Change the normal stats until it's an effective weapon. Keep it cool, as small ACs should be.
Simple is good. It's an alternative for keeping the AC2 chained down if Pjwned is right. I like to try seeing things from all sides as much as i can.
Too bad i'm biased to a certain degree no matter what i do.
In any case. Any other ideas for balancing out the AC2 other the ones that have been mentioned and what PGI (weight, damage per shot) won't touch?
If you think it should shoot cybernetic badgers i'll even concider that an alternative to what we have right now.
I'd even settle for rabid bunnies as projectiles. XD
I still think a fun idea would be to let it fire a burst of 2 shells, with each shell doing the usual 2.0 damage each. Then, slow the cooldown proportionally and modify the ammo per ton to reflect the new mechanic.
This would make the AC/2 deal much more upfront damage at the expense of being less effective for trolling/shaking -- an exchange I'm very willing to make.
How long should the cooldown be? Increase in the ammo count? Tell us more.
Come to think of it....if the shaking was kept to a minimum because it's such a small calibre we wouldn't have to worry about that part.
I'm certain i mentioned it in my OP.....yup i did along with a lot of other stuff near the start.
How long should the cooldown be? Increase in the ammo count? Tell us more.
Ammo count would have to be doubled (at least) because you're firing 2 slugs at a time. This is the same effect that we already see with Clan UACs.
For cooldown, it would have to be at least double to maintain the DPS. But since we have doubled upfront damage (2x2 burst), actually lowering the DPS might be fair. The cooldown wouldn't get any longer than 2.0 seconds (which would give you about 2.0 DPS, which fits Paul's AC normalization scheme). The slower firing rate would indirectly reduce the heat output, too.
It's a decision between having a high-DPS plinker or a slower "pocket sniper" type weapon.
Side-note: The delay between each shell in the burst should be no longer than 0.1 seconds (for reference, the Clan UAC/2 is currently set to 0.14 seconds).
I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll put my general thoughts in a spoiler.
Spoiler
I used to think that the AC2 shouldn't be too heat effective, because it would just result in assault mechs boating AC2s. I didn't realize at the time that the Mauler is built around boating AC2s. It comes with 2xERLL and 2xLRM15 to boot, and without cool AC2s, that build will just burst into fire ten seconds into every match. The fact that pretty much all canon AC2 carriers (Blackjack, Jagermech, Mauler) in MWO are useless with AC2s says a lot about the sorry state of the weapon.
The Mauler should be able to carry 4xAC2 as low heat, low cooldown damage to accompany its superhot ERLL and LRMs. The Blackjack should be able to carry 2xAC2 to accompany its hot lasers. The Jagermech should be able to lay down suppressive long range fire with AC2s and AC5s. PGI is even trying to sell a Panther P-variant with a stock AC2, even though they know it's going to be terrible.
The AC2 is all about low heat, high dps and long range.
The AC5 should actually be cooler than it is right now. But it would be a little hotter than the AC2, with shorter range, lower projectile speed, for the sake of more pinpoint damage. A couple of AC5s should be cool enough to accompany PPCs nicely, for an extra 5 or 10 damage per shot when sniping.
The AC10 should also be cooler than it is right now. Most people take the AC20 instead of the AC10 whenever they can, but I think it shouldn't be such an easy choice.
The UAC5 and AC20 are fine where they are.
The point of missiles is high damage per volley, for less heat than lasers, at the cost of range and accuracy. The whole point of ballistics, as I said earlier, is either low heat or pinpoint damage, or a compromise between the two.
Spleenslitta, on 19 May 2015 - 08:17 AM, said:
Good point about the screenshake.
I used a single UAC2 on my Kit Fox and the explosions hid the enemy completly at long range.
The firing flash was very annoying since it was always right in front of the cockpit view.
If you were to choose which cooldown alternative would you go for and how much would you lower the heat per shot?
I don't know about the actual numbers, I'm a bit too busy right now to go and calculate DPS and HPS and all that.
I can only say that I don't like the burst fire alternative, because I feel it's messy to have different ACs work in different ways. I would like the idea if all Inner Sphere ACs were burst fire. As they should be, according to lore, to my understanding.
I used to run 2xUAC2 on the Kit Fox, back before they locked jump jets. That was a fun build. Terrible, but fun.
