190 replies to this topic

[Siilk]

=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.

There's a lot potential in this idea. The more I think about it the more I like it. Making low-cal ACs and their ammo dirt-cheap, compared to expensive and hard to maintain lasers, PPCs and Gauss rifles would really make them a viable choice.

[docmorningstar]

Well...with AC rounds carrying farther than max range, I think they will have a role...If they model the ACs as true ballistic projectiles, I can see making shots at +50% range...which would be a *real* advantage....

[movingtarget]

maybe let an ac carry a free ton of ammo (weight free) to make up for its poor weight to damage ratio? i assume alot of its weight is from its ammo feed systems that reload it so waht if the first reloads weight was accounted in the weapons weight?

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 23 March 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

... yeah, pretty much. You're choosing a weapon with the purpose of killing stuff. It's like if a American Civil War era rifle weighed around the same as a modern assault rifle, choosing it instead. It's just not very good.

Ok, well, than by your standard, the IS small lasers are trash (and if you don't think so, as you say below, than their only being able to hit out to 3 hex doesn't matter, which is flatly ludicrous. Who's going to let you get that close to them with a dozen small lasers?) , the IS er small laser suffers the same problem - it only reaches out to 5 hex... same for the small pulses, clan and IS; and the pulse lasers suck on heat/damage ratio (especially when you use enough heatsinks)... the ISLPL is a joke on range,

speaking of which, there's NO reason to have nearly any IS weapon in the game, because the clan weapons are more damaging, lighter, and longer ranged... why bother with sub-par weapons...

... x-pulse lasers are too hot, clan heavy lasers are too hot, flamers are completely worthless, missile weapons have crappy damage for space/tonnage/potential to explode in your mech...

In fact, there's no reason to really take anything but a clan assault with 4 or 5 large clan pulse lasers with a TC or a clan assault toting 4 Cerppcs; because those two loadouts will trash everything else.

So, either we make everything else just as good as those last two configs, or just get rid of every other config, because those two configs will trash them, virtually every time.

There is absolutely nothing in your standard for what makes a weapon good or bad that argues against these conclusions.

In fact, if killing everything quickly is the essential essence of a fun video game, why not have everyone drop into a match and let whoever hits the "kill em all' button first win?

Quote

No, it's still completely true.

... Now you're changing yor definition mid-stream?

First it's:

Quote

There are no pros to the TT/previous MW AC2/5 in all models (including UAC, LBX) except RAC.

Emphasis added

And now it's changed into:

Quote

... awful weapons that are easily superseded by all of the above weapons I listed.

If the goal posts can be moved at a whim...

Quote

What standard is that? The standard of wanting your heavy gun to kill things? You really think that's unreasonable?

As i already stated, what I think is unreasonable is to think a weapon is a piece of junk because it's not capable of a job it was not built to do!

Quote

This isn't about all weapons filling the same role, or needing to be equal, but they all need to have a distinct purpose that gives you reason to take them over something else.

If this; than why have any IS weapons? Why have ACs and UACS and LBX weapons? why have any weapons in the same damage slots?

Have you stopped and applied your standards to all of the weapons, instead of just selectively against the ac2s?

[Victor Morson]

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Ok, well, than by your standard, the IS small lasers are trash (and if you don't think so, as you say below, than their only being able to hit out to 3 hex doesn't matter, which is flatly ludicrous. Who's going to let you get that close to them with a dozen small lasers?) , the IS er small laser suffers the same problem - it only reaches out to 5 hex... same for the small pulses, clan and IS; and the pulse lasers suck on heat/damage ratio (especially when you use enough heatsinks)... the ISLPL is a joke on range,

Small lasers are fine, and I even explained why they are fine. They're only one half ton. A 'mech could sport 6 small lasers as backup weapons atop of other, bigger & better firepower without taking much out of it - adding six times the damage of an AC2 for only 3 tons in a close range brawl.

To answer your question of "Who is going to let you get close enough to use a bunch of small lasers?" the answer is.. you! While you're trying desperately to plink away at the guy in a recon 'mech with your AC2s, going as far as to mess up his paint job with your primary weapon, he'll have absolutely no problem walking right up to you and hitting you with both the primary weapons AND secondaries like small lasers. Simply put the AC/2s don't have enough stopping power to prevent this and the AC/2 and AC/5 both take SO much weight out of a 'mech, you won't be able to match the speed of someone using energy weapons - let alone evade while returning fire. Long story short is the AC/2 is so heavy it means you can't outrun them and so non-damaging you can't force them to stay back.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

speaking of which, there's NO reason to have nearly any IS weapon in the game, because the clan weapons are more damaging, lighter, and longer ranged... why bother with sub-par weapons...

It's a different faction. If it's held to it's Table Top balance, it is outright superior. But the key thing here is if the InnerSphere could gain access to Clan 'mechs. Because if they can, aside from a BV balancing system, your right: It would totally out date all the IS 'mechs in a ton for ton comparison. I really hope that they don't allow the IS factions to access the Clan 'mechs, ever, as a result.

Notably this is why there is concern over a BV system; the only options the devs have really is to nerf the Clans (MW4's approach) or put them at a severe weight & quality disadvantage via BV. Many clan Mediums are more than a match for T1 IS stuff.

This is an entirely different can of worms, though, because again: We're talking different factions. If they left the Clans totally unchecked by BV and unnerfed, you'd end up with everyone leaving IS to play Clan and most IS players quitting the game because they'd stand absolutely no chance. I trust the devs to balance this issue fine, but I'm just trying to explain why even bringing this up is a wild deviation from the light AC topic.

