17 replies to this topic

[Generic Internetter]

I normally avoid ballistics on light mechs because (other than machine guns) the lightest ballistic weapon is the AC/2 at 6 tons. Due to this being relatively high tonnage for a light mech, I see many variants of light mechs equipped with an AC/2 or similar, with only 1 ton of ammo (which gives only 150 damage).

Put simply: 7 tons to apply 150 damage is not worth it. This renders ballistic light mech variants obsolete, in favour of laser and missle variants.

"But what about machine guns?"
What about them? I don't like them. If my light mech can carry an AC/2, then why can't I have a better option?

Suggestion:
PLEASE IMPLEMENT THE AC/1

WEIGHT: 4 TONS
DAMAGE: 1
COOLDOWN: 0.4 SECONDS
SHOTS PER TON OF AMMO: 150 (IE: 150 damage, same damage as 1 ton of AC/2 ammo)
RANGE & VELOCITY: Same as AC/2 (?), no need for more

The AC/10 outputs 4 DPS.
The AC/5 outputs 3 DPS.
The AC/2 outputs 2.78 DPS.
The proposed AC/1 at 1 dmg per 0.4 seconds would output 2.5 DPS, falling nicely in line with the "upwards DPS curve".

The proposed 4 ton AC/1 would free up 2 tons (compared to the AC/2) allowing the player to use those tons for ammo, increasing the total loaded from 150 damage to 450 damage. The AC/1 would therefore be much more viable as a light mech main weapon, opening the strategic door for light mechs to use AutoCannons.

This new addition would not negatively affect medium/heavy/assualt mechs, because almost always they would typically use their superior tonnage for larger calibre weapons for the increased DPS.

It's also worth noting that PGI wouldn't need to spend any time reworking variants, because they are already set with AC/2s. If a player wanted to change out for an AC/1, they could purchase the AC/1 and customize their build from there. I always change out weapons on new mechs; This is nothing new.

The proposed AC/1 would not make Machine Guns obsolete, because MGs weigh much less and have better crit % values. This means with the AC/1 implemented, players who prefer the MG can remain satisfied with their choice.

I'm tired of feeling like light mechs are forced to use machine guns as the only viable ballistic option. PGI, please give us the AC/1!


PS: INB4 "LB1-X" jokes.

Edited by Generic Internetter, 18 January 2016 - 10:26 AM.

[Mechteric]

It would be pretty terrible, why not just make the AC/2 actually good rather than a gun that is worse than the AC/2?


Also, such a gun does not exist in the battletech universe which this game is based upon and sticking to.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon


Here's a list for you if you'd like to suggest something that exists:
http://www.sarna.net...Equipment_Lists

[BearFlag]

There's definitely a need for a ballistic weapon intermediate to MG and AC2. The gap is five tons. AC1 is one idea. Another is a Gatling MG. Actually, I just want to hear the Brrrrrrrrp sound.

[Night Thastus]

A weapon even worse than the AC/2? Genius!

/s

Regardless, yes, an intermediate weapon would be nice. They're likely doing a time skip, we'll likely get Light AC/2s and Light AC/5's which are identical in all but range and weight. (Lighter due to shorter barrel, but thus lower range).

But the AC/1 is neither a lore weapon, nor a viable one if the AC/2 is anything to go by.

[SockSlayer]

Since many are concerned with staying with lore, weapons, mechs and all, an AC1 likely won't be showing up. In MW4, there were more than just regular machine guns. They had light machineguns with more range(400m), less damage, and lower tonnage than the regular machinegun(200M). And then there was an heavy machine gun, with more damage, less range and more tonnage. They had more tonnage in mw4, but more damage, and a 0.3 cooldown. But even with this, there was still that gap of tonnage.

So either the AC2 needs to lose about 2 tons off the total current weapon tonnage, or the machinegun needs a damage boost and/or a max range of 400m, especially since the damage and tonnage of the current MWO machine gun, is closer to the light machinegun in mw4, not the regular machinegun from mw4.

Edited by Independence MK2, 18 January 2016 - 04:30 PM.

[Generic Internetter]

CapperDeluxe, on 18 January 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

Here's a list for you if you'd like to suggest something that exists:
http://www.sarna.net...Equipment_Lists

Night Thastus, on 18 January 2016 - 03:41 PM, said:

But the AC/1 is neither a lore weapon, nor a viable one if the AC/2 is anything to go by.

