74 replies to this topic

[Spleenslitta]

This thread is about how gathering all the usefull opinions on how we can balance the IS/Clan AC2's.
Let's use the IS/Clan ER LL/ ER PPC as measuring sticks since they are somewhat similar in weight and range.
Here is a link to the Smurfy weapon stats for easy referance.
http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/equipment

These are all the problems i've heard for all the AC2's.
- Constant stream of explosions effectivly blinds the target.
- Target get shaken a lot. Especially by the UAC2.
- Firing flashes and big explosions on the target hinders the aim of the user. Especialy at longer ranges.
- Long facetime (3.6 secs) to inflict 10 damage. Half that for Clan UAC2 if it doesn't jam.
- Quite high heat to damage ratio for an AC.
- Heavy for it's low power.
- Some say it needs more shells per tonn of ammo.

I think the firing flash, explosion size and the shaking has to be toned down.
Not just for our opponents sake but our own too.
Firing flashes alone could give someone epileptic seizures the way it is right now.

I don't think lowering heat per shot is the only thing necessary to fix the AC2.
The facetime of 3.6 secs to inflict 10 damage is the biggest problem i think.
Sure it has slightly better dps than an ER PPC but the damage would be all spread and the enemy would respond by then.
While the ER PPC can get 10 instant damage and get back behind cover.

Instead of lower heat how about making the cooldown (firerate) faster?
It would become a weapon best used in bursts to keep cool.

Right now the AC2 has a firerate of 1 shot per 0.72 secs.
5x0.72 = 3.6 secs for 10 damage.
Any of these sound fair for all the AC2's instead? (UAC2 gets that doubleshot thingie in addition to this.)
A) 5x0.35 secs= 1.75 secs for 10 damage.
B ) 5x0.30 secs= 1.5 secs for 10 damage.
C) 5x0.25 secs= 1.25 secs for 10 damage.

I like the C alternative best because it pulls even with the IS ER LLs burntime for almost the same amount of damage.
Many would say it would do 30 damage in 3.75 secs which is too overpowered, but i got a possible solution to that below titled Burst Fire Limitations(BFL).
If BFL is not good enough the other alternatives are decent too.

With this the AC2 would be colder to fire than an IS ER LL, have the option to keep firing past the 10 damage.
But in return it's still heavier and it would become a devourer of ammunition.

Anyone standing still and just taking such a barrage all on the CT for the full 1.25 secs would take nearly the same amount of damage from an ER LL.

UAC2 would get the same cooldown but with the doubleshot it's firerate would be 1 shot per 0.125 secs.
But the jamming keeps it unreliable, the ammunition and the heat demands would be high too.

Others say lowering weight is the way to go.
But we would still be saddled with that facetime of 3.6 secs to inflict 10 damage if we went down that road.
Besides it seems PGI wants to stick to the lore as much as they can.

Burst Fire Limitations.
Let's say we get a limitation on how many shots we can fire within 4 secs (ER PPC cooldown) with an AC2.
For example. If i fire a burst of 5 shots within 3-4 secs i get a 4 secs cooldown till my next burst.

UAC2 could get double the number of shots before the cooldown kicks in to keep that extra firerate meaningfull.
Or it could be exempted from BFL completly since it has the jamming chaining it down allready.

Is there anyone out there who actually wants the AC2 to be concidered an rival the ER PPC/ER LL?
If so give me some suggestions for how the AC2 could be improved.

Please provide some answers beyond-
AC2s are only supposed to be anti aircraft weapons.
AC2 is supposed to suck.
Lower the heat to 0.5 and its fixed.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 19 May 2015 - 08:51 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

The whole point of ballistics in MWO is to sacrifice weight, space and infinite number of shots for the sake of either high instant pinpoint damage (AC20) or low heat (AC5) or something in between (AC10).

