81 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

Yeonne Greene, on 19 October 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

I derped, I meant to say AC/20 should go into Tier 2, not Tier 4.

OK that makes a lot more sense now.

Yeonne Greene, on 19 October 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

As for AC/10 vs. AC/20, tough call. The AC/20 does more front-loaded damage, but it also heats you up far faster. My K2 has twin AC/10s and four medium lasers on it. If I had two AC/20s, I would only be able to fit two medium lasers and I'd never get to use them because the AC/20s each generate 7 heat instantaneously. They'd be there purely as backup. I'd also get less heatsinks in, compounding the issue.

And...two AC/10 does 8 dps without modules, ~10 with. That's insane, especially with such low heat generation. It's a phenomenal brawling weapon, and it can reach out and slug people from what I would consider the median engagement range of 400 meters.

All good points.

Although, I might be inclined to move the AC 10 up to T2 instead of moving the AC 20 down.

[Xarian]

SpeedingBus, on 19 October 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

You guys are all high if you think IS PPC is T2 let alone putting ER PPC as T3..... PPC is T4 and so is ER PPC.

You every notice no one uses PPCs anymore? cause they suck and the only time you see ER PPCs is on lights for sniping which is ok I guess.

Dunno what game you're playing, I see PPC/ERPPC spam all over the place. It's not as common as Gauss, but it's more common than any other weapon, including AC/5.

[Xarian]

Ultimatum X, on 19 October 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

All good points.

Although, I might be inclined to move the AC 10 up to T2 instead of moving the AC 20 down.

You shouldn't. The AC/10 is a hybrid between the AC/5 and AC/20, with none of the positive aspects and all of the negatives. Dual AC/10 is outclassed by dual AC/5 due to the projectile speed and dramatically lower heat, and outclassed by a single AC/20 due to the lower tonnage/crit slots required. It's barely above the AC/2 in terms of usability.

[kapusta11]

Deleted due to being irrelevant now.

Edited by kapusta11, 19 February 2015 - 07:27 AM.

[Mott]

Ultimatum X, on 17 October 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

Clan

All of that is essentially how i'd rate everything too... except for IS SRM4s and SRM6s. When you add artemis to either of those systems and run them in triplicate - they're lethal.

On most builds, 3xSRM6+artemis is a T1 weapons system.

[Xarian]

SRMs are good, but not Gauss level... solid Tier 2, with 3xASRM6 being near the top of Tier 2, but still Tier 2 (Clans slightly higher than IS due to tonnage/crit slots)

[Alistair Winter]

I won't make another list, because this thread loses its value when everyone's got their own list of dozens of weapons. Just some general observations:

• The tier system doesn't work as well for weapons as it does for mechs, because some weapons are really great on other mechs and very bad on others. For example, many assault mech pilots tend to go for either one big gun (AC20 / gauss) or several smaller guns (AC5, UAC5), whereas medium pilots don't always have enough room for one big ballistic or several smaller ballistic, so they end up with the AC10. In other words, AC10 on a Centurion is just as good as the AC20, and even better than the AC5/UAC5. Does the AC10 need a buff, or is it the Centurion that needs to be buffed?
  
• Inner Sphere MGs are very weird to rank, because they actually need a big buff in order to make the RVN-4X, the SDR-5K and RVN-H viable, but the Ember is just so OP that you would turn it into an absolute nightmare if you didn't nerf the Ember after buffing MGs.
  
• Clan MGs are awesome. I don't know what you guys are smoking, but the otherwise lackluster Summoner and Nova are rather decent with max amount of MGs.
  
• SRM2s are actually very good, it's just that very few builds require their use. My Ravens all use SRM2's instead of SSRMs, and they're far better. But you don't see them often, because most light mechs with missile hardpoints can spare enough tonnage to get the SRM4 or SRM6. That's not always the case with the Raven, especially if you've got heavy energy weapons (LLs, LPL or PPCs).

[pulupulu]

If I make a tier list of weapon... it won't be for a single weapon, but weapons in a group.

