 3 UACs jammed for better than 75% of the match.
A 22 long rifle bullet has a maximum range of 2 miles fired at exactly the right angle, assuming it was fired from a rifle at somewhere north of 1050fps. By the time it peters out, it will be merely tumbling and falling as if it had been dropped off a tall building, and will possess energy far below the 58 ft*lbs minimum accepted threshold to kill a human being repeatably.
A slow and tumbling projectile tends to be bad at penetrating armor... besides, don't bother me with realism. It has no place in anything derived from Battletech for a myriad of hilarious reasons.
We will have to disagree about ACs as a whole, I think, although we agree that the AC/10 and LB-10X are both sub-par.
2
DONTOR, on 17 April 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:
