219 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Gyrok, on 18 April 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

Crit slots are not an issue on ballistic mechs

Tonnage is only an issue for mechs that should not run autocannons

Projectile speed is negligible if you can hit things with AC20 you can certainly hit them with AC5



The weapon is useless now

(others can make valid points too)

Lol. Got an answer for everything even though your answers are mostly wrong. Bravo.

Crits are a huge issue on ballistic mechs, because most ballistics are crit hogs, you still usually need extra heatsinks, and oh, AMMO. Not to mention Endo if you want any chance of carrying your payload AND decent speed.

Tonnage, the same, only more

And comparing an ac20 to ac5s and 2s? Would almost be any argument champ....if you were shooting only at things under 400 meters.

GG, not close. Cry harder?

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 18 April 2014 - 03:24 PM, said:

Again... you save more crit slots using a 5 over a 2. Because its like getting 6 extra DHS for free.

only if you are one of the idiots running a quad 4 build, in which case you get what whet you deserve for a bad build, My JagerBanshee is actually running BETTER now, because the heat rate of the 2 ac2s isn't climbing near as fast.

And at those extreme ranges, the damage was pathetic anyhow. I toyed with a Quad2 Jager on Alpine with my AS7-RS stood right there in the open 1500ish meters away from his hill. Let him blaze away with his acs while doing only the most remedial of torso twisting. He'd overheat, I'd feed him a Gauss. By the time he ran out of ammo, and I stopped toying with and killed him, I was still sitting at half torso armor.

So by all means, bring back the old ac2, as the mechs reliant on them were ridiculously easy to kill anyhow.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 18 April 2014 - 03:35 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

only if you are one of the idiots running a quad 4 build

Even if youre only running a single AC2 youre better off swapping it for an AC5. Its literally like giving your mech 6.4 additional DHS. Not only that but you gain a significant amount of range too.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 18 April 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

Even if youre only running a single AC2 youre better off swapping it for an AC5. Its literally like giving your mech 6.4 additional DHS. Not only that but you gain a significant amount of range too.

cool bro, the moment my Banshee can fit 4 ac5 in it-s torso, I'll get right on that!

[SweetJackal]

Call me crazy but I don't think this change has hurt the AC/2 all that much. Yes, lower DPS kinda sucks but the Heat Per Second is also much lower as well.

I liked the AC/2 for it's great Optimum Range rather than it's Extreme Range though. Never ran it as the only weapon but rather alongside energy weapons, which meant I put in some DHS as well. Since the AC/2 has such a fast recycle that you pretty much have to face the target I often match it with lasers and I run it as a flanker and fire support rather than a direct brawler or sniper.

It works for me in my ELO, whatever that may be. I've had my 2 AC/2+ERLL Shadowhawk hit above it's weight, winning direct fights with heavies when it was singled out and it's worked better since the HPS has been lowered on it.

[Screech]

I did. It has vastly improved my carry hard ability. Getting 5 kills does certainly take the sting out of a loss. I tried to love AC2's but she just pushed me into the arms of the AC5's. I mean sure some of you might stick it out for a bit longer because of the kids but it is over for me.

The love is gone.

Edited by Screech, 18 April 2014 - 04:54 PM.

[Onlystolen]

Ac/2=worthless the range nerf killed them

dps doesnt matter

[Spades Kincaid]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 April 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

only if you are one of the idiots running a quad 4 build, in which case you get what whet you deserve for a bad build, My JagerBanshee is actually running BETTER now, because the heat rate of the 2 ac2s isn't climbing near as fast.

And at those extreme ranges, the damage was pathetic anyhow. I toyed with a Quad2 Jager on Alpine with my AS7-RS stood right there in the open 1500ish meters away from his hill. Let him blaze away with his acs while doing only the most remedial of torso twisting. He'd overheat, I'd feed him a Gauss. By the time he ran out of ammo, and I stopped toying with and killed him, I was still sitting at half torso armor.

So by all means, bring back the old ac2, as the mechs reliant on them were ridiculously easy to kill anyhow.

And the mechs reliant on AC2 are harder to kill now? Is there a point there to an improvement made? 'Mechs reliant on AC2's were ridiculously easy to kill." So nerfing the AC2 without giving it any corresponding buff was a good move? What?


Take a SHD 2D2.

1 AC5, 2 Mlasers, XL300, 1 JJ, choice of SRM or Streaks, whatever. Build it to your preference.

Now swap the AC5 for an AC2 and two more double heatsinks. Firepower drops. Sustained DPS and heat efficiency drop.

What did you gain for that AC2? It used to be at least effective and max range.

It has nothing to do with specifically quad builds.

Don't mistake my position here. It's still a working weapon, sure. You can go out and kill people with it. You can with the LBX too. But the AC2 has been unnecessarily nerfed from the role it had to shine in (long/extreme ranged support/suppression), without properly balancing it into a new one to fill.

Bishop Steiner, on 18 April 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

cool bro, the moment my Banshee can fit 4 ac5 in it-s torso, I'll get right on that!

Which has zero relevance to what he said.

But since you're fixated on them:

Why is a quad AC2 a bad build, but dual 5's and 2's isn't? Because PGI has made it so. So more pointedly, why should it be?

Dual pairs is okay, but 4 AC2's isn't? Is there some reason you have for that? If paired 5's and 2's is a superior build and combination in itself, shouldn't dropping to quad 2's gain you something elsewhere for those 4 tons? Better heat efficiency, ability to add a couple lasers as backup with the same efficiency....where's the gain for downsizing your ballistic combo?

There is none now. That's the point.

[ZenFool]

I do not pretend to know a whole lot about weapon balance, but I read every book in the series. AC2 was supposed to be long range. I don't mind them playing with this weapon or that weapon to bring it in line with some sort of vision, but at least have it make sense. They can play around with all sorts of things to balance it without touching range.

[Khobai]

Quote

cool bro, the moment my Banshee can fit 4 ac5 in it-s torso, I'll get right on that!

You can fit 3 AC5s in your banshee and 2 PPCs (2 ERLLs isnt bad either). I dunno what other build youre doing but thats commonly considered the best build for the Banshee-3E. Anything else is just meh.

Quote

I liked the AC/2 for it's great Optimum Range rather than it's Extreme Range though.

Right but previously the AC5 did 2 damage at a greater range than the AC2. Range overlap is the biggest problem with autocannon balance right now. You have AC20s doing better damage than AC10s at the AC10s optimum range. And previously you had AC5s doing better damage than AC2s at the AC2s optimum range, but now the AC5 just completely outranges the AC2, which is even worse.

Fix is pretty simple. Get rid of x3 max range on autocannons and knock them all down to x2 max range. That gets rid of most of the overlap issues and gives every autocannon its own range niche. It also gives the AC2 back its longer range. Then its simply a matter of normalizing AC5 and AC2 heat... AC5 should be 1.5 heat and AC2 should be 0.6 heat.

Edited by Khobai, 18 April 2014 - 05:41 PM.

[DivideByZer0]

I must agree, I'm not sure the recent change would really break any builds I have. What I got from the lore , is that AC2 is really more of an anti-aircraft weapon anyways, due to muzzle velocity and refire rate. In Living Legends, it was THE anti-air weapon..

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 April 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

Let's see..... Two tons lighter, faster projectile and only 1 crit...... yup useless! How date they not be BETTER then ac5s anymore!

(See others can get silly and melodramatic too)

When was the AC/2 ever better than the AC/5?

[FupDup]

And not directed at anyone in particular...but I really don't think this change was necessary. The AC/2 already had pretty huge weaknesses in the forms of high heat, chewing through ammo like termites, having an extremely pathetic alpha-strike damage, and requiring constant facing in order to achieve their full DPS.

The analogy that I keep coming back to over and over again is LRMs. LRMs tend to kill people who don't make very good use of cover, and people who don't twist around to make the missiles spread out over their body. LRMs tend to be very, very bad against opponents who keep cover handy and who only stay exposed just long enough to alpha strike your face. The AC/2 was essentially the same situation. Mechs with moderate-high burst damage were extremely effective for countering AC/2 mechs provided that they didn't stay exposed and/or didn't neglect torso twisting. The only main difference is that the AC/2 has a fast projectile whereas Lurms take a while to fly to their target.

After some test runs on my Shadow Hawk, I can say that the weapon is not currently "useless" per se. However, it is definitely pointless. It does basically nothing that some other weapon can't do better. There are better weapons for alpha striking, better/equal weapons for DPS, better/equal weapons for sniping, and better weapons for heat efficiency...for nearly the same tonnage or less. It's currently even more of a "I want to have shits n giggles more than I want to win" kind of weapon now than it used to be.

Can it still hurt things? Yes. Is it better than garbage like the LBX and Flamers? Yes. It is a good choice most of the time? No. Would you be better off with other options of similar tonnage? Yes.


On a side note, I've also noticed that a good proportion of the people defending the AC RoF nerfs tend to use "boating" loadouts of 3+ ACs. How about those of us who don't put on a crapload of them? What if we just use 1 or 2, without combining them with PPCs for FLD alpha cheese? What are we supposed to do? Weapons shouldn't have to be boated to be worthwhile, outside of the really really tiny weapons like Small Lasers. But the ACs? The smallest AC is basically the same tonnage as the heaviest energy weapon, so I expect it to have similar viability.

Edited by FupDup, 18 April 2014 - 07:53 PM.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

FupDup, on 18 April 2014 - 06:30 PM, said:

And not directed at anyone in particular...but I really don't think this change was necessary. The AC/2 already had pretty huge weaknesses in the forms of high heat, chewing through ammo like termites, having an extremely pathetic alpha-strike damage, and requiring constant facing in order to achieve their full DPS.

The analogy that I keep coming back to over and over again is LRMs. LRMs tend to kill people who don't make very good use of cover, and people who don't twist around to make the missiles spread out over their body. LRMs tend to be very, very bad against opponents who keep cover handy and who only stay exposed just long enough to alpha strike your face. The AC/2 was essentially the same situation. Mechs with moderate-high burst damage were extremely effective for countering AC/2 mechs provided that they didn't stay exposed and/or didn't neglect torso twisting. The only main difference is that the AC/2 has a fast projectile whereas Lurms take a while to fly to their target.

After some test runs on my Shadow Hawk, I can say that the weapon is not currently "useless" per se. However, it is definitely pointless. It does basically nothing that some other weapon can't do better. There are better weapons for alpha striking, better/equal weapons for DPS, better/equal weapons for sniping, and better weapons for heat efficiency...for nearly the same tonnage or less. It's currently even more of a "I want to have shits n giggles more than I want to win" kind of weapon now than it used to be.


On a side note, I've also noticed that a good proportion of the people defending the AC RoF nerfs tend to use "boating" loadouts of 3+ ACs. How about those of us who don't put on a crapload of them? What if we just use 1 or 2, without combining them with PPCs for FLD alpha cheese? What are we supposed to do? Weapons shouldn't have to be boated to be worthwhile, outside of the really really tiny weapons like Small Lasers. But the ACs? The smallest AC is basically the same tonnage as the heaviest energy weapon, so I expect it to have similar viability.

actually i agree completely

why does it seem you have to "boat" any weapon to make it usefull?

[Mycrus]

Sorry I just don't rebuild 80 mechs to the tune of the meta... especially not in this ui.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 18 April 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

You can fit 3 AC5s in your banshee and 2 PPCs (2 ERLLs isnt bad either). I dunno what other build youre doing but thats commonly considered the best build for the Banshee-3E. Anything else is just meh.

yes the meta clowns have the one true build. Lol.

[Wolfways]

AC2 should be doing less dps than the AC5, but should also have a longer range.
And all AC's should have x2 max range.

Imo.

[Hexenhammer]

Get rid of pinpoint accuracy and ghost heat becomes less of an issue and.... AND things like the target computer actually become viable.

[Khobai]

Quote

yes the meta clowns have the one true build. Lol.

Blame the game not the players. Meta builds are the inevitable result of extremely poor weapon balance.

[Mcgral18]

Khobai, on 18 April 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:

Blame the game not the players. Meta builds are the inevitable result of extremely poor weapon balance.

And weapon mechanics.