If the weapon isn't cold enough, or doesn't do enough pinpoint damage, then there's no synergy with lasers and missiles. If there's no synergy, it will only ever be useful on a few one-trick ponies, like the 3xAC2 Shadow Hawk or 6xAC2 King Crab.

Since the AC2 will always lack instant pinpoint damage, I think low heat is non-negotiable. Now, I do think reducing cooldown is a valid approach, but then it should be more about suppressive fire than high heat DPS. People will tell you that screenshake is bad, but we already have chain-firing Clan LRMs and Clan UACs, so I don't see why that argument should only apply to the Inner Sphere.

Moreover, low heat is the only thing that will ever make the AC2 a viable choice for low tonnage mechs (e.g. Blackjack, which comes with 2xAC2 + lasers as stock armament), because low tonnage mechs in MWO don't get truedubs. Lighter mechs need ballistics too. When you deny light and low medium mechs ballistics, you just end up with more laservomit.

[Spleenslitta]

Alistair Winter, on 19 May 2015 - 08:10 AM, said:

The whole point of ballistics in MWO is to sacrifice weight, space and infinite number of shots for the sake of either high instant pinpoint damage (AC20) or low heat (AC5) or something in between (AC10).

If the weapon isn't cold enough, or doesn't do enough pinpoint damage, then there's no synergy with lasers and missiles. If there's no synergy, it will only ever be useful on a few one-trick ponies, like the 3xAC2 Shadow Hawk or 6xAC2 King Crab.

Since the AC2 will always lack instant pinpoint damage, I think low heat is non-negotiable. Now, I do think reducing cooldown is a valid approach, but then it should be more about suppressive fire than high heat DPS. People will tell you that screenshake is bad, but we already have chain-firing Clan LRMs and Clan UACs, so I don't see why that argument should only apply to the Inner Sphere.

Moreover, low heat is the only thing that will ever make the AC2 a viable choice for low tonnage mechs (e.g. Blackjack, which comes with 2xAC2 + lasers as stock armament), because low tonnage mechs in MWO don't get truedubs. Lighter mechs need ballistics too. When you deny light and low medium mechs ballistics, you just end up with more laservomit.

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?

[LordKnightFandragon]

Make screen shake based on caliber.

AC2 is what? A 50mm shell? idk how much a 2inch diameter shell is going to rock a machine the size of a 2s building.....so, reduce screen shake, but let it fire quickly.

AC2 is not a very good anti mech weapon anyway. Im sure its purpose is more for light vehicles, maybe anti infantry or ANti Air since planes and men dont take hits well.

In a Mech only type of game, they likely will never truly be any good. We dont need to artifically inflate damage or any of that in a bid to make them good. BJ gets 2? BJ is a support mech, so likely its for covering bigger mechs who pack the heavy firepower, keep them clear of enemies, suppress with simple shells flying at the enemy.

AC2 is like the machinegun of a WWII Infantry squad.

[Spleenslitta]

LordKnightFandragon, on 19 May 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

Make screen shake based on caliber.

AC2 is what? A 50mm shell? idk how much a 2inch diameter shell is going to rock a machine the size of a 2s building.....so, reduce screen shake, but let it fire quickly.

AC2 is not a very good anti mech weapon anyway. Im sure its purpose is more for light vehicles, maybe anti infantry or ANti Air since planes and men dont take hits well.

In a Mech only type of game, they likely will never truly be any good. We dont need to artifically inflate damage or any of that in a bid to make them good. BJ gets 2? BJ is a support mech, so likely its for covering bigger mechs who pack the heavy firepower, keep them clear of enemies, suppress with simple shells flying at the enemy.

AC2 is like the machinegun of a WWII Infantry squad.

Pardon me and i mean no insult when i say that MWO is not exactly a realistic game.
AC2 weighs the same as an ER PPC when you take ammo into concideration. Why should it not be capable of competing with that weapon?

Besides its like Alistair Winter said.