MeiSooHaityu, on 19 May 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:
I wish this was more true than it really is. The A/C2 weighs just too darn much for use in lighter mechs. Light mechs often have to sacrifice SO much to mount 1 A/C2 and it just isn't worth it. If I could mount even 2 energy hard points in a light vs 1 A/C2, I'd take the energy.
Medium mechs kind of suffer too. Yea, a Medium could carry 1 or 2 A/C2s, but an A/C5 or bigger would be a better use of tonnage compared to 2 A/C2s (even with the increased RoF).
This is just a balancing issue. If you improve cooldown by 20%, 40%, 80%, 200%, 400%, at some point you will find the spot where the DPS is worth the facetime and tonnage.
MeiSooHaityu, on 19 May 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:
Then some mechs like the Vindicator 1X sacrifice valuable energy hard points to have 3 ballistic hardpoints....wha?!? You can't run 3 A/C2s in the 1X worth a darn and MGs aren't worth it, so if practically it only needed 2 ballistics, why not give it 2 ballistics and give it back that crucial energy hard point in return.
Again, this is a balancing issue, I don't feel it's a fundamental truth. PGI has screwed over all IS ballistics except AC20 and UAC5. If MGs were better, 2 of them would be worth taking. On the Blackjack, on the Raven 4X, even on the Thunderbolt.
MeiSooHaityu, on 19 May 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:
I think the sheer weight required for an A/C2 makes it normally a poor choice for lighter mechs too (where weight is a premium) :/.
Heat is a big problem for lights. If heat and DPS was fixed for the AC2, then you could do a build like this. With a conservative 50% accuracy, you get 190 dmg from that AC2 in the course of a fight. before running dry. And ideally, I would want to increase AC2 ammo per ton, due to armour inflation in MWO.
Edited by Alistair Winter, 19 May 2015 - 11:12 AM.
Maybe increased internal crit chance like MGs? Not sure on what logical grounds, but it's an idea.
Give it a 5x modifier, a single crit will destroy an item, and deal 1.5 extra damage per crit (totalling 3.5 damage for a 1x crit, with 42% chance for at least that on open armour)
It's something. MGs are at 9x crit, LBx at 2x, Flamers at 1.1x.
Good stuff Alistair Winter. Please come back when you got more time. I need to pickle your braaaainz.....i mean hear some of your mathematical analysis of the AC2.
FupDup, on 19 May 2015 - 11:11 AM, said:
Ammo count would have to be doubled (at least) because you're firing 2 slugs at a time. This is the same effect that we already see with Clan UACs.
For cooldown, it would have to be at least double to maintain the DPS. But since we have doubled upfront damage (2x2 burst), actually lowering the DPS might be fair. The cooldown wouldn't get any longer than 2.0 seconds (which would give you about 2.0 DPS, which fits Paul's AC normalization scheme). The slower firing rate would indirectly reduce the heat output, too.
It's a decision between having a high-DPS plinker or a slower "pocket sniper" type weapon.
Side-note: The delay between each shell in the burst should be no longer than 0.1 seconds (for reference, the Clan UAC/2 is currently set to 0.14 seconds).
So it would become better at keeping it's damage focused.
4x2 in 4 secs. That's somewhat competitive with the ER PPC too. Good idea.
Maybe 1.5 secs cooldown? That's 12 damage in 4.5 secs but spread out in comparison to the pinpoint damage you get from an ER PPC.
xDust, on 19 May 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:
Maybe increased internal crit chance like MGs? Not sure on what logical grounds, but it's an idea.
Anything is better than what we have now. Logical grounds?
Who needs logic? I'm the one who would settle for cybernetic badgers or rabid bunnies for projectiles.
Remember....Sanity is for the weak.
Anything is better than what we have now. Logical grounds?
Who needs logic? I'm the one who would settle for cybernetic badgers or rabid bunnies for projectiles.
Remember....Sanity is for the weak.
I guess my point with that comment was actually 'not sure why it would be accepted as a change'.
Maybe I should've mentioned that part of my rationale was that it's a fast-firing, low-damage ballistic, that in its current iteration has a singular purpose- quickly delivered low damage. Which is... not great. The MG is almost the same thing, but a more extreme example, so why not the AC/2?
They are mostly made useless by their ridiculous heat rate gain. Get rid of that and reduce their shake and they'd be in a mostly usable place, still kind of useless compared to the ac5 but at least usable.
Ammo count would have to be doubled (at least) because you're firing 2 slugs at a time. This is the same effect that we already see with Clan UACs.
