54 replies to this topic

[Livaria]

If a player equips one Ultra AC/5 a player gets 6.2 DPS.
If a player equips two AC/2s a player gets 5.6 DPS.

After reading that, I assume players are more willing to spend 9 tons on an Ultra AC/5 as opposed to spending 12 tons on two AC/2s. Sure, the UAC/5 can jam. But I consider it a flawed drawback. If a UAC does not jam then it's actually quite powerful. You don't have to take my word for it however. I'll make a poll and you can see for yourself whether or not players agree with this statement.

I'm going to be discussing several subjects towards weapon balance; all of which is necessary not only for the AC/2 but for other weapons as well. And while It's certainly up to you if you agree or not; what I want most; Is for players to really consider what's being proposed. I encourage readers to weigh in the resulting consequences of these changes and be fair in your judgments

UAC Jam Mechanic:

Spoiler

A straight forward solution for managing UAC DPS is probably going to involve changing the UAC jam mechanic, and I've got an idea towards how it can change.

- A UAC 2 can fire 5 times before triggering a waiting period of 7 seconds
- A UAC 5 can fire 3 times before triggering a waiting period of 8 seconds
- A UAC 10 can fire 3 times before triggering a waiting period 9 seconds
- A UAC 20 can fire 2 times before triggering a waiting period 10 seconds

AC/2 Buffs:

Spoiler

The next step would be increasing the effectiveness of the AC/2. If we reduce heat, Increase velocity, and increase ammo per ton. Then AC/2s can become an optimized weapon on the battlefield. While it is true that the AC/2 is competing with laser vomit; I consider this to be a solid start. With higher Velocity; AC/2s can deal damage faster and much more accurately.

- AC/2 heat gets reduced from 0.72 heat to 0.4 heat
- AC/2 velocity gets increased from 2000 to 4000
- AC/2 Ammo per ton gets increased from 75 to 100

Laser Duration:

Spoiler

What about laser vomit itself? Truth be told; I would rather wait to see how the new power draw system handles it. Despite that however: I've decided that laser vomit could be worthwhile to discuss.

My suggestion is to take another look at laser duration. I don't think unreasonable for most lasers to have increased duration in order to deal damage more slowly. If lasers take a long time to deal damage; It will make Pulse lasers and duration quirks much more vital.

- Small Laser duration get increased from .75 seconds to 1 second
- Medium Laser duration gets increased from .90 seconds to 2 seconds
- Large Laser duration gets increased to 1 second to 3 seconds

I would include an example for other lasers, but I think you get the idea by now.

Edited by Livaria, 08 July 2016 - 09:03 AM.

[MechWarrior849305]

Ballistic weapons aren't an issue FOTM. Energy weapons are. Not to mention overquirked IS LPL. Leave ballistics alone, please

[Karl Streiger]

With two HPs - 2 AC2s
With one HP UAC5

BTW DPS for UAC5 is not 6 its 4.1 (you have to include the 15% jam chance and the +5sec unjam)

[Livaria]

MechWarrior849305, on 08 May 2016 - 10:52 PM, said:

Ballistic weapons aren't an issue FOTM. Energy weapons are. Not to mention overquirked IS LPL. Leave ballistics alone, please

Energy weapons are off topic actually. I`m not here to discuss energy weapons. But more-so just the AC2 and the Ultra AC5

Karl Streiger, on 08 May 2016 - 11:07 PM, said:

With two HPs - 2 AC2s
With one HP UAC5

BTW DPS for UAC5 is not 6 its 4.1 (you have to include the 15% jam chance and the +5sec unjam)

I disagree, I don`t have to include the the jam chance because it is unreliable. I'm saying this because jamming doesn`t happen all the time. We aren`t even factoring the mechs that have jam chance reduction. But if you want to talk about it on average. sure, it could be 4.1

What I`m talking about is the UAC potential to deal *that* much damage. If a UAC does not jam It does 6 DPS (Rounded of course). By the way, try to subtract the amount of hardpoints from the question, if you had a choice, what would you pick?

Edited by Livaria, 15 May 2016 - 03:00 AM.

[davoodoo]

Ac2 are just too hot to run in any situation.

For sniping at long ranges ill grab either erll or gauss and i can still use backup lasers without any big problem at closer ranges
For shorter ranges ill just stack myself with uac5 wtih backup lasers and again i can use those backup lasers.

You cant just go dakka with ac2 because heat will kill you, they arent powerful enough to run just 2 or 3 of them so only niche left for them are small mechs which wil use 1, but then why bother when 2xERLL(2x5 vs 6 and 2-4 tons of ammo)will do job just fine, is easier to use and can focus dmg without any significant heat problems.

Drop heat to 0.5-0.6 and i might consider using jager or kgc with those.

Edited by davoodoo, 09 May 2016 - 02:31 AM.

[Livaria]

Heat isn't the biggest concern for me actually. I've managed the heat reasonably well, on certain mechs. However it still could be worth looking into if people still think that.

Edited by Livaria, 09 May 2016 - 07:12 AM.

[davoodoo]

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c8866e994e99e7c
Assuming theyll never jam theyll do 18 dps, and theyll generate 3.6 hps.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...68225c6ccfbc57c
When we replace those with 4 ac2 theyll do mere 11 dps with 4.4 hps, after throwing in extra ton of ammo and 2 dhs its still less efficient than uac5.

But i dont think ive slammed this point into ground yet.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...4d80d5d1d786832
Changed uac5 to ac5, tonnage saved on those and ammo ive used up to throw in erll and it does 11 dps at long range for 3.6 heat, though it sacrificed medium laser. Even this frankenstein monster is more heat efficient than 4 ac2 dakka while still being easier to put all this dps into single location.

Edited by davoodoo, 09 May 2016 - 03:00 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Oh interesting find.
So the issue is not the poor fire power but the heat - would it be enough to reduce the heat for the AC2.

I admit a complete redesign for this gun would be the best. (3x range again, slightly more damage but not anymore a DPS weapons but a poor mans GaussRifle)

[Livaria]

davoodoo, on 09 May 2016 - 02:54 AM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c8866e994e99e7c
Assuming theyll never jam theyll do 18 dps, and theyll generate 3.6 hps.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...68225c6ccfbc57c
When we replace those with 4 ac2 theyll do mere 11 dps with 4.4 hps, after throwing in extra ton of ammo and 2 dhs its still less efficient than uac5.

But i dont think ive slammed this point into ground yet.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...4d80d5d1d786832
Changed uac5 to ac5, tonnage saved on those and ammo ive used up to throw in erll and it does 11 dps at long range for 3.6 heat, though it sacrificed medium laser. Even this frankenstein monster is more heat efficient than 4 ac2 dakka while still being easier to put all this dps into single location.

Gotcha, alright I'll include less heat into my suggestion.

Karl Streiger, on 09 May 2016 - 03:09 AM, said:

Oh interesting find.
So the issue is not the poor fire power but the heat - would it be enough to reduce the heat for the AC2.

I admit a complete redesign for this gun would be the best. (3x range again, slightly more damage but not anymore a DPS weapons but a poor mans GaussRifle)

Karl Streiger, I've also reached the conclusion that the AC/2 doesn't need to deal better damage, but it still needs to compete with the UAC/5. Adjusting the Ultra AC/5 or strengthening AC/2 firepower would help. In any case, I prefer the UAC/5 ability to DPS reduced in some way.

As far as buffs go for the AC/2. I'm hoping for faster velocity and less heat. I don't want the AC/2 to be redesigned all that much.

Edited by Livaria, 15 May 2016 - 03:01 AM.

[VinJade]

@Liv
you mean you want to ignore the truth and comparing the two would hurt your argument.. lol

[Livaria]

I actually don't know what you are talking about. What truth are you referring to? And what makes you think I'm ignoring some kind of truth?

Edited by Livaria, 09 May 2016 - 05:42 AM.

[VinJade]

The argument about AC Vs Energy and which is the problem at the moment, you know the thing that MW pointed out?

[Livaria]

I consider laser vomit a different problem in itself. I have yet to state that all ballistic weapons are imbalanced. Why do I need to talk about laser weaponry when all I want to do is talk about is the AC/2 and the Ultra AC/5?