Long story short: If everyone had unrestricted access to a Vulture you'd be a massive fool to take a Dragon.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

... x-pulse lasers are too hot, clan heavy lasers are too hot, flamers are completely worthless, missile weapons have crappy damage for space/tonnage/potential to explode in your mech...

Missile weapons have a far better damage to weight ratio than the AC/2. The ammunition for the missile weapons can explode equally on par with the AC/2. Missile weapons nearly as much range as the AC/2..

.. also, now I'm just convinced you're just trying to smoke screen the lack of pro-AC/2 or AC/5 argument by just randomly saying things. Clan Heavy Lasers are hot but as I was saying is the light AC's biggest failing, they do loads of damage. They actually kill things. For .5 tons they do three times the damage of an AC/2. It's moot for MWO (wrong time period) but if you've ever played a table top game with a Jaggermech vs a Firemoth with 6 Heavy Smalls... you know what, I'm going back to my original theory. This isn't remotely on topic. The Heavy Smalls have a role - being extremely light and extremely damaging. They're great weapons, either as primary on something fast or secondary on something slow (For 2 tons you can do twelve times as much damage as an AC/2 at close range, giving your missile boat some point-blank defense against harassers, for example). The main point I'm making is they have a role.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

In fact, there's no reason to really take anything but a clan assault with 4 or 5 large clan pulse lasers with a TC or a clan assault toting 4 Cerppcs; because those two loadouts will trash everything else.

Battle Value, for one. For two, you're completely right - in the table top rolling random armies and BV are what stops you from doing this. If you told me to take any 4 'mechs I wanted to fight any battle ever, I'd probably pick 4 Gargolyes with LPLs and a targeting computer. Because it's horrendously overpowered.

That, however, is another topic. The topic instead is the fact that I'd never pick a unit sporting AC/2, AC/5, LBX/2, LBX/5, or UAC/2 and UAC/5. That's 6 weapons that are in the trash pile. Hell, the last official MW game didn't even bother to put in an LBX/2 or LBX/5 because they were already so terrible it wasn't worth it.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

So, either we make everything else just as good as those last two configs, or just get rid of every other config, because those two configs will trash them, virtually every time.

All this is really is another argument for a BV system (a good thing). That or nerfing overpowered weapons like LPLs as they have been in the majority of Mechwarrior games.. not sure if you played Living Legends before they adjusted the heat on the CLPLs, but yeah, pretty much a single tank rolling 4 of them could massacre an entire lance of assaults with minor damage. They've fixed the heat since.

Again, this comes down to two options: Making the AC/2 and AC/5 viable weapons via battle value by making 'mechs sporting them worth far less or making them viable in some niche, by upping their cockpit rock, damage.. something. Other than that there's no reason for them to exist. On TT the BV penalty isn't nearly severe enough, so the only reason you'd ever want something sporting these is by an unfortunate roll of the dice when setting up your army.

That's a lot of the reason RACs were made in the first place. They were literally designed to "fix" lighter ACs without a retcon. The Jaggermech sporting RACs for example is actually a really, really nasty 60 tonner far more in line with what the original design was supposed to be. Compared to the stock model that would be outgunned by a single gun on the Catapult, it's a night and day difference.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

There is absolutely nothing in your standard for what makes a weapon good or bad that argues against these conclusions.

Yes there is. Seriously. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. Small ACs have the worst damage to weight ratio in the entire game, even in their optimal range bracket. If we're talking T2 TT tech the Light Gauss rifle even outranges them while still being superior in the damage/weight category. Weapons in close range roles do so much more damage that using Light ACs for fire support insures they'll just walk up and use said weapons and weapons in long range roles can beat them at their own game.. and not just by a small amount, but by a massive margin of several times as much damage in the least extreme case.

For all the talking you've done I've not heard a single objective argument as to why one of these weapons would be preferable to anything else, since they can't stop close range people from closing on them effectively nor can they reign supreme in the long range game.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

In fact, if killing everything quickly is the essential essence of a fun video game, why not have everyone drop into a match and let whoever hits the "kill em all' button first win?

I'd prefer 'mechs to last a long time under sustained fire, if they have a pilot that's good at spreading the damage around their body. In early MW4, you could get destroyed in just two hits, yet league matches would take a full hour per drop and end with survivors (before the rise of the high speed melee 'mechs), just because good pilots could allocate their damage around their body.

That said, the problem here is that the AC/2 and AC/5 exist in a world of weapons that can kill quickly. Regardless if the small ACs are moved into being more powerful or not, it will not change the fact that a 'mech sporting tons of Medium Lasers and an AC/20 can tear a smaller 'mech apart almost instantly. It will not change the fact that a couple salvos from a Catapult will tear armor off all over your 'mech. It will not change the fact a Gauss Rifle to the right spot can blow a smaller 'mechs ammo in one blow.

Again, taking an AC/2 is like taking flintlock into a fight where people have everything from shotguns to SAWs. Sure, you could hurt somebody and maybe even kill them but EVERYBODY has better guns than you for EVERY role.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

... Now you're changing yor definition mid-stream?

First it's: There are no pros to the TT/previous MW AC2/5 in all models (including UAC, LBX) except RAC.
And now it's changed into: .. awful weapons that are easily superseded by all of the above weapons I listed.

... what? I said that there was NO pro to the AC/2 or AC/5 over every single other long ranged weapon of note. Then I said they were terrible weapons outclassed by everything else. How are you possibly reading this as changing my mind?

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

As i already stated, what I think is unreasonable is to think a weapon is a piece of junk because it's not capable of a job it was not built to do!

OK, this has really gotten really, really funny at this point. Please enlighten me to not only what the AC/2 and AC/5 are supposed to do, but why they are preferable in said role to any other weapon.

Were they designed to weigh as much as extremely powerful weapons while providing less damage than anything on a ton-to-damage ratio in the game? Were they designed to be terrible weapons? Are they supposed to be terrible weapons? What are they designed to do??? I need to know what you're thinking. I'm actually really curious now because so far you've not made a single point as to what they are supposed to be good at.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

If this; than why have any IS weapons? Why have ACs and UACS and LBX weapons? why have any weapons in the same damage slots?

Have you stopped and applied your standards to all of the weapons, instead of just selectively against the ac2s?

Yes, I have. They're all lighter, more damaging and offer similar range. In T2, some even offer superior range while still fitting the rest of these categories.

So enlighten us.. what are these weapons designed to do? *

* Excluding anti-aircraft roles. As I've repeatedly said, if we had aircraft in the game, we'd have an excellent solution to this problem.

Edited by Victor Morson, 24 March 2012 - 04:14 PM.

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 24 March 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Small lasers are fine, and I even explained why they are fine. They're only one half ton. A 'mech could sport 6 small lasers as backup weapons atop of other, bigger & better firepower without taking much out of it - adding six times the damage of an AC2 for only 3 tons in a close range brawl.

To answer your question of "Who is going to let you get close enough to use a bunch of small lasers?" the answer is.. you! While you're trying desperately to plink away at the guy in a recon 'mech with your AC2s,...

You're presuming that if I was driving an ac2 ride that I would be stupid enough to think that I should be engaging targets without any medium range nut-cracking friendlies around, waiting on anyone stupid enough to get that close.

I've said several times that the ac2 doesn't have the job of killing things with extreme prejudice. I don't say that and ignore it's implications.

Quote

It's a different faction.

You didn't say *anything* about faction previously.

Again, with the moving goal posts.

Quote

This is an entirely different can of worms, though, because again: We're talking different factions.

---

... but I'm just trying to explain why even bringing this up is a wild deviation from the light AC topic.

Ok, than if faction can justify this kind of disparity, than how does it NOT euqually justify the ac2's existance as a weapon that's not built to kill stuff all by it's lonesome?

After all, the clanners have a 'mech built around their version of the AC's, and I don't suspect you'll sneeze at it as a joke.

---

It is not a deviation. I took your stated standard and applied it equally across all the weapons I could think of.

Quote

.. also, now I'm just convinced you're just trying to smoke screen the lack of pro-AC/2 or AC/5 argument


]...by just randomly saying things.

I've pointed out several times what the ac2's were built to do. I guess at this point you've decided to ignore those statements because it doesn't suit your argument to acknowledge them.

---

An easy claim to make... can you back it up by showing where I've posted "random things?"

Quote

Battle Value, for one.

---

All this is really is another argument for a BV system (a good thing). That or nerfing overpowered weapons like LPLs as they have been in the majority of Mechwarrior games.. not sure if you played Living Legends before they adjusted the heat on the CLPLs, but yeah, pretty much a single tank rolling 4 of them could massacre an entire lance of assaults with minor damage. They've fixed the heat since.

... and now you add BV...

Do you know all of the standards you're measuring by, or are you just throwing stuff at the wall, hoping some of it will stick? The goal posts keep moving, which really makes a person wonder... and I did think we were discussing the weapon as it relates from the TT to the video game, not in the TT alone.

---

This is classic whack-a-mole damage balancing that inevitably results in every weapon falling inside of an ever-shrinking performance envelope; which is not a good thing. Anything that sticks below or above the average gets hit with a hammer.

Quote

Yes there is. Seriously. I don't even know what you're trying to argue.

---

For all the talking you've done I've not heard a single objective argument as to why one of these weapons would be preferable to anything else,...

The point is that you're arguing for whack-a-mole balance, and under whack-a-mole, there's NO reason that every weapon will not ultimately be hammered into the ever-shrinking performance average. Whack-a-mole leaves no room for true diversity in weaponry.

---

Why should you care that they be preferable to anything else, when your preference is to hammer all weapons into a range that will, because of player pressures, shrink?

In fact, if weapons are only to be judged by their ability to kill stuff in some niche, why have *any* weapons that don't fit a "kill it" niche... and to heck with diversity?

Quote

I'd prefer 'mechs to last a long time under sustained fire, if they have a pilot that's good at spreading the damage around their body. In early MW4, you could get destroyed in just two hits, yet league matches would take a full hour per drop and end with survivors (before the rise of the high speed melee 'mechs), just because good pilots could allocate their damage around their body.

---

That said, the problem here is that the AC/2 and AC/5 exist in a world of weapons that can kill quickly.

You could get one-shotted in mw4 in all it's incarnations through the side torso or through some of the 'mechs special sections, and the league games were only long because everyone hid in a hole somewhere and refused to come out. When combat actually happened it was resolved quickly.

---

Why is this a problem?

Quote

... what? I said that there was NO pro to the AC/2 or AC/5 over every single other long ranged weapon of note. Then I said they were terrible weapons outclassed by everything else. How are you possibly reading this as changing my mind?

