71 replies to this topic

[Godzilla Enthusiast]

Tac Ops has an optional rule for autocannons that let them fire at double the rate at the risk of jamming.

Should MWO let autocannons rapid-fire like that?

Let me know.

[Dlardrageth]

I'm thinking of UACs suddenly, I wonder why...

[Strum Wealh]

Akane Yashiro, on 22 January 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

Tac Ops has an optional rule for autocannons that let them fire at double the rate at the risk of jamming.

Should MWO let autocannons rapid-fire like that?

Let me know.

They already have that - the Ultra ACs.

Quote

While these enhancements gave the weapon an effective range exceeding that of LRMs and standard AC/5s, it most notably allowed the weapon to fire at twice rate of the standard model. Unfortunately, besides generating twice as much heat and burning through ammunition supplies twice as quickly, the extremely high rate of fire causes ultra autocannons to vibrate violently, leading to higher incidence of weapon jams. Though giving the weapon and equivalent volume of fire, because of these vibrations ultra autocannon fire is not as accurate as would be a pair of standard weapons.

So... if the standard ACs and light ACs (the latter of which is not canonically invented until 3058) have the double-fire capability and the increased incidence of jamming (along with the standard and light ACs' unique ability to use special munitions), then what is the point of the Ultra ACs?

I'd say that the standard ACs (and the light ACs, when they come along) should be left as they are, and leave the double-firing and such to the Ultras...

[Stone Profit]

um, no. thats why they have ultra acs dude.
I recommend spending some time on Sarna.net if youre interested in these things ;-)

[Psydotek]

Eh, probably not...

I still want to see autocannon variants though that have different firing rates yet the same DPS.

[Graphite]

Yes, love this idea!

They should move this from advanced/optional rules and make it default.

Who knows, maybe they'll slip it into MWO anyway, to balance ACs against other weapons

For anyone wondering how a standard AC would then compare to an Ultra AC:

• the Ultras are 1 ton heavier (and more expensive) - UAC2 and 5 are also larger than standard AC2/5
  
• UAC10/20 are slightly hotter than their standard counter-parts
  
• UACs have a slightly longer range
  
• Ultras only have a 3% chance of jamming
  
• Standard ACs using rapid fire have a 14% chance of jamming plus a 3% chance of exploding. (unless firing only a single shot)

For MW I'd ignore random jams/explosions (random stuff really doesn't work in a real time FPS), and just alter the firing rate: giving the standard AC approx. 80% the firing rate of the Ultra would be a reasonable approximation of the above.

Thanks Akane, for introducing me to this! This would really bring ACs back into the game....

For anyone curious here are the optional TT game rules he's referring to:

"Any standard or light autocannon (not LB-X,
Ultra or Rotary models) can be fired at double the standard rate
as though it were an Ultra AC. This approach carries considerable
risks. Follow the standard rules for a Rapid-Fire Weapon firing two
shots (see p. 114, TW), with the following exceptions.
The weapon's arming circuitry fails on a To-Hit Roll result of 4 or
less (rather than 2 or less). On a To-Hit Roll result of 2, the ammo
feed jams, causing the rounds in the chamber to explode inside
the barrel. This causes an effect similar to an ammunition explo-
sion, but inflicts only the amount of damage the autocannon
would normally inflict in one shot and does not cause any other
ammo to explode. The autocannon is considered completely
destroyed (meaning players must mark off all of its critical slots).
CASE keeps this damage from spreading to other locations, but
the MechWarrior still receives two pilot hits.
Double the heat generated by the specific weapon type used
when firing in Rapid-Fire Mode."

Edited by Graphite, 23 January 2012 - 01:05 AM.

[Shalmyan Moonsong]

Psydotek, on 22 January 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

Eh, probably not...

I still want to see autocannon variants though that have different firing rates yet the same DPS.

DPS??? This is not WOW, or Star Wars, there is not going to be "Tanks" or "Healers" or "DPSers" or "Pet Classes" in this game, your toon is as good of a DPS as you can aim. Do you think this is going to be an MMO like WOW where you press your number keys 1-9 for your attacks, and all you have to do is sit there and let the computer figure it out?

That said, there are Autocannons old tech which is what are used by the Inner sphere in 3049, and there are Ultra Autocannons, (Lost tech for inner sphere rediscovered in 3058) Autocannons can not double fire.... Ultra Autocannons can... game is set in 3049... Ultra AC's become open market in 3058... any questions?

[Graphite]

Shalmyan Moonsong, on 23 January 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

That said, there are Autocannons old tech which is what are used by the Inner sphere in 3049, and there are Ultra Autocannons, (Lost tech for inner sphere rediscovered in 3058) Autocannons can not double fire....

...unless you use this optional rule from Tac Ops. See my previous post for ultras vs rapid fire standards.

I'd never read this rule before but I love it. Just the boost that ACs need to become relevant.

Edited by Graphite, 23 January 2012 - 01:26 AM.

[Shalmyan Moonsong]

The AC's beomce relevant with tech advancment.

Sadly I do not have the book in question to know which "optional rule" you are refering to. but will say most optional rules tent to be wet dreams. just like all the optional ammo types, thunders, swarms, Armor Pericing, Flechette, Incendiary, Percision, Fragmentation. these things are all optional rules, in level two rules... but have yet be used in any of the mechwarrior games. What makes you think a level 3 rule would be added, tech level is tech level.

How would the rule you stated make then a normal AC diffrent from an ultra?

Edited by Shalmyan Moonsong, 23 January 2012 - 01:54 AM.

[Stormwolf]

I'm all for it, I think that most TacOps rules could be decently translated to gameplay.

[Graphite]

Shalmyan Moonsong, on 23 January 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

The AC's beomce relevant with tech advancment.

Sadly I do not have the book in question to know which "optional rule" you are refering to. but will say most optional rules tent to be wet dreams. just like all the optional ammo types, thunders, swarms, Armor Pericing, Flechette, Incendiary, Percision, Fragmentation. these things are all optional rules, in level two rules... but have yet be used in any of the mechwarrior games. What makes you think a level 3 rule would be added, tech level is tech level.

Well apparently the official opinion on standard ACs is this (from Tac Ops):
"Compared to laser weapons, autocannons have little to recommend them except for heat efficiency and submunitions. The following advanced rules suggest several options that make autocannons more potent weapons on the battlefield."

Quote

How would the rule you stated make then a normal AC diffrent from an ultra?

Dude! Come on! I've already listed the differences in dot points in one post, and referred to it again in another post! Read the whole page...

Edited by Graphite, 23 January 2012 - 02:05 AM.

[Shalmyan Moonsong]

Ultra AC's did not exsist in the time frame for Inner Sphere.

Tac ops was much later in the time line, but if you want to play rapid fire, go for it, but it was not really done in 3049, gameplay wise you would have to toggle which setting your AC was set to, normal fire or rapid fire, but in 3049 no one did rapid fire, it was done later to survive. You want to take the jam chance that is all you, if you jam the weapons is gone for the battle and you can not get it back or get the jam cleared until you get to a repair facility, which knocks out that AC for a battle.

[Graphite]

Shalmyan Moonsong, on 23 January 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

Ultra AC's did not exsist in the time frame for Inner Sphere.

Tac ops was much later in the time line...

Rules don't have in-universe life spans! Equipment does, not rules.

Quote

...but if you want to play rapid fire, go for it, but it was not really done in 3049, gameplay wise you would have to toggle which setting your AC was set to, normal fire or rapid fire, but in 3049 no one did rapid fire, it was done later to survive.

No, it's a rule change(optional), NOT an in-universe tech advancement.

Quote

You want to take the jam chance that is all you, if you jam the weapons is gone for the battle and you can not get it back or get the jam cleared until you get to a repair facility, which knocks out that AC for a battle.

That's right: it still isn't as good as an Ultra.
To use in a real time game like MW I think the best way to go would be to ignore jamming (for both ultra and standard) and instead modify their firing rate.
While the firing rate for Ultras is 2x"normal", the rapid firing standard AC firing rate works out to be (very roughly) 1.5-1.6 x "normal" once you adjust it for jamming.

Edited by Graphite, 23 January 2012 - 02:41 AM.

[Shalmyan Moonsong]

Why adjust the fire rate?

Ultra and Strandard should jam, and if it jams it is done for the battle, that is the risk you run, everytime you hit the button to fire it at double shot or rapid fire it should have it's, chance of jamming, and if the weapons jams it is out of the battle, and the ammo can still explode on a crit. Fire away but do it under the rules you stated, but also by those rules as in the tabletop game, if you jam the weapon is out for the remainder of the battle, and if you suffer a ammo crit before you dump the ammo bad day for you.

• Ultras only have a 3% chance of jamming
  
• Standard ACs using rapid fire have a 14% chance of jamming plus a 3% chance of exploding.

So to adjust rate of fire for jamming means, make the weapon slower, so I never have to lose the weapon on that 14% jamming chance and you done address the 3% chance of exploding, is that calculated into your rate of fire too?


Make it like the rules Ultra have a 3% of Jamming, Standard AC's have a 14% chance of jamming... and what happens when a AC jams?????

Rules don't have in-universe life spans!
That is great to know, so can I take that rule that was written in 2008, and use it in a tournment fifteen years ago?

Edited by Shalmyan Moonsong, 23 January 2012 - 03:11 AM.

[Graphite]

Shalmyan Moonsong, on 23 January 2012 - 03:02 AM, said:

Why adjust the fire rate?

Ultra and Strandard should jam, and if it jams it is done for the battle, that is the risk you run, everytime you hit the button to fire it at double shot or rapid fire it should have it's, chance of jamming, and if the weapons jams it is out of the battle, and the ammo can still explode on a crit. Fire away but do it under the rules you stated, but also by those rules as in the tabletop game, if you jam the weapon is out for the remainder of the battle, and if you suffer a ammo crit before you dump the ammo bad day for you.

Because we're talking about using this for a real time game, and random occurrences like this in real time games don't work - they annoy and frustrate the players.
So instead of the weapon being less optimal because of a high jamming chance (which encourages the TT player not to rapid-fire too often) you attempt to simulate the downside in a real time game by reducing the rate of fire.

Quote

• Ultras only have a 3% chance of jamming
  
• Standard ACs using rapid fire have a 14% chance of jamming plus a 3% chance of exploding.

So to adjust rate of fire for jamming means, make the weapon slower, so I never have to lose the weapon on that 14% jamming chance and you done address the 3% chance of exploding, is that calculated into your rate of fire too?

That's right. It's a rough approximation to make it suitable for a real time game.

Quote

Make it like the rules Ultra have a 3% of Jamming, Standard AC's have a 14% chance of jamming... and what happens when a AC jams?????

Not sure what you're asking here...

Quote

Quote

Rules don't have in-universe life spans!

That is great to know, so can I take that rule that was written in 2008, and use it in a tournment fifteen years ago?

I've highlighted the relevant part.

Edited by Graphite, 23 January 2012 - 03:20 AM.

[Thorn Hallis]

I'm no friend of this. TacOps has some nice extra-rules, but I like my Autocannons the way they always were.

[Strum Wealh]

Shalmyan Moonsong, on 23 January 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

Ultra AC's did not exsist in the time frame for Inner Sphere.

Canonically, "the Successor States regained the ability to produce the original Ultra AC/5 in 3035, and using this weapon and Clan-tech salvage were able to introduce Ultra versions of the AC/2 and AC/10 in 3057, finally the AC/20 in 3060."

Ultra-AC5s have been around long enough (~14 years) to become at least semi-common, but we canonically wouldn't be seeing the other Ultras for almost another decade.

-----

Graphite, on 23 January 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

Because we're talking about using this for a real time game, and random occurrences like this in real time games don't work - they annoy and frustrate the players.
So instead of the weapon being less optimal because of a high jamming chance (which encourages the TT player not to rapid-fire too often) you attempt to simulate the downside in a real time game by reducing the rate of fire.

Actually, jamming does occur in IRL ACs (see the 10/10/2007 incident with an Oelikon 35mm twin autocannon and the early use of Hispano Mk.I autocannons on aircraft, among others).

Using the numbers above (3% for double-rate firing), it would be interesting to see jamming implemented as follows:

• All ACs firing at their normal/standard ROF have an near-but-non-zero chance of jamming (say, a 0.0001% chance (an average of once every 10000 rounds), just to keep things interesting ), with a jam at the standard ROF disabling but not destroying the weapon, such that the weapon is not usable until unjammed/repaired at the end of a match.
  
• LB-X ACs (and, when they come along in 3059, HVACs) do not have the ability to increase their ROF... and if they jam, the jam disables but does not destroy the weapon, such that the weapon is not usable until unjammed/repaired at the end of a match.
  
• Standard and (when they come along in 3068) Light ACs can increase their ROF (via user toggle) to 1.5x, where every second round carries with it a 14% chance (an average of once every 7-8 rounds) of jamming the weapon (that is, the first double-shot has a 14% chance of jamming the weapon, the second double-shot has a 14% chance of jamming the weapon, the 34th double-shot has a 14% chance of jamming the weapon, and so on), with the jam destroying the weapon (in general accordance with the spirit, if not necessarily the letter, of the TacOps rule).
  
• Ultra ACs can increase their ROF (via user toggle) to 2.0x, where every second round carries with it a 3% chance of jamming the weapon (that is, the first double-shot has a 3% chance (an average of once every 33-34 rounds) of jamming the weapon, the second double-shot has a 3% chance of jamming the weapon, the 34th double-shot has a 3% chance of jamming the weapon, and so on), with the jam disabling but not destroying the weapon, such that the weapon is not usable until unjammed/repaired at the end of a match.
  
• When they come along (in 3062), Rotary ACs can increase their ROF (via user toggle) to 2.0x or 4.0x or 6.0x, where every second round carries with it a 3% chance (an average of once every 33-34 rounds) of jamming the weapon (similar to what is described above for the Ultras, with every second (and fourth and sixth) round each having a 3% chance of jamming the weapon), with the jam disabling but not destroying the weapon, and the weapon having the ability to eventually unjam itself.
  
• For each round, the likelihood of that particular round causing a jam is determined randomly (yes, this likely means use of a RNG) - sometimes, a round is just a dud, and you never know where in the ammo bin (first round? 10000th round? never?) the duds are going to turn up.

With the above, the increased ROF would allow the Standard (and Light) ACs to (by taking substantial risk) act as "poor man's Ultra ACs" (in much the same way that flak and flechette munitions would allow them to act as "poor man's LB-X ACs"), while ensuring that the actual Ultra (and Rotary) ACs perform the task so much better (higher ROF, much lower incidence of jamming, weapon disabled rather than destroyed if jammed) as to preserve the latter's raison d'être.

Your thoughts?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 23 January 2012 - 07:35 AM.

[Snowcaller]

I don't know whether this qualifies as off topic, but i am left wondering by this discussion to what extent PG are going to be adhering to the canon with regards to ordinance. I thought that the Lostech caches were found just before the Clans turned up and there was a period during which the IS Great Houses had a spell of 'testing' the weapons on each other and frantically digging around the IS looking for such caches and Lostech MPF's.

In TR 3050 the only AC available to the IS that was 'ultra' was the UAC/5 and the only AC that had LB-X functionality was the LB-10-X.
As has been said often in this thread, i concur that double ROF should be reserved for the UAC's, the risk of jamming was a tactical option rather than necessity. Risk of jamming should mostly be the province of the ultra AC's, otherwise, there'd be little point in spending a ton over a regular AC/5.

I personally believe that standard AC's should be standard AC's, and optional round types should be left to the LB-X AC's.
But whether the canon is going to be bent a little or broke a lot to allow more tactical options within MWO remains to be seen.

And...(i am SO sorry for being THAT guy in this thread ) IRL, a rotary system would have LESS chance of jamming as they automatically eject an unspent round regardless of it being a full round or empty casing.(again, sorry)

Maybe having the heat output increase in scale the more sustained a burst of fire is discharged in an RAC.
As for double fire in a regular AC...i could try to rationalise it, but it just doesn't feel right.

Edited by Snowcaller, 23 January 2012 - 08:48 AM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

I say, no, like the first few people saying..save it for the Ultra autocannons..yeah that +D

[Dlardrageth]

*munch* *munch* *munch*

Light ACs are 3058 tech. So thanks, but no thanks.

The optional rule from TacOps would render UACs only marginally useful. Trading in bigger bulk/weight and more heat buildup for a slightly lower chance of jamming? Which only applies when you fire in "ultra mode" anyway? Yeah, I'd totally take an UAC over a juiced up AC in that case, sure. Again, thanks, but no thanks.

*irony*

Also, can we haz X-Pulse lasorZ and VSP lasorZ , NSS and SuperchargorZ? As standard equipment of course. kkthxbb

*/irony*

Edited by Dlardrageth, 23 January 2012 - 09:32 AM.