For cooldown, it would have to be at least double to maintain the DPS. But since we have doubled upfront damage (2x2 burst), actually lowering the DPS might be fair. The cooldown wouldn't get any longer than 2.0 seconds (which would give you about 2.0 DPS, which fits Paul's AC normalization scheme). The slower firing rate would indirectly reduce the heat output, too.
Doubled ammo count. Check. Paul's AC normalization scheme? I forgot that stuff....oh dear.
Pardon me for a moment while i go get infected with rabies so i can take the next plane to Canada to bite Paul.
sycocys, on 19 May 2015 - 11:39 AM, said:
They are mostly made useless by their ridiculous heat rate gain. Get rid of that and reduce their shake and they'd be in a mostly usable place, still kind of useless compared to the ac5 but at least usable.
We're currently trying to find a way around the 3.6 secs facetime necessary to do 10 damage in comparison to the ER PPC instant 10 damage.
Getting reduced shake, smaller explosions, firing flash and less heat can only take us so far with the current AC2.
no. machineguns in games are treated as infantry machineguns. AC means AUTOCANNON.
It's a small calibre cannon, like a 50.8mm caliber cannon. machineguns got their muzzle speed, AC2 got his way higher one. a flying 2000 m/s AC2 bullet, should have a considerable kinetic energy in it, so should do his 2 point of damage, should fire FAST, shouldnt heat like a damn beam.
removing ghost heat improved it a bit, it now needs his heat halved, a bit less screen shake. that's all.
because a DPS weapon that's so hot you cant do any DPS (since you sacrifice ALL your alpha).
muzzle speed is good and makes it a good accurate weapon. i would just start lowering heat and screen shake, test it, patch the live game for it and see the numbers.
THEN we could go forward or step back.
I mean that in the sense AC2s are for suppressing...not for out right killling power.
Because it weights 2 tons less, has less than half the frontloaded damage, and will still run hotter.
Last I checked weighing less is an advantage, and you also forgot that AC2 takes up considerably less space as well as having better ammo per ton.
I don't see how having less frontloaded damage justifies a large DPS advantage over a heavier gun on top of its other advantages already mentioned. Obviously you don't just ignore its lesser frontloaded damage, but you don't ignore its other advantages either and then buff those advantages even further on top of lowering heat just because of that 1 factor.
You say it would still run hotter, are you complaining that even with half heat it would have 0.695 heat per second compared to 0.6 heat per second with the AC5? If that's such an issue, which I don't really see how it is, then the heat can be lowered even further.
Quote
AC5 was more effective than the AC2 back when it had 4 DPS, and will remain more effective.
Because just like it is now the AC2 ran way too hot. Ignoring this is stupid.
Quote
You're using the same argument Paul used...which is a terrible one, I might add.
Explain why it's a terrible argument to think it's excessive to have 4 DPS, less than 1 heat, and 3,000 m/s projectile speed on AC2. Why would anybody even use AC5 if AC2 had such ridiculous stats?
Spleenslitta, on 19 May 2015 - 10:32 AM, said:
I compared the AC2 with the ER LL and ER PPC because they have similar weight and range in both Clan and IS.
Both Clan/IS ER PPC weighs the same as Clan/IS AC2+1 ton of ammo.
ER LL is a damage per second weapon and if we increased AC2 firerate to for example 1 shot per 0.25 secs it would be like this.
5x0.25 = 1.25 secs for 10 damage. Same time as an IS ER LL burntime for 9 damage.
It balances out.
It balances out if you completely ignore the heat discrepancy and hence almost the entire point of my post there.
Quote
If that is not good enough look at the Burst Fire Limitations i mentioned in the lower part of my original post.
Lower heat on the AC2 is not enough to make it a weapon capable of competing with an ER PPC.
That's funny because the biggest reason other ballistics are more desirable is their low heat, particularly when you pair it up with some lasers or even PPCs as we've seen happen multiple times.
FupDup, on 19 May 2015 - 11:11 AM, said:
Ammo count would have to be doubled (at least) because you're firing 2 slugs at a time. This is the same effect that we already see with Clan UACs.
Except the reason that Clan UACs get higher ammo is they fire more pellets to deal the same damage as their IS counterpart, so it's effectively the same ammo per ton.
LocationEndor, exterminating little evil bear people for the Empire.