---

OK, this has really gotten really, really funny at this point. Please enlighten me to not only what the AC/2 and AC/5 are supposed to do, but why they are preferable in said role to any other weapon.

My bad.

---

I haven't posted anywhere that they are preferable in any role to any other weapon; don't attribute that to me.

As for what they're designed to do, why are you asking me, when you've already acknowledged what they do?

Victor Morson, on 15 March 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

The fact that AC2s can be used for TAC finders...

Besides which, I already answered this question a few pages back:

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

AC2s are not there to kill things; they're there to hit at extremely long ranges with ballistic damage and "find crits," and they do that quite well at peppering people to soften them up before they can get to you.

[movingtarget]

another idea could be to make ac2's dual mounted,one ac2 has 2 guns for the same weight .

[Victor Morson]

... and here we go again.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

You're presuming that if I was driving an ac2 ride that I would be stupid enough to think that I should be engaging targets without any medium range nut-cracking friendlies around, waiting on anyone stupid enough to get that close.

I've said several times that the ac2 doesn't have the job of killing things with extreme prejudice. I don't say that and ignore it's implications.

What is it's job??? That's the key point I keep asking over and over. There's other guns with almost identical range that do kill things with extreme prejudice, in a game about killing things. What is the AC2 supposed to do better than anything else?

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

You didn't say *anything* about faction previously.

Again, with the moving goal posts.

Because we were not discussing factions. We were discussing autocannons. I mean really?

For the record I think the Clan small UACs are still terrible, compared to other Clan weapons, so it's a non-issue anyway.. you're better off with any slew of stellar Clan weapons over these things, despite their improvements, because the other guns were equally improved.

Seriously though you keep wanting to say I'm changing what I'm saying and I'm not. I'm really, really not.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Ok, than if faction can justify this kind of disparity, than how does it NOT euqually justify the ac2's existance as a weapon that's not built to kill stuff all by it's lonesome?

After all, the clanners have a 'mech built around their version of the AC's, and I don't suspect you'll sneeze at it as a joke.

If I was in an InnerSphere 'mech, no, I wouldn't sneeze at a Clan 'mech built entirely around UAC/5s as a joke. However, if I was a Clan player in something of equal tonnage centered around, say, pulse lasers or ER weapons then yes, I would sneeze at it as a joke. There's just an inherit superiority to ALL Clan equipment over it's InnerSphere counterparts.

This is going wildly off topic.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

It is not a deviation. I took your stated standard and applied it equally across all the weapons I could think of.

No, you didn't. You started ranting about heat, tech base, etc. My only point is the the UAC2/5, for the weight is an inferior weapon to everything else on a tonnage-per-damage ratio; it also has no redeeming values as weapons with similar range ALSO outclass it. If the AC range was doubled from it's TT value, I could at least put it into some kind of niche then, but as it stands, it's outclassed on every front.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

I've pointed out several times what the ac2's were built to do. I guess at this point you've decided to ignore those statements because it doesn't suit your argument to acknowledge them.

Don't try to slip out of it. I want you to explain what you think AC/2s were designed to do, and more importantly, why they are better at that than any other weapon. If you're going to go back to the fact they could, in theory, find a critical I'd like to point out that any other long range weapon can do the same thing, all while delivering several times the damage at roughly the same distance.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

An easy claim to make... can you back it up by showing where I've posted "random things?"

Talking about IS vs Clan, Heavy Flamers, X-Pulse and trying to suggest I'm somehow claiming these low tonnage, highly damaging weapons as worthless because I am saying that low-caliber ACs are terrible, which aren't even remotely related.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

... and now you add BV...

Almost from the start - and always in the BV thread you've also read - one option for balancing bad weapons has been BV. By making them lower the value of the 'mech they're on a great deal, you get to pay a fair sub-par price and bring heavier equipment for more armor/etc. into a battle. I'd say an assault centered around AC/5s as primary weapons would be on part with a good Tech 2 medium so I'd find that entirely fair.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Do you know all of the standards you're measuring by, or are you just throwing stuff at the wall, hoping some of it will stick? The goal posts keep moving, which really makes a person wonder... and I did think we were discussing the weapon as it relates from the TT to the video game, not in the TT alone.

Honestly I think it's pretty clear that's what your doing at this point; ALL I've ever talked about is Autocannons. Any reference to other weapons in this thread is only done in a comparison of their tonnage to damage ratio, or comparing them to something that fits in the same role (LRM, Gauss, PPC, ER Large - all similar ranges with more punch at less weight). You've started talking about fifty different subjects and somehow declaring I hate all of them, when I've said nothing of that sort and continue to say nothing like that. To clarify, so you absolutely get it:

• Small ACs do not have enough stopping power to keep close range units at bay.
  
• Small ACs do not have enough firepower to go toe to toe with units with similar range.
  
• Small ACs weigh so much, they are as heavy as the superior weapons in all range categories I am discussing above.

All three of these things are absolutely accurate and given all three of them, the conclusion is that small ACs are just plain bad weapons on the TT, and have been represented as such in the majority of MechWarrior titles. This thread was about suggestions to fix them, which has brought up two schools of thought: Buffing the weapon to bring it into line with weapons of similar range/weight, or lowering it's value so much that it cheapens the 'mech it's mounted on, allowing heavier equipment to be used. I've talked about both methods.