My suggested AC/1 would be at ~90% of the DPS of the AC/2. I'd spend 4 tons on that.

As for lore, well... That's a clear choice of lore over gameplay.
PGI made that choice, so I choose this:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Magshot

Independence MK2, on 18 January 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

So either the AC2 needs to lose about 2 tons off the total current weapon tonnage [...]

Ain't gonna happen, lore or not. For game balance, they're not going to allow the player to replace a 3 DPS weapon with two 2.5 DPS weapons without a tonnage penalty ...Unless they dropped all AC weapons by 2 tons.

Independence MK2, on 18 January 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

[...] or the machinegun needs a damage boost and/or a max range of 400m, especially since the damage and tonnage of the current MWO machine gun, is closer to the light machinegun in mw4, not the regular machinegun from mw4.

If it's good enough for MW4, it's good enough for MWO. Anything to fill the MG-AC/2 tonnage gap!

[Astarot]

Generic Internetter, on 19 January 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

My suggested AC/1 would be at ~90% of the DPS of the AC/2. I'd spend 4 tons on that.

You do know that the reason why they are called AC/(number) is because that based on how much damage they do per hit, AC/2 does two points of damage per hit, AC/5, five points, ectra ectra. You know what that means? An AC/1 would do...that right, one point of damage per hit. I also did a percentage/pattern check and found something interesting. the AC/10 only does 80% of the DPS of an AC/20, but an AC/5 only does 75% of the DPS of an AC/10 and a AC/2 only does 73% of the DPS of an AC/5, following that pattern an that means that an AC/1 would only do 72% dps of an AC/2. Because it first a -20 then a -5 then a -2 so in theory, it would be a -1 if you follow that odd patterning, so that means the DPS of an AC/1 would be 2. which the DPS of an AC/2 is 2.78

then the pattern for AC on tonnage is a 2-4-2-4 system, so following that, one AC/1 would be 2 tons.... Now lets do the match for machine guns

at 2 tons, you can fit 4 machine guns on it, one machine gun has .8 DPS, times that by 4, you get a 3.2 DPS.

[Generic Internetter]

Astarot, on 19 January 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

You do know that the reason why they are called AC/(number) is because that based on how much damage they do per hit, AC/2 does two points of damage per hit, AC/5, five points, ectra ectra. You know what that means? An AC/1 would do...that right, one point of damage per hit.

Yes, I know this of course. It's in the name of the weapon, and in the weapon stats pop-up window.

Astarot, on 19 January 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

I also did a percentage/pattern check and found something interesting. the AC/10 only does 80% of the DPS of an AC/20, but an AC/5 only does 75% of the DPS of an AC/10 and a AC/2 only does 73% of the DPS of an AC/5, following that pattern an that means that an AC/1 would only do 72% dps of an AC/2. Because it first a -20 then a -5 then a -2 so in theory, it would be a -1 if you follow that odd patterning, so that means the DPS of an AC/1 would be 2. which the DPS of an AC/2 is 2.78

then the pattern for AC on tonnage is a 2-4-2-4 system, so following that, one AC/1 would be 2 tons.... Now lets do the match for machine guns

at 2 tons, you can fit 4 machine guns on it, one machine gun has .8 DPS, times that by 4, you get a 3.2 DPS.

AC/20: 5 DPS
AC/10: 4 DPS (80% of AC/20)
AC/5: 3 DPS (75% of AC/10)
AC/2: 2.78 DPS (93% of AC/5)

The percentages jump up and down, so there's no uniform trend to follow there. There is no reason why the theoretical AC/1 couldn't de set at 2.5 DPS, ~90% of the AC/2's DPS.

The established trend for all weapon types is that by simply calculating damage/cooldown, the larger versions do more DPS in a smooth-ish line. Above, we see the line go fairly uniformly from 5 DPS down to 2.78.
Keep in mind that AC/2 cooldown was actually changed recently, so the DPS isn't set in stone or anything.

Likewise for weapon weights, there is no uniform trend to follow; The percentages jump up and down again.

