20 replies to this topic

[Cementi]

The weight. It is flat out too heavy as pretty much any mech that can spare 6 tons for a ballistic can probally find a way to squeeze in an AC 5 at only 2 tons heavier. I always felt this way for the tabletop game as well.

IS AC2 6 tons for 2 damage vs IS AC5 8 tons for 5 damage
IS AC2 with 1 ton of ammo is the same as a IS Large Pulse Laser

Why would you run the AC2?

So why not back off it's weight to say 3 tons. Make it a viable option for a light mech instead of MG's. Two of them would put them at just lighter than an AC5 and just a little less damage. Obviously the fire rate would have to be backed off but I really think this would make them an option.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Cementi, on 17 November 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

The weight. It is flat out too heavy as pretty much any mech that can spare 6 tons for a ballistic can probally find a way to squeeze in an AC 5 at only 2 tons heavier. I always felt this way for the tabletop game as well.

IS AC2 6 tons for 2 damage vs IS AC5 8 tons for 5 damage
IS AC2 with 1 ton of ammo is the same as a IS Large Pulse Laser

Why would you run the AC2?

So why not back off it's weight to say 3 tons. Make it a viable option for a light mech instead of MG's. Two of them would put them at just lighter than an AC5 and just a little less damage. Obviously the fire rate would have to be backed off but I really think this would make them an option.

The AC/2 has 2 distinct advantages.

1. Much faster velocity makes shots easier to land.
2. Longer range.

Combine those two, and AC/2 works better in the 600-900m range, especially against moving targets.
If the enemy is that far away, you might be able to cool down for a bit between volleys.


There is a third, secret advantage to the AC/2...


FUNAWESOMENESS!


(P.S. The AC/5 is more combat-viable, though)

Edited by Prosperity Park, 17 November 2015 - 07:42 PM.

[Fox With A Shotgun]

If the AC2 were to be only 3 or 4 tons, it may actually be worth using. Right now, it's a weapon stuck in a paradox.

You need the weight for ballistics. There's no questioning that. Lots of ammo, heavy weapon - therefore, you need a bigger mech. But if you have a bigger mech, you would rather have a big, punchy AC20 or AC10 instead of an AC2. Better DPS/HPS.

Then comes the question of facetime. AC2 requires you to pretty much stare at the enemy for it to deal any sizable damage. At close range, this is an issue because you will be spreading damage all over the enemy mech while they get to nail you in CT every single time. At long range, you won't get that much time to spam dakka all over the enemy before they find cover, or are walking in rough enough terrain to dodge your shells simply by bobbing up and down. This makes big ACs better at close range, and gauss infinitely better at long range.

Even with reduced heat per shot, the AC2 with its fire rate actually runs fairly hot for what it does. Even with the crit chance improvements, it still doesn't destroy components as reliably as an AC10 because its damage is spread over multiple internals. There's just no good reason to use this weapon, even with the current buffs. Light mechs would still prefer wubs, heavier mechs want more dakka.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Yup, AC2s should be lighter. Even a ton less would help. Right now, only the BJ1 can use it somewhat effectively, due to quirks.

[L3mming2]

making them lighter probably aint gona happen, but they could be made viable as a pure dps weapon if they get a 0.5s cd and 0.5 heat, at those numbers they might be able to conpeed with the ac5 (fore some builds at least)

[l33tworks]

While i agree its too heavy, changing the weight of it is very difficult, almost impossible.

What they can do however is increase the ammo/ton count so you only need to take 1-2 tons of ammo.

This is effectively the same as reducing the weight of the weapon without actually breaking anything.

Maybe you can tweet russ just say how about a AC/2 ammo/ton increase the same as they did for the lb10x

Edited by l33tworks, 18 November 2015 - 04:25 AM.

[SpiralFace]

Weight isn't going to change due to canon load outs (as this is a licensed product.)

That being said, its efficiency is TERRIBLE for what you get. And it has more to do with the heat then anything else.

You see, for a weapon that is meant to be the rapid fire "dakka" option, its actually the ONLY AC weapon that actually is WORSE in heat efficiency per second then its contemporaries. On live right now, the AC 2 actually accumulates similar heat per second to an AC 10.

For a weapon that REVOLVES around sustained firepower, this is TERRIBLE.

Even with a heat reduction to .8, you are still seeing it as a less effective option to the AC 5 on a heat per second level, thus limiting how much sustained fire you can hold on the weapons. On a Heat-per-second level, the AC 2 is terrible. Which given its current status in the game, will still keep it in the useless pile even with these changes.

What it REALLY needs is for its heat to be reduced to .5. This actually puts its heat per second at comparable levels to an AC5. Making it essentially a lighter, more rapid firing AC5 to use for smaller mechs. The fact that it is a weapon that revolves around sustained fire, but is terrible at doing it due to its heat efficiency is the real reason it will stay on the useless pile.

[MrKvola]

For me it is the heat, not the weight - I tried to run 6xAC2 on a Mauler MX90 - for fun. It overheats before being able to put down some serious damage. Run 5xAC5 and it does not. Applies to all other possible ballistics platforms.

[DerMaulwurf]

The AC/2 used to be a viable weapon. No, really.

Back in the day it had a higher RoF, giving it by far the best dps per ton of any ballistic weapon. Yet, its mediocre heat efficiency and need for constant LoS maintained internal balance with the far more heat efficient AC/5. Quad or tripple AC/2 were okay builds, but never dominated.

Then PGI nerfed it by Ghost Heat, cutting its range and cutting its dps.

They already reversed ghost heat. And I am fairly certain that reversing the other ones won't even be enough, since the dps of top builds has moved beyond where it was during the heyday of the AC/2. But it would be a start.

