70 replies to this topic

[Thunder Child]

But Gas, they sound SOOOO COOOOL. Especially if you may or may not be running a certain sound mod that gives you +10 Nostalgia (also known as the Mechwarrior 2 Sound Mod, that I am totally not running >.>). That said, I get almost the same level of satisfaction from running the Dual AC2 Dakkajack. It's hilarious when you make Assault Mechs duck with that thing, till they realise you're only a 45 tonner.

That said, the Macro builds lose everytime to ANY Burst or Real DPS mech (PPFLD, KDKs, or IS UAC builds).

[El Bandito]

FearThePaladin, on 13 September 2016 - 03:46 PM, said:

The use of AC macros should be illegal in the terms and conditions. While it is theoretically possible to run my finger along the 1-6 keys fast, it is not possible to do that and AIM the weapon.

Losing big credibility here. It is very possible to AIM while running the fingers on 1-6 keys because you are using different hands for each task.

FearThePaladin, on 13 September 2016 - 03:46 PM, said:

So anyone that is having a continual stream of AC shots that is designed to avoid the ghost heat and accelerate firing should be banned from the game for a period of time. Everyone knows when a mech has the AC macros because of the extreme rate of fire, the ability to not generate a lot of heat and to strip armor from enemy mech very quickly.

Losing more credibility here. AC2 macros are not designed to avoid Ghost Heat because current AC2s DO NOT have Ghost Heat. And Macro firing gives less DPS than group firing them, cause less bullets will be firing per second compared to group fire.

FearThePaladin, on 13 September 2016 - 03:46 PM, said:

Lastly its very difficult to defeat a mech using this because of the visual affects by so many impacts of rounds on the mech. It can visually block the pilot from seeing the mech he is being shot by as well as bounce the aiming point due to the impacts.

Speed that up with a macro and its a very difficult fight.

Just move forward towards the AC mech, or move laterally. Your visual impairment will be reduced to minimum. I am guessing you are the type who always backs straight up when under fire, resulting in maximum smoke and flash on your face. Oh, and go to your graphical setting and put "effects" and "particles" on lowest setting.

Edited by El Bandito, 14 September 2016 - 06:02 PM.

[627]

Hey, macro day again! Must be like 2 month since the last time and I'm late, damnit!

However I find it interesting how often you guys encounter an AC2 boat. I mean I play my King crab with em from time to time, but finding someone who boats AC2s *and* macro them for dakkadakka is extremely rare in my games.

So I think it might indeed be the kodiaks and direwhales that make people think there are macro users. But those aren't macro'd *and* those are the guns that actually hurt you quite a bit.

I can only suggest that all you "macros are cheats" guys go to youtube and look for some dakka vids of 6xAC2 maulers and king crabs. And how those guys play.

Hint: You dakka for fun and giggles. If you want something dead, you alpha all your guns.

[The6thMessenger]

It's easy to say LRM is op, just as Macros are a cheat, until one uses it.

I suggest that you try setting up a King-Crab KGC-000 with 6 AC2s, with 0.11s of fire interval. Or a Direwolf with 6 LB2Xs with 0.12s of fire interval.

Now that you did that, go play a lot of games, and tell us how barreling down your enemy works out for you.

[LordNothing]

the hardware macro i did, as cool as it was, was not relly worth the trouble. i haven't used it since i tested it in game. you could dial in the dps for each mech and all. i suppose its useful when you are trying to lead a target at range you can kind of snake your rounds in to find a lead solution that works. however i am so ridiculously good at target leading that i dont need to do that, and instead opt to take good aim and fire all 6 guns simultaneously, and usually score a hit on my first salvo. i suppose i can still use the box, but probibly as a staging control in kerbal space program.

Edited by LordNothing, 15 September 2016 - 03:38 AM.

[CygnusX7]

Apologies to the OP if my Shadowhawk blinded you with it's triple ac2's. I can promise you the number of shells required to do negligible damage was significant.

[rolly]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 13 September 2016 - 04:18 PM, said:

or my 6 ac2 dakka monster jager XD

WEeeeee. Oh my god I completely forgot about he Jager! Mauahahaha now I have one more thing to occupy my time before I get rebored of Phase 3. Thank you!

I think I'm gonna see if I can get an entire AC/2 toting Lance together!

Edited by rolly, 15 September 2016 - 07:51 AM.

[rolly]

El Bandito, on 14 September 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

Losing big credibility here. It is very possible to AIM while running the fingers on 1-6 keys because you are using different hands for each task.

Though, lets not discount those one-handed, less than 10 fingered folks here.

[rolly]

Hades Trooper, on 14 September 2016 - 01:25 AM, said:

macro's do give you an advantage, the constant screen shake and explosions make up for any reduction in dps.

flame all you like but macro users are cheats in my books.