Edited by Livaria, 15 May 2016 - 03:05 AM.

[GweNTLeR]

Well, I never believed in power of AC2 until my friend made ~1600 damage on the 1st mech wave in CW (FP, whatever it is called) on mauler with 6 AC2. So AC2 actually may work. Also, admit it or not, AC2 is easier because it doesn't require you to double click (hence, less hand tremor) and has way bigger velocity. Not to mention it requires just one slot to mount it.

[Spleenslitta]

I once tried to find a cure for the AC2. Here is a link to the thread.
http://mwomercs.com/...lancing-debate/

There are some problems that none have addressed.
1- Firingflash is intense enough to temporarily blind the user if the AC2 is mounted close to the cockpit.
I tried putting an AC2 on a Kit Fox shoulder and the flashes interfered with my aim.

2- Big explosions that can cover much of the target if it is at long range. This makes it harder to tell where and if you hit the target.

The important thing is to make a single AC2 capable of competing with a single ER PPC/PPC/ ER LL.

Although lowering the heat on the AC2 family is a step forward it's unfortunatly not the cure.
I believe that increasing the ammo per tonn and the firerate is more important. Increased firerate would lead it to become a weapon best fired in bursts and then get back within cover to cool down.
AC2 would thus become a competitor for the ER PPC.

ER PPC for pinpoint damage and endless ammo.
AC2 for shell velocity, not so hot and easier to regulate heat. If you miss with one shell it's no biggie since the firerate is so high.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 09 May 2016 - 01:46 PM.

[EmperorMyrf]

For me the main turn-off of the AC/2 is its heat. With IS ACs, the main trend is that you have to spend more heat per unit damage to fire a larger shell, which of course translates to more concentrated damage (more killy). This is a great trend that makes sense, however the AC/2 is clearly an outlier:

AC/20: 3.33 D/H
AC/10: 3.33 D/H
AC/5 : 5.00 D/H
AC/2 : 2.50 D/H

In order to maintain this pattern the heat of the AC/2 has to be massively reduced, from 0.8H to ~0.3H.

Another situation to consider is doing a ton for ton swap of an AC/5 and AC/2. Assuming no engine heat sinks:

AC/5:
- AC/5 - 8t
- 3t Ammo - 3t
- 4 DHS - 4t
-- Total 15t, Sustained DPS: 2.81 (93% heat efficient)
-- DPS/T: 0.1873

AC/2:
- AC/2 - 6t
- 3t Ammo - 3t
- 6 DHS - 6t
-- Total 15t, Sustained DPS: 2.1 (76% efficient)
-- DPS/T: 0.14 (25% less tonnage efficient than the AC/5)

When you downgrade a weapon, you shouldn't have to spend more tonnage to use it.

[Livaria]

GweNTLeR, on 09 May 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

Well, I never believed in power of AC2 until my friend made ~1600 damage on the 1st mech wave in CW (FP, whatever it is called) on mauler with 6 AC2. So AC2 actually may work. Also, admit it or not, AC2 is easier because it doesn't require you to double click (hence, less hand tremor) and has way bigger velocity. Not to mention it requires just one slot to mount it.

It's impressive, but I wouldn't bet on just a single good result that one player had; especially when quirks and situation can interfere. I'm not directly saying AC/2s are a terrible weapon. My point is that It often doesn't compete as much when compared to an Ultra AC/5.

While AC/2s do have some side benefits such as smaller crit space; Damage, Heat and Velocity tends to matter the most.

Edited by Livaria, 09 May 2016 - 02:18 PM.

[Elendil]

I stopped using ACs for anything...

ACs and UACs are good for suppressing fire because they scare the target. But "suppression" isn't really useful most of the time.
You can snipe with ACs (UACs not so much), but sniping is also pretty useless most of the time. It feels great, but then you look at your damage at the end of the match and die a little inside...
And both of those things take a lot of ammo, which means energy weapons are generally a better choice (PPCs in particular).

The bigger ACs are great for brawling, way better than lasers. But they run out of ammo too quickly for invasion matches. Then your only options are to go hump the enemy until they shoot you so you can respawn, eject and hope nobody reports you, or fight the rest of the match with that single pulse laser on your head.