AC/20: 14 tons
AC/10: 12 tons (85% of AC/20)
AC/5: 8 tons (67% of AC/10)
AC/2: 6 tons (75% of AC/5)

So there is no reason why the AC/1 wouldn't be theoretically 4 tons.
On the other hand, if it was 2 tons at 2 DPS as you say, I'd still prefer that over machine guns 99.999% of the time.

Nothing you said disqualifies the AC/1 as a viable idea at 4 tons, 1 damage, 0.4 cooldown.
The only truly reasonable counter-argument I've seen so far in this thread is that the AC/1 doesn't exist in BattleTech lore.

[STEF_]

Generic Internetter, on 18 January 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

I normally avoid ballistics on light mechs because (other than machine guns) the lightest ballistic weapon is the AC/2 at 6 tons. Due to this being relatively high tonnage for a light mech, I see many variants of light mechs equipped with an AC/2 or similar, with only 1 ton of ammo (which gives only 150 damage).

I'm tired of feeling like light mechs are forced to use machine guns as the only viable ballistic option.

I'll put it in a simple way, since you yourself stated that putting ballistic in a light mech is not a good idea.
Your AC1 seems fine for lights....but nope, laser builds in light mechs would be still better than AC1 ones.

Ballistic weapons are good in heavies and assaults.
Too much weight for lights mech, meanwhile lasers have no ammo too.
So implementing a no lore weapon would be useless anyway.
MG was good back in the days....but sadly PGI nerf it to death.
My Ember is still there in the garage..... covered by dust.....

[STEF_]

Generic Internetter, on 20 January 2016 - 07:20 AM, said:

Nothing you said disqualifies the AC/1 as a viable idea at 4 tons, 1 damage, 0.4 cooldown.
The only truly reasonable counter-argument I've seen so far in this thread is that the AC/1 doesn't exist in BattleTech lore.

wth.... 4 tons for 1 (ONE) dmg?

4 tons are a looooooooot of weight for a light mech.
going from 4 ml to 4 dhs, or more engine......

[Greyhart]

I am not really into the lore, so would have no real problem with something being put in. It is very clear that there is a massive gap between MG and AC2 that if it was any other game would not be there.

However I note that an MG that is at least 1ton with ammo does less DPS than a small laser that is 0.5tons and has a total damage cap and is shorter range. That can't be right. it would seem logical to buff a MG to do same DPS as a small laser. If boating is such a problem (I don't think there are the same opportunities to boat ballistics like you can boat lasers) then add in ghost heat for anything over lets say 6 MG.

[Zephonarch II]

I used to use AC2s in MW4. It was a sniping rifle. And a Rotary AC2 was just much better. In mwo, AC2s just don't fire fast enough(fire rate) but the real problem in my opinion is the shots don't fly fast enough. They should just up the firing velocity of is-AC2s.

And because PGI does not make up new mechs, they won't make up a new weapon cause they respect the war-lore of Battletech. To a degree.

Edited by Zephonarch II, 20 January 2016 - 09:08 AM.

[Astarot]

Generic Internetter, on 20 January 2016 - 07:20 AM, said:

Yes, I know this of course. It's in the name of the weapon, and in the weapon stats pop-up window.



AC/20: 5 DPS
AC/10: 4 DPS (80% of AC/20)
AC/5: 3 DPS (75% of AC/10)
AC/2: 2.78 DPS (93% of AC/5)

The percentages jump up and down, so there's no uniform trend to follow there. There is no reason why the theoretical AC/1 couldn't de set at 2.5 DPS, ~90% of the AC/2's DPS.

The established trend for all weapon types is that by simply calculating damage/cooldown, the larger versions do more DPS in a smooth-ish line. Above, we see the line go fairly uniformly from 5 DPS down to 2.78.
Keep in mind that AC/2 cooldown was actually changed recently, so the DPS isn't set in stone or anything.

Likewise for weapon weights, there is no uniform trend to follow; The percentages jump up and down again.

AC/20: 14 tons
AC/10: 12 tons (85% of AC/20)
AC/5: 8 tons (67% of AC/10)
AC/2: 6 tons (75% of AC/5)

So there is no reason why the AC/1 wouldn't be theoretically 4 tons.
On the other hand, if it was 2 tons at 2 DPS as you say, I'd still prefer that over machine guns 99.999% of the time.