Those poor Word Perfect, Excel and Microsoft Word users. They don't deserve to be blanket labelled....

[El Bandito]

Hades Trooper, on 14 September 2016 - 01:25 AM, said:

macro's do give you an advantage, the constant screen shake and explosions make up for any reduction in dps.

flame all you like but macro users are cheats in my books.

OH, NO! NOT THE SHAKES! NOT THE EXPLOSIONS! AAAAAHHHHH! OH, THEY'RE IN MY EYES! MY EYES! AAAAHHHHH! AAAAAGGHHH!






Stay calm, keep moving (as long as not straight backwards) and alpha the macroing opponent. Screen might shake, but the cursor wont.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 September 2016 - 09:13 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I still think my office keyboard and mouse are OP, according to the OP's post. I don't use macros, yet accomplish the 6 AC/2 buzzsaw with pure, legit weapon groupings.


Let's face it - it's not the Macro. People who hate the Hex-AC/2 are hating the fact that the "Effects.XML file" grants the AC/2 warhead such a significant smoke and explosion effect.




They are vindicated.



Admit it.. the AC/2 is NOT meant to inflict it's damage potential through an explosive warhead to the same degree as the other Autocannon shells do. A traditional High Explosive Anti- Tank (HEAT) warhead works by detonating an explosive charge inside the bullet located behind a specially-shaped copper insert that becomes a secondary projectile; your "bullet" is really a bomb that gets launched by a gun, and that bomb detonates on impact to release a molten blast of copper to the target. That's how AC/20s, AC/10s, and AC/5s work.



But the AC/2 is by-and-away the fastest projectile with the longest range. This means it cannot possibly be a traditional HEAT warhead, encased in a bullet-shaped projectile. We all know that battleship cannons shoot farther than tank cannons because the battleship guns are bigger... that's true for all cases where you simply scale-up the size of a Spitzer-shaped bullet in a cartridge or anything like it. So... how does a smaller gun like the AC/2 reach such long ranges? Because it fires sabot-encased darts.

These darts have fins that are just as wide as the barrel of the gun, and the shaft of the darts is smaller than the actual gun barrel. That's why the dart shafts are encased in an outer "carrier" layer called the Sabot. The Sabot is what makes contact with te gun barrel while the bullet is fired and makes sure the dart flys straight out of the barrel. The Sabot then breaks apart right as the bullet (dart) leaves the barrel and the dart is then free to fly straight, true, and really really quickly to the target.




So, the AC/2 DOES NOT carry a large warhead that would cause smoke and explosions on the target's screen.

Complainers are vindicated.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 15 September 2016 - 06:36 PM.

[Supersmacky]

@Prosperity Park: You realize that everything you wrote is not from Battletech lore, right? And, as such, may or may not be entirely relevant.

You used a 40mm GL round is which is not the same as a cannon launched HEAT round. Yes, the principles are the same, but having used one I can tell you they are mostly HEAT in name only.

And you used what appears to be a 120mm Smoothbore APFSDS (Armor Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot) tank round (the same used on the M1A1 Abrams) as an analogy for the AC2. Again, may or may not be the same, but I would say it isn't based on BT lore. The Abrams also fire HEAT rounds and I think HEAP rounds as well as HE-FRAGs which the HEAT round would probably be a better analogy.

From the following: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon

"An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts."

Seeing as this is a make-believe future with make-believe weapons, you can't really say what the AC2 does and does not do. However, if we do use current technology as a base, and we go by the citation I provided, it is likely analogous to the 30mm HEAT rounds fired by the A-10 which does, indeed, produce a considerable amount of smoke and flash.

For reference:

Yes, I know the rates of fire are different, but if you compare individual rounds of 30mm vs individual rounds AC2 they are roughly equivalent. Also consider that a lot of the round are hitting near the CT and Head of a mech so their visual would be appropriate. Then, multiply the fact they is some one is hitting them with a 3x to 6x AC2 build where they are getting hit by a another round right after the first one has hit and it all equates.

Sorry, I don't see how the complainers are vindicated based on your description. Even if the AC2 rounds were APFSDS rounds, which they are not, there would still be considerable flash and smoke because: physics.

[LordNothing]

rolly, on 15 September 2016 - 07:48 AM, said:

WEeeeee. Oh my god I completely forgot about he Jager! Mauahahaha now I have one more thing to occupy my time before I get rebored of Phase 3. Thank you!

I think I'm gonna see if I can get an entire AC/2 toting Lance together!

plz record it

[Felicitatem Parco]

Supersmacky, on 15 September 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:

@Prosperity Park: You realize that everything you wrote is not from Battletech lore, right? And, as such, may or may not be entirely relevant.

You used a 40mm GL round is which is not the same as a cannon launched HEAT round. Yes, the principles are the same, but having used one I can tell you they are mostly HEAT in name only.

And you used what appears to be a 120mm Smoothbore APFSDS (Armor Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot) tank round (the same used on the M1A1 Abrams) as an analogy for the AC2. Again, may or may not be the same, but I would say it isn't based on BT lore. The Abrams also fire HEAT rounds and I think HEAP rounds as well as HE-FRAGs which the HEAT round would probably be a better analogy.

From the following: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon

"An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts."

Seeing as this is a make-believe future with make-believe weapons, you can't really say what the AC2 does and does not do. However, if we do use current technology as a base, and we go by the citation I provided, it is likely analogous to the 30mm HEAT rounds fired by the A-10 which does, indeed, produce a considerable amount of smoke and flash.

For reference:

Yes, I know the rates of fire are different, but if you compare individual rounds of 30mm vs individual rounds AC2 they are roughly equivalent. Also consider that a lot of the round are hitting near the CT and Head of a mech so their visual would be appropriate. Then, multiply the fact they is some one is hitting them with a 3x to 6x AC2 build where they are getting hit by a another round right after the first one has hit and it all equates.

Sorry, I don't see how the complainers are vindicated based on your description. Even if the AC2 rounds were APFSDS rounds, which they are not, there would still be considerable flash and smoke because: physics.

Battletech "Lore" does not correlate with how MWO is programmed. My explanation is 100% MWO-compliant in terms of weapon ranges, projectile velocities, trajectoey curves, and inflicted damage. The only non-compliance comes from the explosions of AC/2 shells, and the properties of HEAT warheads prevent them from being the mechanism of damage for the MWO AC/2 (based on the MWO AC/2 projectile trajectory).

So, I am right. The MWO AC/2 can only be flechette-based due to its speed, range, and flat trajectory compared to the other AC.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 16 September 2016 - 09:54 AM.

[Supersmacky]

Prosperity Park, on 16 September 2016 - 09:51 AM, said:

Battletech "Lore" does not correlate with how MWO is programmed. My explanation is 100% MWO-compliant in terms of weapon ranges, projectile velocities, trajectoey curves, and inflicted damage. The only non-compliance comes from the explosions of AC/2 shells, and the properties of HEAT warheads prevent them from being the mechanism of damage for the MWO AC/2 (based on the MWO AC/2 projectile trajectory).

So, I am right. The MWO AC/2 can only be flechette-based due to its speed, range, and flat trajectory compared to the other AC.

Well, I have to disagree. You may assert you are right, but there is nothing you have provided to prove you are right.

You used contemporary references to make your case, so I used contemporary references to show where you are incorrect. The AC2 being analogous to our contemporary 30mm cannon round (which comes in many forms including HEAT) does produce smoke and flash which is exactly what we see in MWO.

Going back to Lore, MWO is based on BT Lore. Is it a 1:1 correlation? No, but it can't be exactly as BT is all based on the idea of 10 second turns as opposed to RT. Also, some weapon systems would be unplayable and virtually useless if taken strictly from BT lore. Regardless, BT is the foundation. Given that, you have to use BT and MWO references combined to make any conclusion. You can't say an AC2 is an APFSDS round because 'reasons' when there is nothing you have, other than your theory, to suggest it is.

There is no where that it states that MWO AC2 are APFSDS round. There is nothing in the animation when they are fired that indicates at much either. It is just supposition to say that is what they are. While we have lore and the base game experience that demonstrates it is obviously some sort of exploding (ie, HEAT) round. However, even if it were an APFSDS round, I will say again there is considerable smoke and flash from an APFSDS impact. This is because of the physical reaction of a high velocity object hitting a relatively stationary (compared to the velocity of the round) solid object.

Going back to contemporary references, the 30mm round from an GUA-8 Avenger (the cannon in the A-10) travels at a velocity of 1,010 m/s. In MWO the AC2 round travels at 2,000 m/s. Given that MWO/BT is hundreds of years in the future, is it so unbelievable that technology could have provided a solution to get the HEAT round of an AC2 moving the additional 990 m/s? Not really. Seeing as it is make-believe and you really have no idea exactly how the AC2 or any weapon in MWO/BT works. There isn't a physical limitation to prevent a 30mm round from attaining a velocity of 2,000 m/s, it is just a technological limitation (at this time).

So, no matter how you analyze it, so far you have not proven your theory. HEAT rounds produce smoke and flash. APFSDS rounds produce smoke a flash, though less than a HEAT round, granted. HEAT rounds do it as a result of the explosive elements of the round while APFSDS do it by the physical nature of the impact of the round. Either way, you get smoke and flash.

[RestosIII]

Dex Spero, on 26 September 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

PGI's most difficult task is, in my opinion, balancing the game. You've got 67 different mechs, each with multiple variants, different weapon systems, different speeds, heat, map variation, etc. Change one thing in one mech and you probably have to hold 10 meetings and run a 1000 hours of trial game time to see if you've triggered a system-wide cascade. Trying to keep it all running smoothly must be like balancing one of those "ball in the hole" boards where all the little ball-bearings keep scattering every time you make the tiniest shift. They aren't doing it perfectly, but despite a lot of the anger and claims of different things being "OP", etc., I think they are doing an amazing job.

What does this have to do with macros? Well, let's get to it. I don't use them, but I don't mind them being used in theory. If someone has an amazing ROF then I will practice strategies to deal with it (remember, ROF increases result in ammo depletion increases). Also, mechwarriors that use them are reporting that they are not nearly as useful as people are claiming. So, in theory, macro-away!

However, in practice, I have to say that something feels wrong about people bringing "outside quirks", for lack of a better term, into the game. I know it happens all the time anyway because we all have different hardware (video cards, gaming mouses, etc). And I also know that the macros are out there and are available to everyone so I can't really claim that a macro user is giving themselves an advantage to which others do not have access. But somehow, to me, adding a fire control macro feels like you have actually changed the way a weapon operates. And as I said in the previous paragraph, any little change probably requires massive planning and review in order to make sure you haven't broken the game.

As an example, let's fall down the dark tunnel into my imagination to my own little fantasy of what I think happens at PGI (butterflies, rainbows, free booze). I imagine a team of people discussing (to choose a hot topic example) the UAC5 and how they will introduce it into the game. They decide that the weapon will provide a potentially faster ROF than the AC5, but they will balance this serious increase in DPS by making it cost $150 000 more c-bills, increasing the number of slots required, increasing the tonnage, and adding a chance it will jam during double fire. But I'm not sure if they considered the possibility of someone using outside software to control the firing rate to eliminate one of those balancing factors. So, while I don't have a problem with macros in theory, in practice I would like to know that there is some balancing of the macro controlling the UAC5 the way there is for the UAC5 itself (again, just one example).

So I agree with those Mechwarriors who say that macros should be incorporated into the game but it should be done by PGI. That way, the actual people who design the game and test the game for balance can put rules in place to balance their use if they are needed. For example, macros could become weapon-specific modules (e.g. "C.LBX-2 Fire Control Timer", just like "Medium Laser Range 5"). That way, macro-users could have their firing macro, but to use it you would first have to spend GXP unlocking it, then spend 3 Million C-Bills to buy it, then sacrifice a weapon slot to equip it. I had considered suggesting that a targeting computer also be required, but another mechwarrior pointed out that in the real world we have computers that can run targeting software that don't even weigh 1 kg, let alone 1 ton! (sorry, I owe you a reference here, but I can't find the topic where you said this... if I find it I will edit this immediately and give you the credit you deserve!).

If PGI would incorporate macros then they be be accessible to everyone who wants one but also would be kept balanced by requiring some kind of trade off to use it.

So you want them to add more C-Bill/XP sinks instead of making stuff like chainfiring actually useful? Sounds just like PGI. Good job.

[Dex Spero]

RestosIII, on 26 September 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

So you want them to add more C-Bill/XP sinks instead of making stuff like chainfiring actually useful? Sounds just like PGI. Good job.

I don't have a problem paying for gaming, either with virtual money (C-bills) or regular money. PGI isn't running a not-for-profit organization.

Edited by Dex Spero, 26 September 2016 - 08:35 AM.

[MW222]

Gas Guzzler, on 14 September 2016 - 10:45 AM, said:

I get more frustrated with the stupidity of the idiot firing 6 AC2s in rapid succession than I do by its effectiveness, but that's just me.

But it sounds cool.................................................

[Mystere]

Dex Spero, on 26 September 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

So I agree with those Mechwarriors who say that macros should be incorporated into the game but it should be done by PGI.

No. PGI should spend more of their very limited time, money, and other resources working on things still missing from the game. The last thing they need is another distraction.

Dex Spero, on 26 September 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

If PGI would incorporate macros then they be be accessible to everyone who wants one but also would be kept balanced by requiring some kind of trade off to use it.

Macro software are readily and freely available to everyone. Besides, can PGI do much better than Thrustmaster in creating macro software for my HOTAS Warthog?

[Dex Spero]

Mystere, on 26 September 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

No. PGI should spend more of their very limited time, money, and other resources working on things still missing from the game. The last thing they need is another distraction.




Macro software are readily and freely available to everyone. Besides, can PGI do much better than Thrustmaster in creating macro software for my HOTAS Warthog?

Both excellent points. I still worry, though, that without developer input there might be an unintentional game imbalance, but maybe that's just my ongoing fear of change. I'm getting old. New things scare me. I like pants that reach my armpits now.