Anyway, back on topic: I think UACs are better.

• 2 AC2s: ~5.5 DPS, ~2.8 HPS, 12 tons
  
• UAC5: 6 DPS (including doubleshot, not including jams), 1.2 HPS (including dubleshot), 9 tons
  
• Ammo is about the same for both, since the AC2s use two rounds per shot.

Overall the AC2s have better firepower since they don't jam, but the UAC weighs less, generates less than half as much heat, and is easier to get your rounds on target*. That means that they're better for brawling, which is where the real action takes place.


*(AC2s fire every 0.72 seconds, which means you need to have your sights on target every 0.72 seconds to keep dealing damage.
UACs fire once every 1.66 seconds, plus one time in between. So you only need your sights on the target every 1.66 seconds, plus one other time in between that you get to choose. That means that it's much easier to hit your target in a brawl when everyone is moving around.)

Edited by Elendil, 09 May 2016 - 05:28 PM.

[DrRedCoat]

I agree that the AC2 suffers from disproportinate numbers when scaled against larger ACs and that we were headed in the right direction back when AC2s lost ghost heat. Any one of the mentioned heat or ammo suggestions I think would turn my quad AC2 Rifleman from a good mech to a great mech. I would disagree with the sentiment that suppressive fire has little value as I've witnessed it change the behavior of enemy mechs (at least in non-comp).

[Spleenslitta]

This is longwinded but bear with me.

Let's compare a single AC2 against a single weapon of roughly the same weight and range. Let's not get caught up in how well an AC2 can be boated.
Let's see what it can do on it's own in a light mech as a maingun with a bunch of other weapons beside that.
I run a Kit Fox and a Firestarter that both have with a single ER PPC and a bunch other lighter weapons.

IS ER PPC weighs 7 tonns which is the same as an IS AC2 with 1 tonn of ammo.
Currently there are very few players if any who would pick a single AC2 instead of an ER PPC. Why?

Simple. In my opinion the main reason is not the heat but instead the following problems.
- It takes 3.6 seconds to fire 5 AC2 shells to do 10 damage while a PPC does so instantly and can do so again within 4 seconds.
- Very scattered damage at a moving target while the PPC gets all the damage in one spot.
- To keep an AC2 feed throughout an entire match demands at least 2 tonns of ammo while the ER PPC can be kept reasonably cool with just the 10 DHS from the engine.

The AC2 becomes heavier because of it's hunger for ammo. If you miss a shot with the AC2 it's allready hanging behind the ER PPC as it recharges and you have to reaim for the next shell which slows the AC2 down further.
Thus the damage becomes not only scattered but also possibly less damaging than the ER PPC.



So i suggest increasing the ammo per tonn to make the AC2 lighter. But that alone cannot fix the problem.
As a matter of fact if the AC2 only got 0.4 heat per shell instead of it's current 0.8 and an endless supply of ammo i would still pick the ER PPC.
Why? There are many reasons.

Because the need to keep the AC2 constantly aimed at the target hurts not only mobility but also situational awareness.
That's because keeping an eye on the map and the target at the same time with that firerate is difficult.
You don't have the time to look at your surroundings much either.

Hit and run attacks with an AC2 is really bad because of the amount of time you must keep your target in line of sight is very high.
The constant stream of shells is like a laser that points out my exact position.

Therefore i suggest increasing the AC2's firerate so even if the heat stays the same.
Make it a weapon best fired in bursts with pauses between firings just like an ER PPC to keep it reasonably cool.
How fast a firerate?


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?
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. (too powerfull i think. See below.)

My comments on the different alternatives.
A) Roughly twice as fast as it is now. I think PGI better start with this and test till they get a better number.
B ) The moderate road.

C) ER LL has 1.25secs burntime for 9 damage with a 3.25 secs rechargetime but the AC2 is heavier so it's kinda fair that way.
But then again it becomes a bit too powerfull so some mechanic to stop the AC2 from too powerfull might be necessary.
A limit to how many shells can be fired in a burst might be a good alternative but then again the AC2 would be too different to the other AC's.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 10 May 2016 - 08:53 AM.