Nothing you said disqualifies the AC/1 as a viable idea at 4 tons, 1 damage, 0.4 cooldown.
The only truly reasonable counter-argument I've seen so far in this thread is that the AC/1 doesn't exist in BattleTech lore.

Yes, I done messed up the math on the DPS, however the tonnage I didn't do percentage on, because it follows a 4-2-4-2 percentage,

14 - 12 (2)
12 - 8 (4)
8 - 6 (2)

Just follow the pattern.

Regardless, AC/1 would be used even less then a AC/2 and the only reason why an AC/2 is used is because of it extreme range to supplement damage, you would have to hit EVERYSHOT to get to any proper DPS scale.

Edited by Astarot, 20 January 2016 - 09:26 AM.

[SnowFox]

I think adding in the Light versions of the ac's would probably be a better way to go than the AC/1

While begging, I would also like to see ammo capability's such as:
Inferno SRM
LBX Switching "we know its not going to happen but I wish it would"
Specialty AC ammo's - Precision, Armor Piercing etc

[Generic Internetter]

Stefka Kerensky, on 20 January 2016 - 07:50 AM, said:

I'll put it in a simple way, since you yourself stated that putting ballistic in a light mech is not a good idea.

I said AC/2's were no good because they weigh 6 tons.

Stefka Kerensky, on 20 January 2016 - 07:50 AM, said:

laser builds in light mechs would be still better than AC1 ones.

Not necessarily. The tons you spend on ammo are saved on heat sinks.

Stefka Kerensky, on 20 January 2016 - 07:50 AM, said:

Too much weight for lights mech

Gonclaturationg, you just understood the point of this thread...
6 tons is too heavy for a light mech. Something lighter like the non-lore AC/1 or the late-lore Magshot would give us a lighter alternative to MGs.

[STEF_]

Generic Internetter, on 20 January 2016 - 12:17 PM, said:

I said AC/2's were no good because they weigh 6 tons.



Not necessarily. The tons you spend on ammo are saved on heat sinks.



Gonclaturationg, you just understood the point of this thread...
6 tons is too heavy for a light mech. Something lighter like the non-lore AC/1 or the late-lore Magshot would give us a lighter alternative to MGs.

Yea, but 4 tons are still a lot of weight, I don't know if it would be that good. I think I still would use ml/smr.

[Generic Internetter]

Stefka Kerensky, on 20 January 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

wth.... 4 tons for 1 (ONE) dmg?

2.5 DPS, ~90% of the AC/2 DPS, and only 67% of the AC/2 weight.

Stefka Kerensky, on 20 January 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

4 tons are a looooooooot of weight for a light mech.
going from 4 ml to 4 dhs, or more engine......

Stefka Kerensky, on 20 January 2016 - 03:29 PM, said:

Yea, but 4 tons are still a lot of weight, I don't know if it would be that good. I think I still would use ml/smr.

If you add 4 MLs, you would ruin your heat mgmt.
If you add 4 DHS instead of weapons, it would be because you needed heat mgmt. It's the same as not adding 2 MPLs or 4 MLs.

If you added 2 MLs + 2 DHS, then that might work (depending on how many DHS you already have).
Still, as a choice I might prefer a long-range pester gun instead of medium range energy DPS.
It's about player choice.

[Astarot]

Generic Internetter, on 20 January 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

2.5 DPS, ~90% of the AC/2 DPS, and only 67% of the AC/2 weight.




If you add 4 MLs, you would ruin your heat mgmt.
If you add 4 DHS instead of weapons, it would be because you needed heat mgmt. It's the same as not adding 2 MPLs or 4 MLs.

If you added 2 MLs + 2 DHS, then that might work (depending on how many DHS you already have).
Still, as a choice I might prefer a long-range pester gun instead of medium range energy DPS.
It's about player choice.

if you add 4 MLs you can toggle cycle fire, and in turn manage your heat much better, ontop of that, when you put on an AC/1 not only are you taking up 4 tons of weight for an autocannon that does one damage per shot, but you also have to take up weight in ammo, I thought the reason people wanted to add in this non-canon weapon system is bridge a non-existant gap between machine guns and autocannons, I'll take 4 MLs, instead of 4 ton AC/1 and it ammunition to boot.