Posted 19 May 2015 - 12:08 PM
Proposed AC2 changes:
0.2 heat per shot(80% reduced from 1.0)
3.0t weight(50% reduced from 6.0)
540m(max 1080) range(25% reduced from 720)
1200m/s velocity(40% slowed down from 2000)
0.019 impulse(50% reduced from 0.038)
Results:
Allows an additional 3 tonnes of ammo compared to the previous version.
A viable sustained damage weapon.
A viable low effect ballistic weapon to fill the gap between MG and AC5.
Less intrusive to enemy counter action.
Requires more lead time at range and becomes less of a point and click weapon like lasers, taking on a more natural ballistics behaviour.
Adopts a more limited medium range use to fall in line with its siblings.
Proposed Machine gun changes:
360m(max 720) range(200% increase from 120)
0.012 damage(50% increase from 0.08)
1.0t weight(100% increase from 0.5)
1000 ammo per ton(50% reduction from 2000).
700m/s velocity(600% increase from 100)
Results:
Becomes a more practical supplementary weapon for many mechs like low tier lasers are.
Actually requires some fitting consideration.
No longer bound to point blank face to face engagements only.
Proposed AC5 changes:
6.0t weight(20% reduced from 8.0)
Results:
The weapon now more reasonably justifies fitting costs to the superior capabilities of the UAC5 at 9.0t.
Proposed UAC5 changes:
Double fire and jam mechanic is removed.
New mechanic introduced, "Rapid fire", every second the weapon is active it increases ROF by 10.0%, up to a maximum of 50% after 5 seconds, when the weapon is disengaged "Rapid fire" will reduce with 25% every second back to 0%.
Results:
Chance based mechanics are eliminated and reliable use of the UAC is attained with an interesting mechanic.
Disclaimer: Values are estimations, directions and placeholders to show concept intention, not to be considered exact end result implementation figures.
Explain why it's a terrible argument to think it's excessive to have 4 DPS, less than 1 heat, and 3,000 m/s projectile speed on AC2. Why would anybody even use AC5 if AC2 had such ridiculous stats?
Because they are bad weapons. They will be bad weapons.
DPS is bad compared to FLD, or burst damage. The AC2 would need to do considerably more damage to even be considered better than the AC5. 3 DPS VS 4 DPS sounds excessive, but so is 2 damage VS 5 damage. For less heat.
The AC2 requires 2.5 heat for every 1 heat the AC5 deals.
Lot's of thoughtfull stuff you thought long about.
Good stuff SOL Ranger. Unfortunatly i think PGI won't allow lower weight no matter how good your points are.
They say something about how it would break the stock loadouts for the mechs. Poor excuse by PGI but it's what they gave us...
I'd use the AC2 if it weighed 3 tonns for sure.
Pjwned, on 19 May 2015 - 08:38 AM, said:
Reduce AC2 heat by at least half and it will see a lot more use.
Pjwned. If the AC2 was to be fixed by lowering the heat to about 1/2 like you said would you concider it capable of competing with other weapons with the same tonnage?
If you would find it a usefull weapon that is good. I don't agree but i'll keep trying to find other solutions.
I want as many different opinions as possible. Even the ones i disagree with like yours.
Because they are bad weapons. They will be bad weapons.
DPS is bad compared to FLD, or burst damage. The AC2 would need to do considerably more damage to even be considered better than the AC5. 3 DPS VS 4 DPS sounds excessive, but so is 2 damage VS 5 damage. For less heat.
The AC2 requires 2.5 heat for every 1 heat the AC5 deals.
I am now thoroughly convinced that frontloaded damage is the only thing that matters in every situation ever.
Spleenslitta, on 19 May 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:
Pjwned. If the AC2 was to be fixed by lowering the heat to about 1/2 like you said would you concider it capable of competing with other weapons with the same tonnage?
If it ran at less than 1/3 heat per second generated compared to C-ERLL, and less than 1/6 when compared to (C-)ER PPC? Yes, I would find it useful compared to weapons of similar tonnage because packing in heat efficient ballistics along with less heat efficient energy weapons is a solid strategy and that has been proven true many times now.
Quote
If you would find it a usefull weapon that is good. I don't agree but i'll keep trying to find other solutions.
I want as many different opinions as possible. Even the ones i disagree with like yours.
It's fine to disagree, but I find it extremely irritating if you flagrantly ignore my point about less heat generation and just say "it's not good enough to have less heat" and not explain why at all. Makes me not think very highly of your opinions.