I've not changed my stance on any of this, despite what you're saying, but have been interested in discussing both avenues of fixing this problem, including the suggestion of specialty ammunition from the advanced rules, something designed to again, try to fix what is effectively a broken weapon.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

This is classic whack-a-mole damage balancing that inevitably results in every weapon falling inside of an ever-shrinking performance envelope; which is not a good thing. Anything that sticks below or above the average gets hit with a hammer.

The point is that you're arguing for whack-a-mole balance, and under whack-a-mole, there's NO reason that every weapon will not ultimately be hammered into the ever-shrinking performance average. Whack-a-mole leaves no room for true diversity in weaponry.

This is why we've discussed the BV solution opposed to the weapon buffing one, and the main argument for that camp. By having a clearly inferior gun, that performs in at an inferior capacity but also takes much less resource to bring into battle, you can solve this problem without buffing it's performance.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Why should you care that they be preferable to anything else, when your preference is to hammer all weapons into a range that will, because of player pressures, shrink?

In fact, if weapons are only to be judged by their ability to kill stuff in some niche, why have *any* weapons that don't fit a "kill it" niche... and to heck with diversity?

.. you shouldn't. If you have any weapons in your game that are totally ineffective and selectable at the start of a match, no matter what game it is, you've done something wrong. Again, what role do you think ACs have? They are a weapon for killing things. We're not talking about fancy electronic warfare or tricks. I'm not here fighting against the NARC beacon, a munition that does no damage - largely because it has a role besides directly killing things. I'd love stuff like Nemesis Beacons and such to show up in the game. I'm all for weapons that are diverse and not centered around direct damage weapons!

The Autocannon is a cannon that shoots things in the hopes they die. That's what it is, ultimately. There's no getting around the fact it is poor at it's job. If it weighed, say, 2 tons then it'd be very good at it's job - possibly overpowered - because you'd be able to put a bunch of them on your 'mech. That's the discussion we're having about the "buff" school of thought.

EDIT: I apparently hit the maximum number of quotes so can't post the last quarter of this post. In addition, if I try to put up a second post, it adds it to this one, breaking the quote system entirely and making it nearly unreadable. I'll post the last part after someone else posts on the thread.

Edited by Victor Morson, 24 March 2012 - 06:27 PM.

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 24 March 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

What is it's job??? That's the key point I keep asking over and over.

I've already answered that multiple times now.

Quote

There's other guns with almost identical range that do kill things with extreme prejudice, in a game about killing things. What is the AC2 supposed to do better than anything else?

Having a job is not the same as doing something better than anything else. I already said that I've not claimed that AC2s do anything better than every other weapon.

Quote

Because we were not discussing factions. We were discussing autocannons. I mean really?

Nor was I specficially discussiong only factions, with no reference to weapons. I mentioned that the weapons of another faction were better.

Quote

If I was in an InnerSphere 'mech, no, I wouldn't sneeze at a Clan 'mech built entirely around UAC/5s as a joke. However, if I was a Clan player in something of equal tonnage centered around, say, pulse lasers or ER weapons then yes, I would sneeze at it as a joke. There's just an inherit superiority to ALL Clan equipment over it's InnerSphere counterparts.

This is going wildly off topic.

The kracken doesn't use cuac5's.

You say it's off topic, and yet I don't think you could show where it has.

Quote

No, you didn't.

Yes, I did. You stated what you were using as a standard, and I applied it to all of the weapons instead of just a single one that I irrationally hated for not being a weapon built to kill stuff.

Quote

Don't try to slip out of it.

I can't slip out of something I was never in.

Quote

Honestly I think it's pretty clear that's what your doing at this point; ALL I've ever talked about is Autocannons.

I was talking not about just your reference to the autocannons. I was talking about the standard by which you are judging them, which appears to be changing post by post.

Quote

The Autocannon is a cannon that shoots things in the hopes they die. That's what it is, ultimately.

This is not the job of the ac2.

These forums only allow 10 quotes ... apparently they don't want discussion in depth! ... I already asked to have more, but the request was either missed or fell on deaf ears.


You still have not proven your basic assumption - that a weapon which does not kill things quickly in some niche or the other is a "bad weapon."


I would guess that you think that all mechs that don't have the job of "kill it" are a waste, too?


Does team-play not even count, where multiple mechs can do different jobs, some of which don't involve being the "damage thug?"


You also still have not addressed the real and serious problem of whack-a-mole balance. Players will always head for the most capable setups, exaggerating the disparity between the low and high average weapons, resulting in the ever tightening envelope and crushing of any roles beyond "kill it."

Edited by Pht, 24 March 2012 - 06:55 PM.

[FireStorm2]

This is getting pretty crazy.

Pht, are you trying to say that people should be forced to take the AC/2 even though it is less effective than other weapons, in the name of diversity? 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? I just don't really understand what you are arguing for here.

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.

[docmorningstar]

What firestorm said....

I think a direct buff (in the form of shells carrying 'farther' than long range) and an indirect buff (lower BV for AC class weapons) will make ACs viable, without changing the 'flavor' of the game to badly.

A properly tuned BV system puts a Jagermech vs a Panther - and that's a pretty good fight.

[Victor Morson]

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

I've already answered that multiple times now.

Having a job is not the same as doing something better than anything else. I already said that I've not claimed that AC2s do anything better than every other weapon.

If it is inferior than literally any other gun in the game, that's a bad weapon. Yet you say it's a good weapon?

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

Nor was I specficially discussiong only factions, with no reference to weapons. I mentioned that the weapons of another faction were better.

