198 replies to this topic

[Tahribator]

AC's should be strictly brawling weapons, not all-round best weapons to use. I completely agree with the latest nerfs. Now, do something about dual Gauss mechs and we're golden. Gauss usage will go up way up after these nerfs and I hope Paul anticipates this.

[MalodorousMonkey]

I'm in the camp that thinks jump sniping wouldn't be as much of a problem if SRMs worked properly. I don't think these autocannon nerfs are going to do much to counter jump sniping. Now AC5s just have around the same max range as the PPCs.

[Deacon412]

IraqiWalker, on 28 May 2014 - 10:38 PM, said:

The hunchback is completely unaffected by this balance. Unless your hunchback is running around lobbing AC20 shots at 600+ meters (which it shouldn't be doing in the first place).

I take shots when i can. i dont usually like getting up close to that kintaro. the only time I use the ac20 up close is for destroying light mechs.

[IraqiWalker]

Deacon412, on 28 May 2014 - 11:20 PM, said:

I take shots when i can. i dont usually like getting up close to that kintaro. the only time I use the ac20 up close is for destroying light mechs.

The AC 20 is clearly a short range weapon. If you want to have strong shots at a somewhat longer range, use the AC 10. As it stands, the AC 20 is in a good place.

If we wanted to be fair, and actually bring these ACs in line with what they are supposed to do, every single one of them should have triple the cycle time (As it stands they are all dealing triple damage or more, the AC20 is dealing 60 damage over 10 seconds, making it an AC 60. Not even NAVAL ACs hit that hard (the biggest is AC40) and those things are mounted on capital class ships, not a mech.

[Deacon412]

IraqiWalker, on 28 May 2014 - 11:24 PM, said:

The AC 20 is clearly a short range weapon. If you want to have strong shots at a somewhat longer range, use the AC 10. As it stands, the AC 20 is in a good place.

If we wanted to be fair, and actually bring these ACs in line with what they are supposed to do, every single one of them should have triple the cycle time (As it stands they are all dealing triple damage or more, the AC20 is dealing 60 damage over 10 seconds, making it an AC 60. Not even NAVAL ACs hit that hard (the biggest is AC40) and those things are mounted on capital class ships, not a mech.

your assuming every shot is a hit AND a hit where you meant to place it and then theres limited ammo which places an even greater need on accuracy which isnt guaranteed. just the fact that energy weapons dont use ammo gives them a huge advantage. maybe energy should be a resource for energy boats to manage.....

[IraqiWalker]

Deacon412, on 28 May 2014 - 11:44 PM, said:

your assuming every shot is a hit AND a hit where you meant to place it and then theres limited ammo which places an even greater need on accuracy which isnt guaranteed. just the fact that energy weapons dont use ammo gives them a huge advantage. maybe energy should be a resource for energy boats to manage.....

No, that makes no logical sense. Also, energy weapons have been gimped in this game. Especially considering the heat they generate. If I recall correctly, energy weapons are instant damage, not D.O.T. like they are now. While Ballistics were D.O.T. instead of Instant damage. Right now, as it stands, regardless of how you see it, the ACs are buffed beyond belief, and more than they deserve.

As for ammo, that is actually not an issue. The ammo is sufficient. Ballistics are the coldest weapons in the game, and they have decent firing cycles. They don't need more ammo per ton. The whole point is that each weapon system has a trade-off.

Energy: you don't worry about ammo, but you generate insane amounts of heat.

Missile: you're average at everything, you need ammo, but you have plenty per ton, and you generate heat, but not really that much compared to energy

Ballistic: You need ammo, you have decent ammo per ton ratios, nothing as high as Missiles though. You generate almost no heat in comparison to other weapons, and have a great rate of fire.

As for not hitting your shots. That's part of the mechanic, those that aim better, use less ammo, those that don't need more ammo. That's the skill of the shooter, not the weapon's fault.


EDIT: using your logic and paraphrasing your words "Just the fact that ACs don't generate much heat gives thema huge advantage over other weapons. I can keep firing 2 AC5s at almost no heat gain for the entire match, dealing 10 damage with each shot in my thunderbolt. Maybe they need less ammo or more heat to manage?

EDIT2: Here's the build I used as an example
TDR-5S Heat neutral with 2 AC5s firing every single time they are up.

You can run the test yourself with the heat simulator
http://keikun17.gith...heat_simulator/

Edited by IraqiWalker, 28 May 2014 - 11:56 PM.

[Deacon412]

IraqiWalker, on 28 May 2014 - 11:51 PM, said:

No, that makes no logical sense. Also, energy weapons have been gimped in this game. Especially considering the heat they generate. If I recall correctly, energy weapons are instant damage, not D.O.T. like they are now. While Ballistics were D.O.T. instead of Instant damage. Right now, as it stands, regardless of how you see it, the ACs are buffed beyond belief, and more than they deserve.

