63 replies to this topic

[Lefty Lucy]

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

and are great against aircraft (which is actually what they were originally designed for but given the tech and economy of 3025 they got used against mechs)

Aerotech and conventional fighters weren't in the game when the AC2 was introduced. The "anti-aircraft" was pure fluff. It's a crud weapon in TT. No reason why it shouldn't be brought to useability in MWO. The chance to change bad weapons for the better in MWO is one of the great strengths of this game. There's no reason to live in the past.

[Sandpit]

Yeonne Greene, on 31 July 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

Wrong on the MGs. I chewed up a Stalker on Tourmaline a couple of days ago at around 200 meters using my Arrow. And I know it wasn't the Pulse Lasers because I was running too hot to fire them.

Range extension helps.

if you have range extender maybe, regardless now all I have to say is "they're useless outside of 200 meters" point remains. The actual range isn't important to the point I was making. AC2 is better suited for that type of role at long, medium, and past ultra short range

Lefty Lucy, on 31 July 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

Aerotech and conventional fighters weren't in the game when the AC2 was introduced. The "anti-aircraft" was pure fluff. It's a crud weapon in TT. No reason why it shouldn't be brought to useability in MWO. The chance to change bad weapons for the better in MWO is one of the great strengths of this game. There's no reason to live in the past.

I know it was pure fluff. That fluff explains why such a "crappy" weapon was on a battlemech in the first place which is what I was explaining

it is usable in MWO. It's quite effective at
making lurm boats and spotters duck their heads to break LoS
shooting mechs safely outside of lurm range
still does great dps compared to the entire weapon set


it's far from "useless"

[Davegt27]

I want a sling shot that would make the game fun

[Y E O N N E]

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

if you have range extender maybe, regardless now all I have to say is "they're useless outside of 200 meters" point remains. The actual range isn't important to the point I was making. AC2 is better suited for that type of role at long, medium, and past ultra short range

Well, I'm honestly not sure why you made the point at all in a reply to me since, until then, I hadn't even brought up MGs.

[Sandpit]

Yeonne Greene, on 31 July 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

Well, I'm honestly not sure why you made the point at all in a reply to me since, until then, I hadn't even brought up MGs.

I didn't

Joseph Mallan, on 31 July 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

Meh. We have that in our Machine Gun already, AC2s where annoyance weapons on TT, you used em to plink armor off when the enemy could not hit you due to the range. Also in my hands they were a beastly TAC weapon! I have a ammo kill or multiple engine crits using AC2s in every game I used one. Heck I once had an enemy team stop shooting at the "big guys" to kill my stock Blackjack-1!

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

Exactly, except MGs aren't doing squat to an enemy 150 meters out. AC2 and SRMs should have (in my opinion) been the "crit seekers". That's the bonus of boating that kind of weapon. Realistically AC2 would be absolutely worthless in this game if it adhered to TT damage, RoF, etc. There would be no point in taking it. I agree that it was nerfed for a good reason, but it shouldn't be relegated to "worthless" status (which I don't think it currently is) so there has to be a medium in there somewhere that allows it to be useful without being more than a "lesser" weapon. 2 damage to open areas in a pretty rapid fore manner SHOULD do some damage to internals

don't see your name anywhere in there....

[El Bandito]

2X Ballistic range is one of the more sensible things PGI did. Now we need 2X missile range instead of current 1.5X, with appropriate speed boost. Then every weapon type is finally is normalized to 2X.

Edited by El Bandito, 31 July 2014 - 04:50 PM.

[Sandpit]

El Bandito, on 31 July 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

2X Ballistic range is one of the more sensible things PGI did. Now we need 2X missile range instead of current 1.5X, with appropriate speed boost.

eh, I like missiles where they're at. agreed on the range reduction for ACs though

Every time we get a "new" crop of players we get the same old threads. There's a reason these nerfs were enacted. Trust those of us that were here and played before the nerfs, it was needed.

[Y E O N N E]

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

I didn't



don't see your name anywhere in there....

Check Post No. 19 and whom you quoted before bringing up the MGs.

You got your ordering wrong.

[Sandpit]

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

Exactly, except MGs aren't doing squat to an enemy 150 meters out. AC2 and SRMs should have (in my opinion) been the "crit seekers". That's the bonus of boating that kind of weapon. Realistically AC2 would be absolutely worthless in this game if it adhered to TT damage, RoF, etc. There would be no point in taking it. I agree that it was nerfed for a good reason, but it shouldn't be relegated to "worthless" status (which I don't think it currently is) so there has to be a medium in there somewhere that allows it to be useful without being more than a "lesser" weapon. 2 damage to open areas in a pretty rapid fore manner SHOULD do some damage to internals

Yeonne Greene, on 31 July 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

It does...if the enemy stands there and takes it. They usually don't. A small crit bonus to internals on all ACs would actually make sense, since they are firing partially explosive rounds.