Which is still pretty far off topic.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

The kracken doesn't use cuac5's.

10 UAC/2s sounds fearsome on a Clan 'mech. Until you realize that it has the damage potential of a single LRM-20. On a 100 ton 'mech. Sweet Jesus that's terrible, in particular coming from a tech base that can do the same damage as that with just two ER Large Lasers with better focused fire.. and there's Clan 'mechs that carry six of them for 10 tons less.. I mean holy crap is that a terrible 'mech.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

Yes, I did. You stated what you were using as a standard, and I applied it to all of the weapons instead of just a single one that I irrationally hated for not being a weapon built to kill stuff.

I hate weapons that are really heavy that don't kill stuff. The majority of weapons you listed were very light. I'd have no problem with an AC/2 if it was very light, because you'd be able to jam a several instead of just one, making it more than viable. If an AC/5 weighed half as much as it does currently, it might be a very respectable weapon. As it stands it's so heavy it's a lighter 'mechs main firepower and that is where it falls apart very fast. My point is a weapon that's only a half ton out performs it, and weapons in the same weight bracket WAY outperform it.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

I was talking not about just your reference to the autocannons. I was talking about the standard by which you are judging them, which appears to be changing post by post.

I outlined them above. I keep repeating the same standards. It fails at damage against weapons of the same range bracket and it fails at overall damage to weight. It's inferior to every single gun in the BTU; it doesn't have enough damage to be used as ranged fire support when faced with LRMs, PPCs, ER weapons to compete with them, and it's not enough damage to drive off even close range 'mechs from just walking up to it. I've said this over and over and over. I sound like a broken record. I've not changed my stance or judgement on these weapons even one time. At most, I've added MORE reasons they're terrible.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

This is not the job of the ac2.

Again with this. What is the job of an AC2? You've just said it can't do anything better than any other weapon. There's literally no advantage to taking it over a superior fire support weapon. None, at all. Unless the BV for it is severely nerfed, that is.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

These forums only allow 10 quotes ... apparently they don't want discussion in depth! ... I already asked to have more, but the request was either missed or fell on deaf ears.

I don't think something basic like this usually takes this much discussion. There's really not a lot of evidence presented to even warrant this conversation, honestly. I've compared stats to damn near every weapon class in the game and tried to explain why it is objectively terrible at everything and all I keep hearing back is this cryptic "But that's not it's job." If everything is better than the AC/2 (including at crit finding), it has no job, without some change in MWO to give it one. That's why this thread was made in the first place, not to bash the AC/2 and AC/5 but to try to improve them to a useful status.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

You still have not proven your basic assumption - that a weapon which does not kill things quickly in some niche or the other is a "bad weapon."

I would guess that you think that all mechs that don't have the job of "kill it" are a waste, too?

Does team-play not even count, where multiple mechs can do different jobs, some of which don't involve being the "damage thug?"

There's only three types of 'mechs that have any business out there:

A: Find it. Recon 'mechs.
B: Kill it. 'Mechs designed to kill other 'mechs. This includes fire support, brawlers, anything that's role is damage dealing.
C: Extreme specialty support. This might be a 'mech designed towards electronic warfare or command roles, it's hard to tell in MWO. An example of specialty support in MWLL for example is a Clan hovercraft with AECM which, in that game, hides nearby allies from radar. It's not very good past that. There's likely to be designs like this in MWO, at least in spirit.

So yes, team play definitely counts. But in general you're going to have one or two recon guys, maybe a specialty 'mech and then everybody else is going to fall into "kill it" - be it brawlers or ranged fighters. You have sub categories like brawlers that are more tank-oriented versus ones with more guns, sure.

What you positively do not want is a 'mech that's designed for fire support or mid range fighting mounting inferior guns on purpose, unless it came really cheap to the config. At the end of the day AC/2 centric 'mechs are not specialty 'mechs. They're fire support 'mechs, which fall into "kill it." They're just totally horrible at their role as fire support. While they're chipping away at somebody's paint the guy next to him mounting ER Large and LRM-15s will probably tear the same target limb from limb, at the same distance.

Again, the AC/2 is not a special role. Command is, recon is.. there ARE roles aside from direct damage that exist. A TAG laser is a special role, for example. But using a terrible gun for no reason doesn't make you elite, it makes you terrible.

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

You also still have not addressed the real and serious problem of whack-a-mole balance. Players will always head for the most capable setups, exaggerating the disparity between the low and high average weapons, resulting in the ever tightening envelope and crushing of any roles beyond "kill it."

Because it's a game about blowing up the enemy, people want stuff that, you know, blows up the enemy. Some players might want to be more creative and use electronic warfare, calling down powerful support abilities or worry about spotting the enemy for the team, but at the end of the day, everyone wants to contribute to the goal of killing the enemy team.

Except the guy who's sporting all AC/2s and AC/5s, anyway (Barring a buff/BV shift). I don't know what he's doing, but it's sure not helping the team win.

Edited by Victor Morson, 25 March 2012 - 05:55 AM.

[Siilk]

Judging by other Pht's posts on the forum, I guess he is either a troll or just loves to argue while not being very bright. I really advise you, guys, to ignore him as most of what he says is just empty meaningless rhetoric. 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.

[docmorningstar]

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 or just loves to argue while not being very bright. I really advise you, guys, to ignore him as most of what he says is just empty meaningless rhetoric. 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.

Don't troll the trolls...I have no idea what happens what happens when you recursively cube a troll...but it can't be good.