As for ammo, that is actually not an issue. The ammo is sufficient. Ballistics are the coldest weapons in the game, and they have decent firing cycles. They don't need more ammo per ton. The whole point is that each weapon system has a trade-off.

Energy: you don't worry about ammo, but you generate insane amounts of heat.

Missile: you're average at everything, you need ammo, but you have plenty per ton, and you generate heat, but not really that much compared to energy

Ballistic: You need ammo, you have decent ammo per ton ratios, nothing as high as Missiles though. You generate almost no heat in comparison to other weapons, and have a great rate of fire.

As for not hitting your shots. That's part of the mechanic, those that aim better, use less ammo, those that don't need more ammo. That's the skill of the shooter, not the weapon's fault.


EDIT: using your logic and paraphrasing your words "Just the fact that ACs don't generate much heat gives thema huge advantage over other weapons. I can keep firing 2 AC5s at almost no heat gain for the entire match, dealing 10 damage with each shot in my thunderbolt. Maybe they need less ammo or more heat to manage?

EDIT2: Here's the build I used as an example
TDR-5S Heat neutral with 2 AC5s firing every single time they are up.

You can run the test yourself with the heat simulator
http://keikun17.gith...heat_simulator/

they shouldnt both generate alot of heat and have to worry about ammo at the same time, while energy only weapons only worry about heat....actually in reality ac's STILL generate heat at the end of the day and energy weapons consume no ammo.
14 rounds of ac 20 ammo in my hunch back caps me at 280 damage IF i hit every shot. but the 3 ML? that fire faster? no damage cap. they are allowed to deal unlimited damage while ac 20 is caped at 280. a very low number
EDIT: and missing with energy weapons is unheard of because of the burn time.

Edited by Deacon412, 29 May 2014 - 12:11 AM.

[Abisha]

they are in need of a nerf they overall just to good, when compare them to other weaponry.

but are they already nerfed?, if so what chanced?

[IraqiWalker]

Deacon412, on 29 May 2014 - 12:10 AM, said:

they shouldnt both generate alot of heat and have to worry about ammo at the same time, while energy only weapons only worry about heat....actually in reality ac's STILL generate heat at the end of the day and energy weapons consume no ammo.
14 rounds of ac 20 ammo in my hunch back caps me at 280 damage IF i hit every shot. but the 3 ML? that fire faster? no damage cap. they are allowed to deal unlimited damage while ac 20 is caped at 280. a very low number
EDIT: and missing with energy weapons is unheard of because of the burn time.

Do you like picking and choosing specific points that fit your argument?

Ballistic weapons generate negligible heat. The build that I put up, my heat will go up to 6 percent every 4th consecutive shot, and goes back to zero by the time I can fire the 5th shot (this is on burst fire, not chain fire for the AC5s).

Those lasers and their "damage potential" you are talking about present a flawed argument. First of all, unlike ACs, where if you hit you will deal full damage no questions asked. your damage is spread, hence the higher numbers. Second of all, just because you hit with the laser doesn't mean you dealt much damage.

Past 300 meters if I can hit you with my ML for more than a second I will deal you maybe 1.5 damage total, spread amongst your different parts. On the other hand, the AC will still out damage the laser simply because it's more focused and concentrated.

The mark of a good players isn't high damage, if they are running AC builds. In fact it's the exact opposite. Low damage high kill/assist numbers are the good players. Or Kill stealers depending on performance. 300 damage in this game gives you the same C-Bill reward as 1 assist btw.

energy weapon aren't ammo dependent, but the heat they generate is insane and compensates for that fact, plus their minuscule ranges. A single ML generates as much heat as 4 AC5s fired together, to deal 5 damage, while the 4 AC5s will deal 20 damage at longer range.

using the argument of not missing with energy weapons is just invalid. all I need to do for my hit to count as not missing is graze you for 0.25 seconds. that will deal you almost no damage.

The whole point of the way AC systems are set up is that if you can aim, you will deal immense damage, repeatedly and roughly where you want it. On the other hand, energy weapons won't miss easily, but deal pathetic damage in comparison and with long cycle times, extended more by heat build up.

Those 3MLs you used in your example total up to 12 AC5s fired in one alpha, in terms of heat generation. Look at the numbers in the whole picture, not just one part or another.

Running a HBK-4G with 3-4 tons of AC 20 ammo is more than enough by most HBK-4G pilots' accounts. Matches will rarely last long enough for you to run out. and that 420-560 damage total is more than enough since it's going to be all directed at one part, and not spread over a mech.

It takes upwards of 300 damage to bring an atlas with LRM fire, sometimes even 400+ damage. It takes 176 with AC fire to kill it. Maybe 200 at best, if you are using your shots right, and the Atlas is fresh and had not been hit by anyone at all. (this assumes the Atlas put only 10 points of armor into rear CT and the other 114 into front CT)

It takes just as much if not more to bring it down with Energy weapons.