Frankly, even if they reduced the AC/2 to literally 0.0 heat, I would still have a hard time justifying its tonnage in most of my loadouts. The damage is just so piddly for what you pay, along with the associated facetime issues you need in order to make use of the on-paper DPS.
Heat can be a part of the solution, but I wouldn't expect heat alone to magically make the AC/2 a nice gun.
It's fine to disagree, but I find it extremely irritating if you flagrantly ignore my point about less heat generation and just say "it's not good enough to have less heat" and not explain why at all. Makes me not think very highly of your opinions.
It's not good enough because....hmmm. Let me make an example.
Imagine 2 light mechs are facing each other at long range with cover nearby.
Mech A has 1 ER PPC and mech B has 1 AC2 to keep things simple.
Mech A only needs to shoot once to get 10 damage before he gets back into cover.
Mech B might get 2-3 shots depending on how quick A is to get back into cover with damage spreading all over the target.
It's pretty obvious who has the odds on his side to win right?
There is only one way for mech B to win get better odds.
That is to get within close range and keep firing while mech A overheats quickly.
But even then the damage from the AC2 will be spread all over while they brawl.
Mech A only has to look for mistakes in mech B's movement, pick his shots carefully and be patient so he doesn't overheat.
It's not good enough because....hmmm. Let me make an example.
Imagine 2 light mechs are facing each other at long range with cover nearby.
Mech A has 1 ER PPC and mech B has 1 AC2 to keep things simple.
Mech A only needs to shoot once to get 10 damage before he gets back into cover.
Mech B might get 2-3 shots depending on how quick A is to get back into cover with damage spreading all over the target.
It's pretty obvious who has the odds on his side to win right?
There is only one way for mech B to win get better odds.
That is to get within close range and keep firing while mech A overheats quickly.
But even then the damage from the AC2 will be spread all over while they brawl.
Mech A only has to look for mistakes in mech B's movement, pick his shots carefully and be patient so he doesn't overheat.
I think you underestimate how much damage mech B would be dealing in that situation while mech A is trying to "pick their shots carefully" on top of shooting infrequently enough so that they don't overheat. Additionally, that's not even a very good hypothetical situation because mech B could take advantage of their much lower heat generation with AC2 to add more weapons while mech A would need to add more heatsinks instead to have a comparably reasonable level of heat.
FupDup, on 19 May 2015 - 12:43 PM, said:
Frankly, even if they reduced the AC/2 to literally 0.0 heat, I would still have a hard time justifying its tonnage in most of my loadouts. The damage is just so piddly for what you pay, along with the associated facetime issues you need in order to make use of the on-paper DPS.
Heat can be a part of the solution, but I wouldn't expect heat alone to magically make the AC/2 a nice gun.
Its tonnage would be far less of an issue if you didn't have to add multiple heat sinks to every decent AC2 build to keep it reasonably cool.
It's not good enough because....hmmm. Let me make an example.
Imagine 2 light mechs are facing each other at long range with cover nearby.
Mech A has 1 ER PPC and mech B has 1 AC2 to keep things simple.
Mech A only needs to shoot once to get 10 damage before he gets back into cover.
Mech B might get 2-3 shots depending on how quick A is to get back into cover with damage spreading all over the target.
It's pretty obvious who has the odds on his side to win right?
There is only one way for mech B to win get better odds.
That is to get within close range and keep firing while mech A overheats quickly.
But even then the damage from the AC2 will be spread all over while they brawl.
Mech A only has to look for mistakes in mech B's movement, pick his shots carefully and be patient so he doesn't overheat.
I see the ac2 more of a paired with lasers type weapon. Fire the beam, and as many shells while the beam fires, then duck back in. The [ER]PPC wouldn't mesh well with it ever because of the low damage per shell, but if you're using, say an ERLL/LPL, you could throw in a (on paper) low heat barrage while the beams fire out. Problem is it heats up almost worse then the lasers it should be supplementing xD
I say remove shake AND explosion effects, refire time at .4 seconds base(5 shells in 2 seconds for 10 damage is probably the max anyone would be face taking before they want cover, heat @ 1/2 current (5 shells in 2 seconds would still be 2.5 heat) with no GH, or IF* GH is needed again, keep it at 5+.
To over board?
3
Mcgral18, on 19 May 2015 - 10:50 AM, said:
