31 replies to this topic

[ManDaisy]

I was thinking of a way of keeping normal ACs and ultra ACs par so taht one wouldn't be more desirable over the other. Obviously Ultra Acs got twice the fire power. The downside is that its harder to hit with full strength. I was thinking this could be accomplished by making normal Auto Cannons fire like a cannon. Ultra Acs, would fire like a semi automatic three burst rifle. Rotary Acs would fire like a chain gun.

Edited by ManDaisy, 16 February 2012 - 08:36 PM.

[FACEman Peck]

How about they just balance it by ammunition capacity, that would REALLY even out the AC20s with the AC5s.

[ManDaisy]

sorry I'm thinking further down the line when they add ultra ACs , and how to keep people still wanting to use normal ACs. You missed my point this is between weapons not calibers. As the Devs stated no new weapons should obsolete the old weapons.

Edited by ManDaisy, 16 February 2012 - 09:01 PM.

[Exilyth]

ultra-ACs eat through their ammo twice as fast... so, could you two please elaborate some more?

[jbone]

Ultra's have the tendency to jam very often (for me at least I ummm... well I'm known for horrible dice.... except in physical combat.)

[Mautty the Bobcat]

UACs and ACs are balance for the jamming reason, UACs chew through their ammo faster, and they have multiple bullets which splits the damage between those bullets. You have to hit with all the bullets for the maximum damage per shot. An AC has a single, concentrated damage with a single shot.

Add in that mech will no longer have 'reticule sniper' aiming and this provides an accuracy factor as well. Do to the mech having to adjust its aim through (lets call it) the targeting computer, the UAC has a chance to miss multiple shots and not do full damage while the AC is either a hit or miss. You could hit a couple and miss a couple with the AC and still do more damage if the UAC misses 1 or 2 times for every shot taken.

[ManDaisy]

Well said Maulty couldn't have explained it better myself.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Ultras shoot bursts. They have about a 60% chance to do double the damage, but split in two locations. If you fire bursts there is a small chance to jam- permanently. They also weigh more than a normal AC. Also UAC cannot use special ammo types that some of the smaller normal AC can use.

[guardian wolf]

Yes, well you guys also have to consider, the UAC, and Rotary AC, were made to be better than the originals they stemmed from, this was to make, an advancement in technology, it's like comparing an old Single Shot, fire and reload breach loading rifle to a semi auto that shoots the same bullets. Granted there is less power behind each bullet, but the combined fire power will always be greater, but yes, there should be less accuracy with said UAC. The Rotary AC however, is like a minigun, it will have a shot grouping of maybe 2 inches, and with a battle mech, about 2 feet, it is an AC minigun.

[SilentObserver]

guardian wolf, on 17 February 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

Yes, well you guys also have to consider, the UAC, and Rotary AC, were made to be better than the originals they stemmed from, this was to make, an advancement in technology, it's like comparing an old Single Shot, fire and reload breach loading rifle to a semi auto that shoots the same bullets. Granted there is less power behind each bullet, but the combined fire power will always be greater, but yes, there should be less accuracy with said UAC. The Rotary AC however, is like a minigun, it will have a shot grouping of maybe 2 inches, and with a battle mech, about 2 feet, it is an AC minigun.

I would love to see anyone maintain a 2 inch group (at any distance over 5 feet) with a minigun mounted on of a moving vehicle. I hold that it cannot be done.

Also ultra's generate twice as much heat when firing in Ultra mode. So hopefully heat is handled much better in MW:O than previous MW's.

[guardian wolf]

Well, it is extremely accurate, as with a targeting computer, I'd wager 30 US dollars that a 2 inch shot group could be attained with today's technology. The M-1 Abrams now has a type of targeting computer on its main cannon. The tank can be going over the roughest terrain known to man, but that barrel sits dead level, on target.

_____________________________________________________________

On further note, this can be achieved at ranges of over a mile, while moving a 40+ mph. My uncle is in the Marine Corp, and so I'd consider this a pretty reliable source.

Just found a video I also watched on the military channel, you can also see another documentation of it, here as I have yet to figure out how to embed the video. The part where it states this, is about 5:00 in.

Edited by guardian wolf, 17 February 2012 - 12:56 PM.

[ilikain]

I am going with the, no way you are maintaining a 2 inch shot grouping form almost any distance... Someone linked this video for another thread:



The gun is mounted on the ground and does not move at all when firing, and yet it can't maintain a 1 foot spread in a 10 shot full auto cycle at 2000ft. There are just too many external factors involved (wind, differences in shells, the way the shell ignites from one shot to another...).

Maybe with little targeting computers and thrusters it could self-correct, but I don't think that is canon.

[Mautty the Bobcat]

guardian wolf, on 17 February 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Well, it is extremely accurate, as with a targeting computer, I'd wager 30 US dollars that a 2 inch shot group could be attained with today's technology. The M-1 Abrams now has a type of targeting computer on its main cannon. The tank can be going over the roughest terrain known to man, but that barrel sits dead level, on target.

_____________________________________________________________

On further note, this can be achieved at ranges of over a mile, while moving a 40+ mph. My uncle is in the Marine Corp, and so I'd consider this a pretty reliable source.

Just found a video I also watched on the military channel, you can also see another documentation of it, here as I have yet to figure out how to embed the video. The part where it states this, is about 5:00 in.

You're comparing a (albeit advanced) modern tank with that of an extremely advanced, futuristic, human-like in most cases, battlemech. I hate to say it but the battlemech, while be set in the future and having advanced technologies, is also much more complicated. Top that off with the cannon video, and I'll take MW:O's convergence (which I like the idea of a lot) over the extremely stupid 'sniper reticule' accuracy of the previous mechwarrior games.

If you want to go by battletech itself, read some books as warriors miss ALL THE FREAKING TIME. Even the so-called 'elite' clanner scum misses. Things like Piloting can be simulated by the people, each person drives their mech differently. Sensor usage can be simulated, not everyone is as good at using their sensor and relaying the information than others. Gunnery is one of the qualities that is hugely affected by the game itself, as warriors had to learn how to use their 'mech and its arsenal. This is not the case when the gunnery is reduced to being able to get the reticule over an enemy for 1/4 of a second and alpha striking to strip their torso down.

[Petroff Northrup]

UACs cut through ammo twice as fast and do not have access to special ammunition such as armor piercing or caseless.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I get the feeling that the "old" AC's were intended to be replaced by the LB X series when they were intoduced. The Ultra's were an alternative, with the drawback of extra heat and faster use of ammo when used in "fast" mode. It's the same thing as when the ER lasers were introduced, their feasability was improved with double heatsinks. Except for cost, there was no military reason not to use new technology. It was also much cheaper to upgrade the "old" tech mechs with refit kits and extend their useable life rather than replace them totally with new mechs. It will be interesting to see how PGI impliment this as we go through the changeover happening at this point in the timeline.
I would imagine that the majority of mechs would still not be retrofitted.

[guardian wolf]

Mautty the Bobcat, on 17 February 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

You're comparing a (albeit advanced) modern tank with that of an extremely advanced, futuristic, human-like in most cases, battlemech. I hate to say it but the battlemech, while be set in the future and having advanced technologies, is also much more complicated. Top that off with the cannon video, and I'll take MW:O's convergence (which I like the idea of a lot) over the extremely stupid 'sniper reticule' accuracy of the previous mechwarrior games.

If you want to go by battletech itself, read some books as warriors miss ALL THE FREAKING TIME. Even the so-called 'elite' clanner scum misses. Things like Piloting can be simulated by the people, each person drives their mech differently. Sensor usage can be simulated, not everyone is as good at using their sensor and relaying the information than others. Gunnery is one of the qualities that is hugely affected by the game itself, as warriors had to learn how to use their 'mech and its arsenal. This is not the case when the gunnery is reduced to being able to get the reticule over an enemy for 1/4 of a second and alpha striking to strip their torso down.

I was using the video to help prove my point that a Rotary AC, should, and has been, extremely accurate, especially since the fact that we are aiming with a targeting computer, and we can adjust fire nearly seamlessly, the other ACs have a chance to hit and miss, but a Rotary AC, kind of gets rid of that problem, with the downside of flying through ammo, and a greater chance to jam.

[wolf74]

I've personally never like the way the Ultra-Cannon worked in video games. I’ve played Battletech, Citytech add on, Aerotech, Solaris VII, MW1-4, Both Crescent Hawk's, Mechwarrior On Genie, Mechwarrior On EA, & AT1(I’m bias to this one the ultra are not done coding yet, LB-X work fine )

The way I have always seen the Ultra & Rotary Auto Cannon work is in a burst fire mode.
AKA. The Pilot Picks the mode the weapon going to be in:
Ultra 2-Modes: Single Fire Or Dual Fire
RAC 6-Modes: Single Fire, Dual Fire, Etc , Etc to Hex Fire(AKA 6 shot mode) [We don’t have to worry about this for a LONG time but it helps you understand my view point]

So when the Pilot Pulls the Trigger the Weapon will fire X (X being the Mode the weapon is currently in) round(s) in fewer than 2.5sec than go in to the recycle mode. Which the S7 books say is somewhere between 2.6 to 5 seconds for Reloading after the weapon is done firing for the Ultra AC/5 which in this case is the same window as a Normal AC/5. Most Ultra have a longer reload cycle than their Normal AC Cousins for the I.S. Side at least. (Not going even going in to the Clan system here)

Edited by wolf74, 18 February 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

This of course is dependant on PGI making AC's useable in game compared to energy weapons ie that people would consider using the standard Hunchback rather than the Swayback variant.

[Karl Streiger]

Why have AC-canons to use burst mode only?

A idea i once had was that a AC should be able to use semi-automatic fire, burst or full automatic mode (a assault rifle in Mech size)
the clips of the enforcer or hatchetman are described similar to todays assault rifle clips.
I would explain it in this way - i hope i get the point: thats the part that makes me always confused when writing fan fic.
in battletech tt the damage of a ac is based on the damage it is able to deal within 10 secs - or it could be the damage that is dealt by a single "shot" - who played some solaris iv matches knew that the AC fires four times when a PPC fires only 3 times
So i think that the damage in TT is based on the idea that the damage dealt by a AC is based on the potential damage of a single shot - or clip
That means: a AC-5 with 5 rounds in each clip needs 2.5sec to switch between them - no matter how many rounds you used.
AC 20 need 5 or 7,5sec to switch between the clips because of the size / ammount of the shells or the weight of the ammunition fed to handle those clips.

The clip size could be one or two shots, too - because large caliber guns like a 120mm had for 1 ton of ammunition should about 44 rounds. While i still believe that the Tomodzuru of a Hunchback should be a single large caliber shell - with a assistant rocket propelled charge - to get more speed into the projectile.
The Pontiac 100 on the other hand, with 100 low damage rounds in each clip must become fun to use it in single mode.

[Felix Dante]

I think its should be pretty simple...

ACs: Pull trigger to fire 1 shot (like a cannon one would say...)
UACs: Pull trigger to fire 1 shot, hold trigger to fire short bursts with a chance to jam.
LBXs: Shotgun Fire, 1 shot per trigger pull.
RACs: Pull trigger to fire 1 Shot, hold trigger till you run out of ammo or you jam the gun.