[Ursh]

Deacon412, on 29 May 2014 - 12:10 AM, said:

they shouldnt both generate alot of heat and have to worry about ammo at the same time, while energy only weapons only worry about heat....actually in reality ac's STILL generate heat at the end of the day and energy weapons consume no ammo.
14 rounds of ac 20 ammo in my hunch back caps me at 280 damage IF i hit every shot. but the 3 ML? that fire faster? no damage cap. they are allowed to deal unlimited damage while ac 20 is caped at 280. a very low number
EDIT: and missing with energy weapons is unheard of because of the burn time.

Yeah, but your medium lasers are also spraying damage among many components, along with the air in front of and behind the mechs you're shooting.

Are you seriously try to act like your ac20 is somehow disadvantaged? There's a reason everyone who's played the game for a bit tries to cram them onto any mech where they'll fit. It's because they deliver 20 points of component wrecking damage to one location for very little heat.

Oh, and get rid of the right arm laser if you're only carrying 14 rounds for your ac20. Carry 21 rounds instead, and shoot more often. You're not going to need the laser anyways when anyone with half a brain blows your hunch off.

[Pjwned]

The nerf is justified because pinpoint damage meta from halfway across the map is bad for the game.

It's really that simple.

[Deacon412]

Pjwned, on 29 May 2014 - 12:50 AM, said:

The nerf is justified because pinpoint damage meta from halfway across the map is bad for the game.

It's really that simple.

pin point damage across the map.....again my hunch build has 14 rounds of ac/20 that can hardly snipe any thing with the projectile speed and ammo i have.
this nerf directly hurts my hunch build. not any thing else.

[Satan n stuff]

LastPaladin, on 28 May 2014 - 12:47 PM, said:

It's always funny when people think they are smart, but show the forums that they can't do the simplest things... like figure out that adding a charge time without reducing cooldown time is an automatic DPS nerf to a weapon.

Since when does DPS matter to snipers? People can whine about the Gauss nerfs all they want, but the fact remains that it's still a great sniping weapon and there are plenty of players getting top scores with them. It seems to me that the players who can't figure out the Gauss are the ones who "can't do the simplest things".

[wanderer]

If you're trying to snipe with what's supposed to be a medium-laser range weapon, you're Doing It Wrong.

You want large amounts of damage at long range, that's the Gauss. Or the AC/10. It's not supposed to be the AC/20.

[Livewyr]

FupDup, on 28 May 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

Let's play with some numbers, because I'm bored. I'll use the AC/5 only, because it has a longer range and I want to save time.


So, right now, the AC/5 has an optimal range of 620 meters and a maximum range of 1700 meters. The damage fall-off is linear, which makes it fairly easy to calculate.

From 620m to 1700m there is 1080 meters to cover, which means we have to go from 5 damage to 0 damage within that distance. This means we lose 1 point of damage every 216 meters with the AC/5 (past 620 meters).

Now, to calculate how much damage we've lost at 1500 meters. To do this, I am first going to take the fraction of 1 point (of damage) over 216 meters. 1500 meters is 880 meters away from our optimal range, so that will serve as the numerator of the second fraction.

Using my handy calculator, 880 divided by 216 equals 4.07. This means that at 880 meters from 620m (aka 1500m), we have lost 4.07 points of damage. Our original damage is 5 points. 5 - 4.07 = 0.9259blablabla.

In the end, this means that a single AC/5 will do slightly less than 1 point of damage when fired at 1500 meters. Using 3 of them together, this means just under 3 points of damage. The UAC/5 will do slightly less damage than that.

Can you do that same calculation with the PPC? (or even the ERPPC)

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

I welcome the AC nurf! It cant come soon enough!

[AdamBaines]

IanDresariAce, on 28 May 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

To all the players who like autocanons as they are and are tired of constant nerfes!


People, please, express your opinion on this topic TO GET THE DEVELOPERS' ATTENTION!


Dear developers, please, DON'T NERF OTHER AUTOCANONS (AC-10 & AC-20)!!!

DEVS, SERIOUSLY, STOP NERFING EVERYTHING THAT IS GOOD TO MAKE IT CRAP!

You've already had your way with AC-2s and Ultra AC-5s!

WE LOVE AUTOCANONS AS THEY ARE!
PLEASE, LEAVE THEM ALONE!

I could not disagree with this more. Not the voicing part as that is your right and should be encouraged.

ACs need the reduced range...ALL of them. The only one that should be relatively long ranger is the AC2, You want a long range weapon, grab a PPC or Gauss. ACs are mid range weapons. They are not long ranged weapons. This is actually going to help in balance.

[LastPaladin]

Satan n stuff, on 29 May 2014 - 02:23 AM, said:

Since when does DPS matter to snipers?

It matters as soon as an enemy gets within brawling range.

[Satan n stuff]

LastPaladin, on 29 May 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

It matters as soon as an enemy gets within brawling range.

By that time they're usually dead.

[Fang01]

My 1700+ DMG Raven 2x mpl boat just became insufferably OP.

EXCELLENT