Edited by DerMaulwurf, 18 November 2015 - 08:49 AM.

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Cementi, on 17 November 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

Why would you run the AC2?

Believe it or not, with the reduced heat it puts out on PTS, the ac2 is worth taking on certain mechs. As has already been pointed out, it is the second longest range ballistic in the game, next to the Gauss Rifle. Very fast velocity so it is very accurate, and with the reduction to heat, its not as hot anymore. No one wants to get hammered by 3-4 ac2's hitting you, amazing suppression fire.

AC5 weighs 8 tons and takes up 5 critical slots. ac2 only takes up 1 critical slot. Believe it or not, on IS mechs with limited space, it is a nice advantage over the ac5, it allows you to fit more heatsinks or ammo when you otherwise couldent. Shaving off 2 tons for each ac2 you equip over an ac5 saves you tonnage that can go into a faster engine.

Triple ac2 ac5 Jager was already a decent heavy, now with the better quirks and reduced ac2 heat, it will be even better.

The BJ1 with 2 ac2 and 4 meds was a tier 1 mech, few people knew about it or played it, they were too busy with the BJ1X, which was also a tier 1 mech, they overlooked it.

Sadly, I think the BJ1 quirks changed and they got rid of the heat gen so that build wont be as good.

Edited by Alwrath, 18 November 2015 - 08:59 AM.

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

MrKvola, on 18 November 2015 - 07:35 AM, said:

For me it is the heat, not the weight - I tried to run 6xAC2 on a Mauler MX90 - for fun. It overheats before being able to put down some serious damage. Run 5xAC5 and it does not. Applies to all other possible ballistics platforms.

You need to try 4 ac2 2uac5 on the Mauler, the build is actually really good. Once the reduced ac2 heat goes live this build will be solid.

[Jman5]

I don't think it's feasible to adjust weight of the weapon itself. I think the best solution to reduce overall weight without breaking things is to increase the ammo/ton.

75 -> 100

This improves weight efficiency by 0.5 - 1 ton per ac/2 and makes it 1 slot smaller.

[Big Tin Man]

Before ballistics range was nerfed across the board, AC 2 was in a good place for long range suppression with a fast rate of fire that would hit and do actual damage. My 2xAC2 AC5 shadowhawk was fun to run back then, and I was pulling 600-800 dmg games.

AC2 still needs its range back, and could stand to run cooler overall. More ammo per ton wouldn't hurt either.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I consider it too hot with the 0.8 heat per shot.

The AC/2 generates 0.4 heat per damage. The AC/5 generates 0.2 heat per damage.

It's still 100% hotter than AC/5 and 33% hotter than AC/10 (0.3 heat per damage). I mean, the difference between sustained AC/5 fire and AC/2 fire almost cannot be compensated by heatsinks.

If you have Quad AC/2, then you would need to carry 36 DHS to make it heat-neutral (10 true dubs in engine and 26 poor dubs external)

Quad AC/5 is heat-neutral with 13 DHS (10 engine, 3 external).

You cannot make up for 23 external heatsinks with the tonnage and space savings offered by the AC/2...

Edited by Prosperity Park, 19 November 2015 - 04:06 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

If it's stuck being a sustained fire weapon, than its HPS needs be below that of the AC/5, which is 0.60.

At 0.4 Heat, HPS sits at 0.56 with the current Rate of Fire.

The PTS change that was 0.8 was a step in the right direction, but HPS only went down to 1.11

So some value between, 0.22 to 0.4 is what I'd try to have HPS be between 0.3 to 0.56

---

Otherwise, if we can, I'd like to have AC/2s deal more damage per projectile and function more as a pocket sniper.

So the trade-off is raising Damage per Projectile and reducing DPS. And a frame of reference for such a test is comparing two AC/2s against one AC/10 or even Gauss. Where the most damage would be between 4 to 5 damage each bullet, and DPS for each cannon is in the range of 1.75 or 2.00. Cooldown could be around the range of 2.00 to 2.50.

[Lunatic_Asylum]

My 6xAC2 Jagermech has never had any problems with alpha-firing all of the time! However, running an AC/2 locust might be a problem owing to the speed of the lightest 'Mech.

[Wibbledtodeath]

Its the test server- PGI try out AC2 at .4heat, same rof and increased ammo count. Still wont replace AC5 (let alone UAC5), won't but may be viable for light and medium mechs, and wont cause dakkageddon to be inflicted on the masses.

While your at it fix MG's.

Without this or quirks ballistics slots in lights and meds (even smaller 60t heavies) are wasted (unless uber buffs are applied)- and hence balancing via quirks prior to fixing these weapons is pointless.

[Adamski]

If they bring AC2 heat down to 0.6 per shot, then it has the same Damage:Heat profile as the AC10 & AC20, while still being less heat efficient than the AC5 and Gauss.

That is all that would be needed to make the AC2 viable.

The AC2 already has an excellent DPS:tonnage:crit ratio, as soon as it no longer generates so much heat it will be a viable gun.

[Lorginir]

I'd suggest bringing fitting profile to 2s/4t and heat to 0.3 per shot. Maybe some increase in projectile speed.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

I'd be really really happy with AC2s if they just fired faster and had a cooldown module. Getting off 3 AC2 rounds a second instead of the current 1.5 or so would be nice. I'm not asking for a direct full 50% increase in rof, but more like a 25% increase then with the 12% from a cooldown module, and the 5% from fast fire, and then some mech quirks or something, it becomes possible.

Just think of a triple AC2 Dragon instead of a dual AC5. All that DPS just waiting to be used. It wouldn't really be overpowered due to high heat and requiring ammo. AC5s would become the gun that alphas harder, is more ammo efficient, runs much much cooler, but would have less DPS.