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

nah, just the AC2 for me. The rest do more than enough damage on their own with no bonuses and have the advantage of being FLD PP

and no, the MG doesn't do anything past 150 meters
at all
range doesn't allow it to

you mean that reply?

[Mcgral18]

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

Exactly, except MGs aren't doing squat to an enemy 150 meters out. AC2 and SRMs should have (in my opinion) been the "crit seekers". That's the bonus of boating that kind of weapon. Realistically AC2 would be absolutely worthless in this game if it adhered to TT damage, RoF, etc. There would be no point in taking it. I agree that it was nerfed for a good reason, but it shouldn't be relegated to "worthless" status (which I don't think it currently is) so there has to be a medium in there somewhere that allows it to be useful without being more than a "lesser" weapon. 2 damage to open areas in a pretty rapid fore manner SHOULD do some damage to internals

Even after their nerfs, AC2s are still at around 14x TT damage and heat, down from 20x. They could certainly use something.

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

nah, just the AC2 for me. The rest do more than enough damage on their own with no bonuses and have the advantage of being FLD PP

and no, the MG doesn't do anything past 150 meters
at all
range doesn't allow it to

As a matter of fact, they do have a 240M max range, though doing less than .001 damage at that range per tick.
They've had the same 2x range since their inception.

Flamers are hard capped at 90M, only weapon aside from missiles which have that.

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:

eh, I like missiles where they're at. agreed on the range reduction for ACs though

Every time we get a "new" crop of players we get the same old threads. There's a reason these nerfs were enacted. Trust those of us that were here and played before the nerfs, it was needed.

Well....the IS could use some dead-fire warheads.

http://www.sarna.net...d-Fire_Missiles

Double tonnage for 50% more damage....maybe?

[Soulscour]

IS mechs are not supposed to have good dakka. If you want good dakka you have to pay money.

[Mcgral18]

Soulscour, on 31 July 2014 - 10:15 PM, said:

IS mechs are not supposed to have good dakka. If you want good dakka you have to pay money.

While dakka is fun, it's terribly inefficient for killing.

[Sug]

Mcgral18, on 31 July 2014 - 10:18 PM, said:

While dakka is fun, it's terribly inefficient for killing.

I see so much of this now



TW at 21% with all it's weapons.

No one can seal the deal anymore.

[Creovex]

@OP

For better clarification, which nerf of the ACs are you specifically talking about? There has been more then one.

[Y E O N N E]

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

you mean that reply?

Now, now, let's be accurate with the quote because how it reads is important:

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

Yeonne Greene, on 31 July 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

It does...if the enemy stands there and takes it. They usually don't. A small crit bonus to internals on all ACs would actually make sense, since they are firing partially explosive rounds.

nah, just the AC2 for me. The rest do more than enough damage on their own with no bonuses and have the advantage of being FLD PP

and no, the MG doesn't do anything past 150 meters
at all
range doesn't allow it to

verybad, on 31 July 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

Regarding the AC2, it was underpowered in Battletech, but if something is made useless, then it doesn't get used in MWO- Period, so the thing has to have a use that's somewhat balanced for the resources it uses (6 tons, needs ammo makes it roughly paralel to a large laser)

Yeahs it's a peashooter in Battletech, but battletech has all sorts of unbalanced weapons, nobody ever uses AC-2s in custom mechs, and theyr'e considered a flaw in stock designs.

It needs to be roughly 75% the battle value as an AC-5 IMO

except they outrange every other weapon
cost no heat
and are great against aircraft (which is actually what they were originally designed for but given the tech and economy of 3025 they got used against mechs)

[Tw1stedMonkey]

Joseph Mallan, on 31 July 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

Our Rate of Fire and Ranges were just to high, I love ACs, I do, but we fire far to often for the damage we throw. And I deplore DoT. AC2s are peashooter weapons it is how they have been forever. At best they should sting, but an AC2 should not be a powerful weapon.

Or we could not have weapons that are useless by design? That's also an option right?

Or we could have a mode like MW:LL where mechs were balanced by prices so worse weapons had a place because they were cheaper and less costly to lose! Note: **** repair and rearm though, I mean where equipment prices are reevaluated and matches are balanced based on price of mech, or just a large-scale "respawn" mode where you earn money to buy better mechs during battle based on "blueprints" of mech builds you have made in the mechlab, where stock/champion variants are much cheaper because they don't have to be taken apart or edited out of the factory or whatever.