Alistair Winter, on 19 May 2015 - 08:10 AM, said:

Lighter mechs need ballistics too.
When you deny light and low medium mechs ballistics, you just end up with more laservomit.

The AC2 is supposed to be another ballistic weapon that could be used effectivly by light mechs without sacrifising much tonnage for the engine.
I use an ER PPC on my Firestarter and it's decent. Why should i not have a decent alternative to it with the AC2 too?

Edited by Spleenslitta, 19 May 2015 - 08:37 AM.

[Pjwned]

Reduce AC2 heat by at least half and it will see a lot more use.

[Corrado]

LordKnightFandragon, on 19 May 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

cut

AC2 is like the machinegun of a WWII Infantry squad.

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.

[Spleenslitta]

Pjwned, on 19 May 2015 - 08:38 AM, said:

Reduce AC2 heat by at least half and it will see a lot more use.

Yes but we would still have the 3.6 secs facetime to do 10 damage.
Please take a look at the Clan ER LL for a moment. 1.5 secs burn time for 11 damage and the Clanners complain about the long burn time.
Imagine how upset they would be if that weapon had 3.6 secs burn time?

Is there anything that else that you think could have a larger impact?
I'm sincere here and i don't mean to insult anyone. Text doesn't convey that very well...please don't get angry at me.

[FupDup]

The ultimate TL;DR about the AC/2 is that its opportunity costs are larger in magnitude than its rewards/outputs. The amount of juice that you put in is more than the amount of juice you get out.


We can solve this by either lowing the opportunity costs, increasing the rewards, or some of both.



For clarity, these items are:

Opportunity Costs/Risks

• Relatively high tonnage (PGI won't touch this)
  
• Ammo requirements
  
• More heat than most other ballistics
  
• Facetime

Rewards

• Long range
  
• The DPS value for its weight isn't too bad compared to other ACs...but remember that its upfront damage is so tiny (2.0)
  
• I guess it still makes less heat than most energy choices?

Edited by FupDup, 19 May 2015 - 08:57 AM.

[Spleenslitta]

Corrado, on 19 May 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

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.

Good call about the slow approach. Just doing things fast is not the best way to go.
But if you wanted to increase the firerate to bring down facetime what would you say is fair?

[theta123]

Corrado, on 19 May 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

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.

Autocannons usually begin Above 15mm

Just saying...

[MeiSooHaityu]

Alistair Winter, on 19 May 2015 - 08:10 AM, said:

Moreover, low heat is the only thing that will ever make the AC2 a viable choice for low tonnage mechs (e.g. Blackjack, which comes with 2xAC2 + lasers as stock armament), because low tonnage mechs in MWO don't get truedubs. Lighter mechs need ballistics too. When you deny light and low medium mechs ballistics, you just end up with more laservomit.

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).

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.

What we REALLY need in this game is either better MGs, lighter A/C2, or an A/C1 of some type. Neither really seem likely.

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) :/.

[Mcgral18]

Revert the AC2 to 4DPS (it really didn't need that 30% damage nerf).

Decrease heat (to offset that RoF increase)


Increase c(u)AC2 to 3000 M/s. Do that for all cACs (travel speed related to shell damage, in comparison to isACs. Not a 4 damage shell travel the same as a 20 damage shell)

[Spleenslitta]

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).

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.

What we REALLY need in this game is either better MGs, lighter A/C2, or an A/C1 of some type. Neither really seem likely.

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) :/.

This is partially true.

Like i said i used a single UAC2 with 2 tons of ammo on my Kit Fox instead of my ER PPC.
I still had room for ECM, 6 JJ's, 3x MG's with 1 ton of ammo and 1 CERML, 2x CERSML for backup.
It was barelly enough ammo for a medium long match. If the shells per ton was higher it would do much better.

If players can do well with an AC5, UAC5, AC10 or even a Gauss in a light mech then there is most certainly room for the AC2.

