190 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

docmorningstar, on 26 March 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Blar...

That is a pretty gimmicky way to fix low caliber ACs... especially considering that the AC5 is WAY heavier than the PPC....and a LL weighs same-same as an AC2... I don't think that this works the way you think it works...

By those stats I can 'track' with 4x LLs vs 1 AC5...how is this helping the ACs again?

I think this belongs more in a dedicated topic discussing 'balanced' mechs or 'non-alpha-striking'

Not sure who your responding to Doc please follow along or simply refrain.

The AC/5 = 8T vs PPC 7T (where is the WAY heavier?)

The rest of what you wrote makes little sense based on the discussion.

[movingtarget]

=Outlaw=, on 24 March 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

Well you know I approve of anyone promoting BV as balancing tool for this.
Low Caliber ACs are tough nut to crack. In an effort to make them better you encroach on other weapons. There are too many other weapons saturating the long range direct fire category to try to make each equally viable. In an effort to make the AC2/5 viable you risk making other weapons redundant. In BT fluff, the AC2/5 were lower tech which made them cheap and easy weapons to make. Beyond that, Im sure BT generals would have preferred that all their AC2/5 wielding mechs take UAC, Gauss or PPC/ERPPC instead, if they had unlimited resources to do so.

maybe a system for wear and tear on weapons could be added? weapon matenence could be seprate from mech repar costs maybe at low costs but over time by your ground crew so you need to ether keep an extra set lasers to swap out your old ones while they get fixed or use a more reliabel weapon, if your laser degrades to badly it could end up cutting out before its done all its damage.

Edited by movingtarget, 26 March 2012 - 10:20 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

docmorningstar, on 26 March 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Blar...

That is a pretty gimmicky way to fix low caliber ACs... especially considering that the AC5 is WAY heavier than the PPC....and a LL weighs same-same as an AC2... I don't think that this works the way you think it works...

By those stats I can 'track' with 4x LLs vs 1 AC5...how is this helping the ACs again?

I think this belongs more in a dedicated topic discussing 'balanced' mechs or 'non-alpha-striking'

Weapon and Equipment Lists

(IS) AC-5: 8 tons
(IS) PPC/ER-PPC: 7 tons
(IS) AC-2: 6 tons
(IS) Large Laser/ER Large Laser: 5 tons

Most of the prominent AC-carrying 'Mechs with arm-mounted ACs I can think of off-hand (Centurion, Enforcer, Dragon, Victor, Blackjack) carry the ammunition in the torso rather than with the gun, in the arm.

So, a single Large Laser or ER Large Laser would/should track faster than a single AC-2... and that single AC-2 would/should track faster than a single PPC or ER-PPC, and that single PPC should track faster than a single AC-5.

And both the AC-2 (6 tons) and the AC-5 (8 tons) would/should track faster than dual LLs/ER-LLs mounted in the same arm (a total of 10 tons), and would/should also track much faster than dual PPCs/ER-PPCs in the same arm (14 tons).

Moreover, the AC-2 out-ranges the other options, and the AC-5 matches the PPCs, exceeds the LLs, and comes very close to matching the ER-LLs (30 meter difference in "long" ranges - a ~5.26% difference).
Granted, the lasers and PPCs will deal far more damage, but they'll also generate far more heat (with the ER versions of each generating significantly more heat than damage).

----------

Also, another thing that would help the smaller ACs - really, ACs as a whole - would be for them to retain more of their damage past the "long range" mark than most other weapons.

Since the AC shells are explosive shells (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing shells, to be more accurate), the component of the shells' damage resulting from the detonation of the explosive charge (which, IMO, equals or far exceeds the component of the shells' damage resulting from the transfer of KE and momentum in many cases) should remain constant.

By contrast, lasers and PPCs would/should be subject to blooming effects (and, thus, lose damage-potential quickly as the salvo moves beyond the weapon's long range mark) and Gauss Rifle slugs (which don't have an explosive charge to retain damage potential) would/should lose KE at the same rate as the AC shells (that is, fairly quickly - but far more slowly than blooming would reduce the damage of the energy weapons).

Your thoughts?