[Joseph Mallan]

verybad, on 31 July 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

Regarding the AC2, it was underpowered in Battletech, but if something is made useless, then it doesn't get used in MWO- Period, so the thing has to have a use that's somewhat balanced for the resources it uses (6 tons, needs ammo makes it roughly paralel to a large laser)

Yeahs it's a peashooter in Battletech, but battletech has all sorts of unbalanced weapons, nobody ever uses AC-2s in custom mechs, and theyr'e considered a flaw in stock designs.

It needs to be roughly 75% the battle value as an AC-5 IMO

Actually you are wrong, most players do not use them in Custom Builds. WHich is different than None use them. And an AC2 should be 40% the damage output of an AC5... What BV you want doesn't matter a lick to me, so long as the damage is proper. Also if nobody uses it well so be it, For a small tonnage investment you can get an AC5 instead.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 04 August 2014 - 12:14 PM.

[FupDup]

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

except they outrange every other weapon
cost no heat
and are great against aircraft (which is actually what they were originally designed for but given the tech and economy of 3025 they got used against mechs)

In TT, a smart min-maxer would use an LRM5 instead (or even multiple).


For range, the LRM5 has only 3 hexes shorter range than the AC/2, which can be covered by a single turn of movement even by the slowest mechs ever made (including the Urbie).


For heat, the AC/2 is actually the least efficient AC of them all. Let's look at TT stats:
AC/2: 2 damage for 1 heat = 2 damage per heat
AC/5: 5 damage for 1 heat = 5 damage per heat
AC/10: 10 damage for 3 heat = 3.33 damage per heat
AC/20: 20 damage for 7 heat = 2.857 damage per heat

You can just use the spare tonnage to mount an extra heatsink or two to handle the LRM5's 2 base heat, or use your 10 base sinks to handle it.


Also, they were actually NOT good against aircraft. They dealt only 2 damage to aerospace elements. The LRM5, however, dealt 3 damage to aerospace (TechManual as source), while still having a huge tonnage advantage. If you wanted to use 6 tons on LRMs, you could do 9 damage to aerospace compared to only 2 AA damage of the AC/2. Or just roll with a single LRM5 that was still overall vastly superior to the AC/2.

Edited by FupDup, 04 August 2014 - 11:50 AM.

[Sandpit]

Yeonne Greene, on 04 August 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

Now, now, let's be accurate with the quote because how it reads is important:


except they outrange every other weapon
cost no heat
and are great against aircraft (which is actually what they were originally designed for but given the tech and economy of 3025 they got used against mechs)

what I'm pointing out is that MY post was in direct response to (Joe I believe) in a "sidebar" of sorts. It had nothing to do with your posts.

[Sandpit]

FupDup, on 04 August 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

In TT, a smart min-maxer would use an LRM5 instead (or even multiple).

I'm going to point out the difference here though

In TT, a smart GM will ensure that even if they do allow a min-maxer to munch out their mech (which wouldn't happen in MY TT campaigns) there's going to be a challenging but "fair" campaign built around the player's units and resources.

Here, you have to balance that at a videogame. It's a different beast. I'm all for sticking to TT rules as much as possible but I also understand that there are different mechanics and needs for a TT vs. video game.

FupDup, on 04 August 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Also, they were actually NOT good against aircraft.

http://ebt.trueborn....er=J&orderby=bv
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rifleman
[color=#000000]The [/color]Rifleman's[color=#000000] focus on anti-aircraft work dictated a heavy load of long-range weapons to the exclusion of everything else. It carries a particularly heavy battery of two [/color]Magna[color=#000000] Mk. III [/color]Large Lasers[color=#000000] paired with two [/color]Imperator[color=#000000]-A medium autocannons, one of each mounted in each arm. Two Magna Mk. II [/color]Medium Lasers[color=#000000] are mounted in the torso to provide backup. One ton of autocannon ammunition is carried in the center torso. The 'Mech's ten [/color]heat sinks[color=#000000] are grossly inadequate for constant fire, but in an anti-aircraft role, the [/color]Rifleman[color=#000000] is expected to have time to dissipate heat while the target aircraft turns for its next pass.[/color]^[6]
[color=#000000]The BJ, Jager, Rifleman, and a few other "dakka" builds were specifically designed FOR A/A in the fluff and then they [/color]

Essentially AC2 and AC5 were much more effective given their ranges and firing styles against aircraft. I'm trying to dig it up but I know there is also a targeting option to switch to "AA" mode. I can't remember if it was added 3050 or not though so I'm not sure if that was L1, L2, or L3 tech.

The BJ, Rifleman, Jager, and a few other "dakka" mechs were retconned (after 3025) into offering options for specific use against aircraft. It's just been so long I can't remember where all the rules are without doing a lot of digging through my pdf library