Like

tier 1: 2x gauss, 2x ac20
tier 2: 3x erll
tier3: 6x ml

just pulling things out of my azz... but u get the point.

I don't feel a single solo weapon is much of a threat without being used with another weapon, much less to be talked about.

[Ultimax]

Alistair Winter, on 20 October 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

The tier system doesn't work as well for weapons as it does for mechs, because some weapons are really great on other mechs and very bad on others. For example, many assault mech pilots tend to go for either one big gun (AC20 / gauss) or several smaller guns (AC5, UAC5), whereas medium pilots don't always have enough room for one big ballistic or several smaller ballistic, so they end up with the AC10. In other words, AC10 on a Centurion is just as good as the AC20, and even better than the AC5/UAC5. Does the AC10 need a buff, or is it the Centurion that needs to be buffed?

It's certainly not cut and dry.

However your own example provides an indication some weapons and options are clearly better - hence tiers.

If medium mechs do not have room for those options and are opting out for a lesser option, then that denotes a line in performance amongst those weapons and they can then be classified in tiers.


What you're suggesting is more that we rank weapons by tier according to weight class, that's an interesting discussion but the focus is different.

The focus in that case is on builds, and mechs. This is focused on raw weapon performance and "best in class" options.

Alistair Winter, on 20 October 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

Clan MGs are awesome. I don't know what you guys are smoking, but the otherwise lackluster Summoner and Nova are rather decent with max amount of MGs.

They're still weak. I've tried two on my Kit Fox and the impact is too small to even be remotely relevant.

They might have better range, and lower weight, but it's still not a great weapon system and unless you had 6 to 8 ballistic hardponts but low tonnage and also high speed, you probably wouldn't ever consider them as your primary weapon option - even then I'm not convinced they would be T3.

Alistair Winter, on 20 October 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

SRM2s are actually very good, it's just that very few builds require their use. My Ravens all use SRM2's instead of SSRMs, and they're far better. But you don't see them often, because most light mechs with missile hardpoints can spare enough tonnage to get the SRM4 or SRM6. That's not always the case with the Raven, especially if you've got heavy energy weapons (LLs, LPL or PPCs).

I've honestly never used them.

So I'm relying on what I see in game, and other's opinions on this one.

[SpeedingBus]

Xarian, on 19 October 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

Dunno what game you're playing, I see PPC/ERPPC spam all over the place. It's not as common as Gauss, but it's more common than any other weapon, including AC/5.

Playing in hive doesn't count I easily go through several matches and not see a single PPC although those light snipers seem to love ERPPCs so I see them once every other match.

[Alistair Winter]

Ultimatum X, on 20 October 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

What you're suggesting is more that we rank weapons by tier according to weight class, that's an interesting discussion but the focus is different.

You don't have to rank them according to weight class, but I think people should keep in mind that a weapon can be Tier 2 for some mechs and Tier 4 for other mechs. So you should rank all weapons according to the mechs they are most effective for. It makes no sense to rank the AC20 as Tier 4 because it can't be used on Light mechs. And on the other hand, it makes no sense to rank the SRM2 as Tier 4 because it's worthless on an Assault mech.

Ultimatum X, on 20 October 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

They're still weak. I've tried two on my Kit Fox and the impact is too small to even be remotely relevant.
They might have better range, and lower weight, but it's still not a great weapon system and unless you had 6 to 8 ballistic hardponts but low tonnage and also high speed, you probably wouldn't ever consider them as your primary weapon option - even then I'm not convinced they would be T3.

Well, there are no Clan mechs forced to have MGs as a main weapon. They're always a support weapon, and they're excellent in that role. Moreover, there's no Clan mech on the horizon that would use MGs as a main weapon.

I wouldn't mind seeing them buffed, but they're already mandatory choices for my Kit Fox, Nova and Summoner, unless I'm playing a very specific build that makes them redundant or unavailable (e.g. SRM-boat Summoner). And I'm seeing a lot of other people use them on those mechs.