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...

[Outlaw2]

Siilk, on 24 March 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

There's a lot potential in this idea. The more I think about it the more I like it. Making low-cal ACs and their ammo dirt-cheap, compared to expensive and hard to maintain lasers, PPCs and Gauss rifles would really make them a viable choice.

Plus this won't just benefit the low caliber ACs, since even the AC10 /20 will start feeling the pinch once you start accessing UAC and LBX versions.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 25 March 2012 - 08:18 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Strum Wealh, on 23 March 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

One issue I could see with that is people loading a particularly heavy and otherwise slow-tracking "primary" weapon (say, an AC-20 or a Gauss Rifle) into one arm and a particularly fast-tracking "throw-away" weapon (say, a Small Laser or a Machine Gun) into the other arm, and using the averaging system to boost the tracking speed of the heavier weapon.

By contrast, IMO, tying tracking and convergence rates to the mass of the weapons serves to enhance the usefulness of those lighter (usually low-damage) weapons by making them better able to keep pressure on the opponent at longer and very-short ranges, thus making them viable alternatives to their heavier and harder-hitting (and, perhaps, slower-tracking) brethren.

As such, if we couldn't get a "third reticle" to have one for each arm and one for the torso-mounted weapons (Please, Devs?), then I, for one, would prefer to see the arms tracking limited to that of the heavier, slower-tracking weapon; then it's just a matter of grouping the weapons differently and adjusting one's aiming practices.

My issue with it is in cases like the Dragon and the Victor (both having an AC in one arm, and one or more lasers in the other), I imagine that it would be occasionally-useful to decouple the faster-tracking lasers from the slower-tracking AC, particularly in cases of close-quarters combat...

And if we can't have the 3rd reticule, then the slower tracking based on the heavier/ individual mass would hurt the other arm(s) on those Mechs with one heavy and one light weapon stock . Example of the Maths below.

Just to follow up with some Maths. Using the additive mean scenario you could get that LA AC20 (14T) add a RA .5t throw away MG (a true waste of much needed load out resources) to get a 14+.5 /2 = 7.25 mean tracking speed.

Versus the Dragons current Stock load out. LA AC5 (8T) + RA 2T ML's to get 8+2 /2 = 5 mean tracking speed. Thus we see a built in balancing factor for the Tracking speed across the arms given a smaller # = Faster tracking.

Could make for some interesting calculations for how to load out a Mech's arms based on the Role as well.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 25 March 2012 - 11:50 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

MaddMaxx, on 25 March 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

And if we can't have the 3rd reticule, then the slower tracking based on the heavier/ individual mass would hurt the other arm(s) on those Mechs with one heavy and one light weapon stock . Example of the Maths below.

Just to follow up with some Maths. Using the additive mean scenario you could get that LA AC20 (14T) add a RA .5t throw away MG (a true waste of much needed load out resources) to get a 14+.5 /2 = 7.25 mean tracking speed.

Versus the Dragons current Stock load out. LA AC5 (8T) + RA 2T ML's to get 8+2 /2 = 5 mean tracking speed. Thus we see a built in balancing factor for the Tracking speed across the arms given a smaller # = Faster tracking.

Could make for some interesting calculations for how to load out a Mech's arms based on the Role as well.

Then one doesn't put a Machine gun in at all, and (14+0)/2 = 7.0

Also, the DRG-1N Dragon's Medium Lasers are in the left arm (one laser) and left torso (the other laser), with the AC-5 in the right arm, so (8+1)/2 = 4.5...

Now, let's say that one were to replace the Dragon's Medium Lasers (1 ton each) with Small Lasers (0.5 tons each).
The average tracking rate then decreases to (8+0.5)/2 = 4.25.
And if the left-arm Medium Laser is instead dropped entirely, or moved to the torso, then the average tracking rate - now the tracking rate for the right-arm autocannon, by itself - is even lower as (8+0)/2 = 4.0

So, if the right arm has the physical capability to have the AC-5 track that quickly (4.0 vs 4.5), then why shouldn't it always track that quickly (with the left arm tracking at that speed when the arms are linked (provided the mass of the loaded weapon(s) is less than or equal to that of the AC-5), or even faster if they are unlinked (and the mass of the loaded weapon(s) is less than that of the AC-5))?

Hence, my suggestion to have the tracking speed of the arms set to that of the heaviest weapon (or set of weapons) in either arm - it would make sense to have the arms track as quickly as possible, but the maximum possible speed would/should be limited by how quickly the BattleMech's musculature could move any given mass through a given arc.
(Thought, that does present the question of whether a heavier 'Mech, with its stronger musculature, should have higher tracking and convergence rates for any given combination of arm-mounted weapons than a lighter 'Mech with the same combination of arm-mounted weapons (regardless of which reticle system is used)... )

Incidentally, the DRG-1N Dragon is (IMO) one of the clearest examples of why it should be possible to decouple the arms from one another - the left arm, mounting a one-ton Medium Laser, should be able to track (and converge) much more quickly than the right arm with its 8-ton AC-5 (with which it shares little - the range brackets, leading requirements, and times-to-target at anything outside of literal point-blank are drastically different).
That would also make it much more straightforward to use matching weapons located in either arm and the torso - in the case of the Dragon, the Medium Laser mounted in the left arm could be more easily and readily used in conjunction with its counterpart in the adjacent torso.