Sorry for the late reply. Maintenance on the forums cut me out

[Pjwned]

Spleenslitta, on 19 May 2015 - 08:44 AM, said:

Yes but we would still have the 3.6 secs facetime to do 10 damage.
Please take a look at the Clan ER LL for a moment. 1.5 secs burn time for 11 damage and the Clanners complain about the long burn time.
Imagine how upset they would be if that weapon had 3.6 secs burn time?

Is there anything that else that you think could have a larger impact?
I'm sincere here and i don't mean to insult anyone. Text doesn't convey that very well...please don't get angry at me.

The difference, aside from comparing ballistics vs. lasers which are not really all that similar in the first place, is that C-ERLL would run more than 3x as hot if AC2 had its heat lowered to where it should be.

That's a big difference, what else would AC2 need on top of that?

Mcgral18, on 19 May 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

Revert the AC2 to 4DPS (it really didn't need that 30% damage nerf).

Decrease heat (to offset that RoF increase)


Increase c(u)AC2 to 3000 M/s. Do that for all cACs (travel speed related to shell damage, in comparison to isACs. Not a 4 damage shell travel the same as a 20 damage shell)

That seems excessive, why should the AC2 do more DPS than AC5 and have lower heat on top of already having higher range and projectile speed and then increasing it further?

[Spleenslitta]

Pjwned, on 19 May 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

The difference, aside from comparing ballistics vs. lasers which are not really all that similar in the first place, is that C-ERLL would run more than 3x as hot if AC2 had its heat lowered to where it should be.

That's a big difference, what else would AC2 need on top of that?

That seems excessive, why should the AC2 do more DPS than AC5 and have lower heat on top of already having higher range and projectile speed and then increasing it further?

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.

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.

[Mcgral18]

Pjwned, on 19 May 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

That seems excessive, why should the AC2 do more DPS than AC5 and have lower heat on top of already having higher range and projectile speed and then increasing it further?

Because it weights 2 tons less, has less than half the frontloaded damage, and will still run hotter.


AC5 was more effective than the AC2 back when it had 4 DPS, and will remain more effective.

You're using the same argument Paul used...which is a terrible one, I might add.

[Spleenslitta]

Mcgral18, on 19 May 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

Because it weights 2 tons less, has less than half the frontloaded damage, and will still run hotter.


AC5 was more effective than the AC2 back when it had 4 DPS, and will remain more effective.

You're using the same argument Paul used...which is a terrible one, I might add.

Hmmm... we got some opinions about firerate and lower heat.Does anyone have any other ideas?
Boosting the shells per ton would help the UAC2 somewhat, but the other AC2's need something more too.
Boosting shell velocity is good for it's long range abilities but it doesn't help with it's facetime problem.

What do you think of my Burst Fire Limitations idea? It prevents the AC2 from becoming overpowered through increased firerate.
Yeah....i know. AC2 overpowered through firerate? Sounds like i'm high or something.

Example below.
Let's say we get a limitation on how many shots we can fire within 4 secs (ER PPC cooldown) with an AC2.
For example. If i fire a burst of 5 shots within 3-4 secs i get a 4 secs cooldown till my next burst.

UAC2 could get double the number of shots before the cooldown kicks in to keep that extra firerate meaningfull.
Or it could be exempted from BFL completly since it has the jamming chaining it down allready.

[Mcgral18]

Spleenslitta, on 19 May 2015 - 10:44 AM, said:

Example below.
Let's say we get a limitation on how many shots we can fire within 4 secs (ER PPC cooldown) with an AC2.
For example. If i fire a burst of 5 shots within 3-4 secs i get a 4 secs cooldown till my next burst.

UAC2 could get double the number of shots before the cooldown kicks in to keep that extra firerate meaningfull.
Or it could be exempted from BFL completly since it has the jamming chaining it down allready.

I would say keep it simple.

Change the normal stats until it's an effective weapon. Keep it cool, as small ACs should be.

[FupDup]

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.