If PGI were to buff MGs, it would be all gravy for me.

[Almond Brown]

Xarian, on 19 October 2014 - 09:43 PM, said:

You shouldn't. The AC/10 is a hybrid between the AC/5 and AC/20, with none of the positive aspects and all of the negatives. Dual AC/10 is outclassed by dual AC/5 due to the projectile speed and dramatically lower heat, and outclassed by a single AC/20 due to the lower tonnage/crit slots required. It's barely above the AC/2 in terms of usability.

So the Criteria known as "Range" has no bearing on your assessment of the weapons?

That is why this whole exercise is nothing more than a "subjective" waste of time if not ALL available weapon based criteria is applied to ALL the weapons to be categorized. Cherry picking what one likes about any one weapon is pointless. List ALL the criteria, build a point system based on that and then see how they stack up. If "you" (the selector in any one case) just don't like one criteria, that doesn't mean that it is necessarily a "Community" based belief...

P.S. I assume that the IS PPC's 90m min. range "downside" was accounted for and it was the erPPC Heat that caused its fall below the usefulness of its littler brethren on the List?

Edited by Almond Brown, 20 October 2014 - 08:48 AM.

[Ultimax]

Alistair Winter, on 20 October 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

You don't have to rank them according to weight class, but I think people should keep in mind that a weapon can be Tier 2 for some mechs and Tier 4 for other mechs. So you should rank all weapons according to the mechs they are most effective for. It makes no sense to rank the AC20 as Tier 4 because it can't be used on Light mechs. And on the other hand, it makes no sense to rank the SRM2 as Tier 4 because it's worthless on an Assault mechs.

That's beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do here.

It's also a very different focus.

Let me frame this another way.

Three enemy shadowhaks approach.

One has an AC 20
One has an AC 5
One has three machine guns

Which one is priority?

The answer is the AC 20 hawk.


Which one are you least worried about?

The answer is the triple MG hawk.

[Mott]

Xarian, on 19 October 2014 - 09:43 PM, said:

You shouldn't. The AC/10 is a hybrid between the AC/5 and AC/20, with none of the positive aspects and all of the negatives. Dual AC/10 is outclassed by dual AC/5 due to the projectile speed and dramatically lower heat, and outclassed by a single AC/20 due to the lower tonnage/crit slots required. It's barely above the AC/2 in terms of usability.

Fairly subjective, really. I find the U/AC5s require too much tonnage (for weapon + ammo) for the amount of damage you can deal out in a clinch. I've done my triple & quad-5 builds on both the CTF-4X and JM6s... and as a newbie i was impressed with their abilities. But as i grew and developed better accuracy, better torso twisting, etc i found i'd far rather go into a scrum slinging the AC10s than the 5s. Far better for cockpit shooting as well.

2xAC10s on a Firebrand, with the weapon mods really make that mech a monster. Massive, pinpoint damage at a high rate of fire.

[Xarian]

SpeedingBus, on 20 October 2014 - 08:14 AM, said:

Playing in hive doesn't count I easily go through several matches and not see a single PPC although those light snipers seem to love ERPPCs so I see them once every other match

Any particuar reason you are assuming that I'm playing against hive? Many of the group matches that I play are with/against very competitive groups who I won't name, and a good chunk of them use PPCs on more than a few of their configurations.

The snipers tend to use ERLL because ERPPC are too difficult to hit at range.

[Motroid]

Sorry but weapons in MW:O can't be compared on an absolute basis.
They are situational. All of them. That's the nature of this game and Battletech in general.
There are no bad weapons in this game only wrong weapons for your needs atm.
Key is to use every weapon according to their purpose. I see some purposes/scenarios coming up more often than others so I see where you all are coming from....
There are possible scenarios in the game where every single "tier 5" weapon is better than a "tier1" weapon. For that situation only.
We can agree that flamers need some love though...

[SpeedingBus]

Xarian, on 20 October 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

Any particuar reason you are assuming that I'm playing against hive? Many of the group matches that I play are with/against very competitive groups who I won't name, and a good chunk of them use PPCs on more than a few of their configurations.

The snipers tend to use ERLL because ERPPC are too difficult to hit at range.

Just because your a good player doesn't mean you get to play against people who aren't in hive. You acting like playing with competitive groups is suppose to impress me which it doesn't mechwarrior isn't ever going to be as competitive as Lol or Dota or starcraft. The only solid build I seen anyone use with PPCs is shadowhawk ac5/ppc build but you can't combine different weapons then rate them by that.

[MechWarrior5152251]

Xarian, on 20 October 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

Any particuar reason you are assuming that I'm playing against hive? Many of the group matches that I play are with/against very competitive groups who I won't name, and a good chunk of them use PPCs on more than a few of their configurations.

The snipers tend to use ERLL because ERPPC are too difficult to hit at range.

I think he is implying you don't know how to play if you think the ppc is still a meta weapon...and therefore are playing in the underhive...

I have definitely been in the hive and I haven't been hit by a PPC since the nerf. Maybe they are just all missing me?

Edited by 911 Inside Job, 20 October 2014 - 10:40 AM.

[Ultimax]

911 Inside Job, on 20 October 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

I think he is implying you don't know how to play if you think the ppc is still a meta weapon...and therefore are playing in the underhive...

And he is wrong.

Top tier players are still using them, just not as much as for sniping.

Anyone not seeing those players in the queue might want to hold back on talking about who is or is not in the underhive.

[Xarian]

Mott, on 20 October 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

Fairly subjective, really. I find the U/AC5s require too much tonnage (for weapon + ammo) for the amount of damage you can deal out in a clinch. I've done my triple & quad-5 builds on both the CTF-4X and JM6s... and as a newbie i was impressed with their abilities. But as i grew and developed better accuracy, better torso twisting, etc i found i'd far rather go into a scrum slinging the AC10s than the 5s. Far better for cockpit shooting as well.

2xAC10s on a Firebrand, with the weapon mods really make that mech a monster. Massive, pinpoint damage at a high rate of fire.

I get where you're coming from, but I find that the 2x AC/10 just generates way too much heat. They're not unusable by any means, but I'd almost always rather take 2x AC/5 or 1x Gauss + energy weapons (for long-ranged), or 1x AC/20 + energy weapons (for short-ranged).

At 706 range, the AC/5 and AC/10 do the same damage per shot; at 561 range, they have the same DPS (longer range, advantage to the AC/5)
At 386 range, the AC/10 and AC/20 do the same damage per shot; at 324 range, they have the same DPS (shorter range, advantage to the AC/20)
At 473 range, the AC/5 and AC/20 do the same damage per shot; at 377 range, they have the same DPS (shorter range, advantage to the AC/20).

Best single-shot Autocannon damage by range
0-386 - AC/20
387-706 - AC/10
707-1135 - AC/5
1136+ - AC/2

Best multi-shot Autocannon DPS by range
0-324 - AC/20
325 - 561 - AC/10
562 - 667 - AC/5
668+ - AC/2

Heat Per Second (relative to AC/5)
AC/20 - 250%
AC/10 - 200%
AC/5 - 100%
AC/2 - 232%

So what you really want to ask yourself is this: how important is heat, and what is my typical engagement range?
If you don't care about heat or ammo efficiency (rare): if it's around 350 meters or less, you should be using an AC/20. If it's around 500 meters, you should be using an AC/10. If it's around 700 meters, you should be using an AC/5 for single-shot snap fire or an AC/2 for multi-shot DPS.
If you care about heat somewhat and ammo efficiency is important (most common): use an AC/20 for 270 meters and under, or an AC/5 otherwise.
If you care about heat a lot and ammo efficiency is important (occasionally happens): use an AC/5 for everything.

None of this takes into account tonnage or crit slots. Will analyze that later; it's an interesting topic for me.