By contrast, something with, say, a LB-X AC-10 (11 tons) in one arm and a standard AC-5 (8 tons) in the other arm would benefit more from having the arms linked (with the tracking speed being that of the heavier LB-X), since both of those weapons have identical range brackets and would thus greatly complement one another (and if their muzzle velocities are such that they have similar times-to-target, then so much the better).

Your thoughts?

[Siilk]

Strum Wealh, on 25 March 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

Hence, my suggestion to have the tracking speed of the arms set to that of the heaviest weapon (or set of weapons) in either arm - it would make sense to have the arms track as quickly as possible, but the maximum possible speed would/should be limited by how quickly the BattleMech's musculature could move any given mass through a given arc.
(Thought, that does present the question of whether a heavier 'Mech, with its stronger musculature, should have higher tracking and convergence rates for any given combination of arm-mounted weapons than a lighter 'Mech with the same combination of arm-mounted weapons (regardless of which reticle system is used)... )

Incidentally, the DRG-1N Dragon is (IMO) one of the clearest examples of why it should be possible to decouple the arms from one another - the left arm, mounting a one-ton Medium Laser, should be able to track (and converge) much more quickly than the right arm with its 8-ton AC-5 (with which it shares little - the range brackets, leading requirements, and times-to-target at anything outside of literal point-blank are drastically different).
That would also make it much more straightforward to use matching weapons located in either arm and the torso - in the case of the Dragon, the Medium Laser mounted in the left arm could be more easily and readily used in conjunction with its counterpart in the adjacent torso.

By contrast, something with, say, a LB-X AC-10 (11 tons) in one arm and a standard AC-5 (8 tons) in the other arm would benefit more from having the arms linked (with the tracking speed being that of the heavier LB-X), since both of those weapons have identical range brackets and would thus greatly complement one another (and if their muzzle velocities are such that they have similar times-to-target, then so much the better).

Your thoughts?

This idea is interesting but it would lead to further penalizing diverse loadouts, which I want to avoid. BTW, I'd be really interested in trying out 3 reticles aiming with arms being able to lock together or unlock to provide more flexible aiming for a "faster" arm. It wouldn't be much harder to use than current 2 reticles as you would mostly "unlock" arms when you need to aim one of them separately. Bu I admit, it could be confusing at times.

[MaddMaxx]

Strum Wealh, on 25 March 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

Then one doesn't put a Machine gun in at all, and (14+0)/2 = 7.0

Also, the DRG-1N Dragon's Medium Lasers are in the left arm (one laser) and left torso (the other laser), with the AC-5 in the right arm, so (8+1)/2 = 4.5...

Now, let's say that one were to replace the Dragon's Medium Lasers (1 ton each) with Small Lasers (0.5 tons each).
The average tracking rate then decreases to (8+0.5)/2 = 4.25.
And if the left-arm Medium Laser is instead dropped entirely, or moved to the torso, then the average tracking rate - now the tracking rate for the right-arm autocannon, by itself - is even lower as (8+0)/2 = 4.0

So, if the right arm has the physical capability to have the AC-5 track that quickly (4.0 vs 4.5), then why shouldn't it always track that quickly (with the left arm tracking at that speed when the arms are linked (provided the mass of the loaded weapon(s) is less than or equal to that of the AC-5), or even faster if they are unlinked (and the mass of the loaded weapon(s) is less than that of the AC-5))?

Hence, my suggestion to have the tracking speed of the arms set to that of the heaviest weapon (or set of weapons) in either arm - it would make sense to have the arms track as quickly as possible, but the maximum possible speed would/should be limited by how quickly the BattleMech's musculature could move any given mass through a given arc.
(Thought, that does present the question of whether a heavier 'Mech, with its stronger musculature, should have higher tracking and convergence rates for any given combination of arm-mounted weapons than a lighter 'Mech with the same combination of arm-mounted weapons (regardless of which reticle system is used)... )

Incidentally, the DRG-1N Dragon is (IMO) one of the clearest examples of why it should be possible to decouple the arms from one another - the left arm, mounting a one-ton Medium Laser, should be able to track (and converge) much more quickly than the right arm with its 8-ton AC-5 (with which it shares little - the range brackets, leading requirements, and times-to-target at anything outside of literal point-blank are drastically different).
That would also make it much more straightforward to use matching weapons located in either arm and the torso - in the case of the Dragon, the Medium Laser mounted in the left arm could be more easily and readily used in conjunction with its counterpart in the adjacent torso.

By contrast, something with, say, a LB-X AC-10 (11 tons) in one arm and a standard AC-5 (8 tons) in the other arm would benefit more from having the arms linked (with the tracking speed being that of the heavier LB-X), since both of those weapons have identical range brackets and would thus greatly complement one another (and if their muzzle velocities are such that they have similar times-to-target, then so much the better).

Your thoughts?

Weapons placement was based on some semblance of a MechLab which might surely allow 2 ML's in one arm. If not, then my bad.

And why exactly would you devoid one arm all together just to increase the other arms sole weapon tracking? Seems counter intuitive. Now you have one weapon tracking faster, but the rest all track the same (torso speed) which we assume would be slower than the arms...

Range brackets would be yet another, separate reason to mount both arms with like weapons ranges. Traversing would be a secondary accounting, although your heaviest takes precedence would hurt versus my mean setup, but none the less.

I hope they force weapons ranges via load-out. It so easily takes away the whole Alpha Strike gambit until the knife fight range, then it is a Piloting match, as much as a slugging match.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 26 March 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[docmorningstar]

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'