[Tiercel]

In previous mechwarrior games the AC cannons were awesome!

And one good reason why the AC is a valid weapon in a game where there are no "bots" is ....Reflective armour.
A number of mechs use reflective armour, and the AC is awesome at stripping it away. Also the lower AC cannons provide a good range advantage and are harder to track back to their point of origin.

They were also handy to have if you were in an assault mech, they balanced out your low speed quite nicely and allowed you to close the distance before opening up with your heat hungry energy weapons.

And ultimately they were really easy to get hold of, its not just about which gun shoots best, you have to take into account the logistics and availability.

A lot of people in previous pvp mech games were not great at comming up with mech load outs, as their pvp style of play did not require any other considerations. Why waste time thinking about obscure innersphere economics when just "clicking the big LAZoR magic gun" grants a victory.

[movingtarget]

can you deal more damage by shooting your ac 2 through holes you or a teammate make in a enemys armor? if you can it could be a good way to destroy equipment on an enemy mech

[docmorningstar]

MaddMaxx, on 26 March 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

Not sure who your responding to Doc please follow along or simply refrain.

The AC/5 = 8T vs PPC 7T (where is the WAY heavier?)

The rest of what you wrote makes little sense based on the discussion.

Sorry - rusty brain when I made that post (and somehow forgot how much weapons weighed...weird)

you too strum

Strum Wealh, on 26 March 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Weapon and Equipment Lists

(IS) AC-5: 8 tons
(IS) PPC/ER-PPC: 7 tons
(IS) AC-2: 6 tons
(IS) Large Laser/ER Large Laser: 5 tons

Most of the prominent AC-carrying 'Mechs with arm-mounted ACs I can think of off-hand (Centurion, Enforcer, Dragon, Victor, Blackjack) carry the ammunition in the torso rather than with the gun, in the arm.
......

Your thoughts?

I was addressing the previous posts talking about using the weight of the weapon to affect tracking speed; since ACs are about the *worst* weapons tonnage wise, any sort of heavier=slower paradigm would be very bad for them.

I do like the idea of playing with the damage profile of ACs vs lasers and GR.

Edited by docmorningstar, 27 March 2012 - 01:58 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

docmorningstar, on 27 March 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

Sorry - rusty brain when I made that post (and somehow forgot how much weapons weighed...weird)

you too strum



I was addressing the previous posts talking about using the weight of the weapon to affect tracking speed; since ACs are about the *worst* weapons tonnage wise, any sort of heavier=slower paradigm would be very bad for them.

I do like the idea of playing with the damage profile of ACs vs lasers and GR.

No worries. I confuse easily is all. The Mean value idea I had would help offset the weight issues mentioned. Also I would be willing to give some more ammo to the AC2 (45) and AC5 (20) as standard.

A 1/4 or 1/2 ton perhaps to help increase initial useful time if one wanted to pepper a enemy at Ranges beyond the norm as Strum mentions. Setting drop offs might need some tweaking bu they would add an as yet seen element to MW. Really reaching out and touching someone. No death threat but perhaps a gentle reminder. "I can see you!" LOL

Edited by MaddMaxx, 27 March 2012 - 12:24 PM.

[Johannes Falkner]

How about letting light ACs ricochet around inside after armor is breached? Imagine heavy machine gun rounds inside light armor vehicles, they bounce and do really bad things. Basically, give them a higher probability of causing critical damage or allow them to cause minor glitches as systems reroute.

[MaddMaxx]

Johannes Falkner, on 27 March 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

How about letting light ACs ricochet around inside after armor is breached? Imagine heavy machine gun rounds inside light armor vehicles, they bounce and do really bad things. Basically, give them a higher probability of causing critical damage or allow them to cause minor glitches as systems reroute.

If they Ricocheted around inside, would they not have to Ricochet off the Mech they hit entirely, if they missed the Hole you wanted to get into? Just curious.

[Johannes Falkner]

It's all about the angles. And it is a game mechanic not reality. Though I think their should be a balance to the two possibilities.

[MaddMaxx]

Johannes Falkner, on 27 March 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

It's all about the angles. And it is a game mechanic not reality. Though I think their should be a balance to the two possibilities.

Agreed. and here it is! "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

If it Ricochets inside, of what we assume is a softer internal structure, fine, but miss the hole and it does no damage externally. I can live with that as well.

Sadly it just makes the Light AC a very special purpose weapon, as opposed to giving it more use. What the OP and thread, by my take, is attempting to accomplish.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 27 March 2012 - 02:44 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Strum Wealh, on 26 March 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Moreover, the AC-2 out-ranges the other options, and the AC-5 matches the PPCs, exceeds the LLs, and comes very close to matching the ER-LLs (30 meter difference in "long" ranges - a ~5.26% difference).
Granted, the lasers and PPCs will deal far more damage, but they'll also generate far more heat (with the ER versions of each generating significantly more heat than damage).

One thing to figure when talking AC tonnage is the ammunition weight adding onto it; you could make the argument energy weapons need to add heat sinks to use them, however. On the downside, heat sinks can't explode; since they've talked about ammunition explosions if you run the 'mech too hot, combining an AC/5 as a backup weapon to energy configurations (Such as the Marauder) adds additional risk to the pilot that doesn't seem worthwhile unless the pay off has some serious punch to it (AC/10 or AC/20).

The biggest problem with the AC2's range advantage is it's not enough over things like LRMs to make it really viable; unless they play with the ranges and provide it with a huge range bonus over other options. Also in particular, they've mentioned "artillery" which given other comments I believe are Arrow IVs; depending on how they work (Require a TAG lock, or can lock themselves) this could further push it down the totem pole.

Strum Wealh, on 26 March 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Also, another thing that would help the smaller ACs - really, ACs as a whole - would be for them to retain more of their damage past the "long range" mark than most other weapons.

Since the AC shells are explosive shells (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing shells, to be more accurate), the component of the shells' damage resulting from the detonation of the explosive charge (which, IMO, equals or far exceeds the component of the shells' damage resulting from the transfer of KE and momentum in many cases) should remain constant.

I'm all for the "projectile starts dropping after it's listed range" system, but maintaining it's damage - even for the larger Autocannons. It used to work this way in Living Legends and was a pretty neat concept for using autocannons in a "lobbing" fashion, though it was removed from the larger models.

Strum Wealh, on 26 March 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

By contrast, lasers and PPCs would/should be subject to blooming effects (and, thus, lose damage-potential quickly as the salvo moves beyond the weapon's long range mark) and Gauss Rifle slugs (which don't have an explosive charge to retain damage potential) would/should lose KE at the same rate as the AC shells (that is, fairly quickly - but far more slowly than blooming would reduce the damage of the energy weapons).

Your thoughts?

I'm all for energy weapons degrading as they exit their maximum border, and they've confirmed missiles just explode when outside of maximum range. So it is an interesting concept to try to help a bit- however, it alone won't be enough to save weapons like the AC/2 or AC/5, because this makes them even more difficult to hit with and still lacking in damage to weight.

I'd definitely say these ideas are a good step though; not enough to fix these weapons in themselves, but a step in the right direction. If they track faster, can exceed maximum range with some careful aiming, etc. it will give them some interesting quirks to actually using them, if they're made viable, rather than making them viable alone.

I really think it's going to come down to a very low BV, damage buff or weight drop to make them useful - I tend to prefer to BV solution, if it's viable within the game's systems. Adding these unique elements to a low BV weapon could end up providing us with some pilots who specialize in piloting cheap heavy 'mechs and can take full advantage of their weapon quirks to make the most of it, even if they're going to be on par with the mediums out there at best.

[Johannes Falkner]

I favor just making them ridiculously cheap, low ammo cost, weapon cost and low "BV".

[MaddMaxx]

Johannes Falkner, on 27 March 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

I favor just making them ridiculously cheap, low ammo cost, weapon cost and low "BV".

Might you identify your weapon please, your post is a bit generic.

[Belisarius1]

Honestly, giving them rock and a high fire rate is all you need to do. They then slot into a suppression niche and you're good to go. Although I'm not opposed to fancy things like making them track faster, I don't think that sort of thing will be enough to save them on its own.

[Victor Morson]

Belisarius†, on 27 March 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

Honestly, giving them rock and a high fire rate is all you need to do. They then slot into a suppression niche and you're good to go. Although I'm not opposed to fancy things like making them track faster, I don't think that sort of thing will be enough to save them on its own.

I tend to agree; it's a good place to start, but not enough to justify them alone. I'm totally in favor of making them have a higher rate of fire/rock mechanic, basically acting as the Rotary AC of MWO, since we won't have actual RACs until much, much later; it's a niche gone unfilled in 3049. When and if actual RACs show up, I'm sure we can deal with giving them their own niche at that time.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

There is another matter to consider. When the LB 10X is introduced it pretty much makes both the AC10 and AC5 obsolete.

[Siilk]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 28 March 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

There is another matter to consider. When the LB 10X is introduced it pretty much makes both the AC10 and AC5 obsolete.

Again, BV and price in cbills save the day: AC10 would be outdated with LBX out there so it would became dirt-cheap while still packing quite a punch.

Edit: don't forget about the maintenance, repair and ammo costs.

Edited by Siilk, 28 March 2012 - 11:36 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Siilk, on 28 March 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

Again, BV and price in cbills save the day: AC10 would be outdated with LBX out there so it would became dirt-cheap while still packing quite a punch.

Edit: don't forget about the maintenance, repair and ammo costs.

It is true that the LBX Weapon and Ammo are double the price. Plus LBX Cluster ammo is quote expensive @20,000/T.

Thus running an LBX weapons array could be costly vs an AC.

[Pht]

Fire§torm, on 24 March 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

Pht, are you trying to say that people should be forced to take the AC/2

Nowhere in any post I have ever made anywhere in the past ten years on any forum, much less in any MW forum, have I said that anyone should be forced to take any weapon in any situation, much less in any post in this thread or on these forums.

Where in the world did this come from?

Quote

Or do you mean that someone should be free to take it and deliberately nerf themselves in the interest of a handicap or somehow to enrich the game?

The point is that what I've been calling whack-a-mole balance is bad for diversity in game-play - this form of balance is completely blind to anything other than "does it kill," and to heck in a handbag with anything that doesn't fit that idea.

Quote

I certainly am in favor of diversity in the game, but it just isn't going to happen very often if you leave it to players to choose between weapons that are superior and weapons that are inferior without any sort of restrictions or benefits to taking the less effective kinds of weapons.

Just because most people find it fun to kill everything in sight doesn't mean that people who, say, enjoy using stock designs or otherwise being true to the lore should be summarily dismissed.

It's not like having the relatively few 'mechs and weapons in the game that don't fit the "big robot - blast everything to slag" idea is going to hurt people who genuinely enjoy putting down targets.

Siilk, on 25 March 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

Judging by other Pht's posts on the forum, I guess he is either a troll...

Troll - that would be someone who posts with the specific goal in mind of starting a fight, yes? If so, I'd dearly love to see what good evidence you have for this (and your sole you reference link doesn't fit the bill).

Quote

or just loves to argue while not being very bright.

... and you're calling me the troll, with you posting stuff like this for no good reason?

Quote

I really advise you, guys, to ignore him as most of what he says is just empty meaningless rhetoric.

You actually read most or all of what I've posted? If you have, than where have I been doing what you're saying I have, In particular (as in, use the quote function and show everyone you're right).

...and if you haven't actually read most of what I've posted on these forums, how can you possibly make this claim?

Quote

He talks a lot but his posts adds nothing of value to the discussion. Just check his "Manifesto", you'll see what I'm talking about.

and what of value are we supposed to take from your post, which makes unsubstantiated claims and engages in unwarranted name-calling?

docmorningstar, on 25 March 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

He is a bit offensive about the point that he is making, and it kinda sounds like he's run into some bad experiences with the 'TT rules must be adhered too' crowd...

I've had bad experiences with both sides, and you might notice that I was pointing out how a certain kind of thinking is bad, instead of abusively engaging in name calling against persons. Interventions between friends tend to be raw around the edges, and that manifesto post is just that - an intervention.