388 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"I'm still assuming that the arguments is whether or not the AC2 and AC5 needs to be buffed or not."

The argument seems to be, imo, whether or not weapons that don't one shot "BLAM" the enemy in the face, like so many others, should even be in the game, because, you know, without that instant "BLAM" effect, what is the point of the weapon really.

[EDMW CSN]

Presuming the AC-20 reloads in 3.5 seconds.

AC2 = 1.2 second reload = 1.667 dps
AC5 = 2 second reload = 2.5 dps
AC10 = 3 second reload = 3.333 dps
AC20 = 3.5 second reload = 5.714 dps

This should give ACs a sufficient niche as a ultra high DPS weapon.
At the same time give a reason for the AC2 and AC5 to exist.

Yes AC5 DPS will probably be higher than a PPC but bear in mind it weighs 8 tons + 1 tons, and that ammo goes kabloom. With such a high rate of fire, the Mechwarrior will have to add more ammo to keep on the barrage and that means carry more ammo to explode.

And they don't have the advantage of firing 3 PPCs and run away to cool off somewhere. Basically the PPC will deal HIGH alpha but low DPS, the AC5 will deal high DPS but lower alpha.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 13 April 2012 - 07:06 AM.

[LimiterOne]

Chain-fire 3 or 4 AC/2 and you essentially have the constant direct fire of a rotary cannon. Lay into a missle boat at range and the constant knockback won't let him get a lock on anything; he either retreats, gets pounded by your team mates, or gets whittled to scrap by your little guns' merciless onslaught.

They're less useful in a close-combat situation, but can still provide that constant damage factor if you have heavier alpha main weapons like AC/10s or /20s, PPCs, LLs, etc.

[Snotling]

i think a good way to balance weapons could be accuracy. Make the low caliber acs very accurate in comparison to the bigger ones would increase their usefullness

[Damocles]

people tend to forget that another AC/2 AC/5 bonus is: ammo per ton.

Aka; You shoot LOTS

[MaddMaxx]

Snotling, on 13 April 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

i think a good way to balance weapons could be accuracy. Make the low caliber acs very accurate in comparison to the bigger ones would increase their usefullness

Would you have a proposal on how that might be done we could chew on?

[Diomed]

I agree with the OP. The smaller ACs suffer from the fact that in live-action computer games it is rather easy to close from 1200m to 500m without taking much if any fire from the enemy. So much depends on personal skill and superior situational awareness (SA) that closing on a target is not as difficult in a PC game as it is in a TT game.

The smaller ACs are rarely, if ever used. They should have their weight lowered.

[zorak ramone]

Victor Morson, on 13 April 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Everything you said makes one really fatal assumption (well two, really): You won't have enough heat sinks to cover the bill. For the tonnage of ammo and guns on the light ACs you can easily add enough heat sinks to cover the entire thing while removing the possibility of ammo explosions in the process.

This. This right here is why low caliber ACs suck.

Comparing a AC5 with a PPC, to make each heat neutral:

AC5 = 8 tons base + 1 ton ammo (minimum) + 1 HS = 10 tons
PPC = 7 tons base + 10 HS = 17 tons

AC5 does half the damage, but the cost of adding it in weight/heat is more than half the cost of the PPC. Even if it was half the cost (say, bring base tonnage down to 6 for 8 tons total cost), the PPC would still be better because it does all of its damage in one place. Oh yeah, and the ACs require ammo.

The AC5s and AC2s are one of those areas where the CBT rules need to be changed. They just dropped the ball when it came to balancing these guys (just like they dropped the ball on all clan energy weapons and GRs).

I'd suggest maybe increasing their overall DPS by 50%, but make them do it in more shots than the heavier ACs. E.g. if the PPC, AC10 and 20 hit for 10, 10 and 20 respectively and have recycle times of (for example) 6 seconds, make the AC5s and 2s have damages of 3.75 and 1.75 respectively and recycle every 3 seconds ... or have damages of 5 and 2, but recycle every 4 seconds.

[EDMW CSN]

For ACs just bring up the ROF, they should be the highest DPS weapons after all for all their flaws.
Gauss rifles and PPCs can have a lower ROF due to their heavy alpha damage and extreme ranges.

The only snag is the Machine gun.

[Naughtyboy]

Vandul, on 13 April 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

Add some kind of penetration factor to small bore AC's and they become useful. Changing the game mechanics for this probably isnt worth it.

Not sure when..but Precision and Armor piearcing ammo arrives sometime in the future.

[AlanEsh]

Samuel Maxwell, on 13 April 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

Angelicon, on 13 April 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

Aside from the FULL MINUTE to recharge the PPC, yeah, sure this is the crux of it.
If you give the AC2 this much advantage (firing 6 times more often than the PPC) it will match up. Let's hope the devs take a page from the MW games here, rather than from TT rules.

I have a problem with this quote, particularly because it's very explicit in saying that the AC2 needs to be nerfed from TT and hence required to be buffed in MWO.

While I do agree that 60 seconds is awfully long in a video game, we can still shorten it to, say, five seconds. For the AC2 then, it could be .83 seconds. This is much more reasonable yet still keeps the proportion correct. I'm still assuming that the arguments is whether or not the AC2 and AC5 needs to be buffed or not.

I think we're on the same track...
My point was, increasing the DPS of the AC2 by cranking up the Rate of Fire will make it match up well enough against the PPC. If it's going to be as big and bulky as the TT rules say, it needs to **** bullets at a furious rate to make it viable in MWO. Range isn't enough of an advantage as range can be negated too easily.

[Damocles]

AC/2 - 2 dmg x shots per ton (45) = 90dmg/ton(ammo)
AC/5 - 5 dmg x shots per ton (20) = 100dmg/ton(ammo)
AC/10 - 10 dmg x shots per ton (10) = 100dmg/ton(ammo)
AC/20 - 20 dmg x shots per ton (5) = 100dmg/ton(ammo)

other than minimum range issues and rate of fires for the AC/2, AC/5 i really do not see the disparity that some are seeing.

And comparing AC/5s to PPCs and Gauss Rifles? Apples to Oranges.

[EDMW CSN]

Damocles, on 13 April 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

AC/2 - 2 dmg x shots per ton (45) = 90dmg/ton(ammo) AC/5 - 5 dmg x shots per ton (20) = 100dmg/ton(ammo) AC/10 - 10 dmg x shots per ton (10) = 100dmg/ton(ammo) AC/20 - 20 dmg x shots per ton (5) = 100dmg/ton(ammo) other than minimum range issues and rate of fires for the AC/2, AC/5 i really do not see the disparity that some are seeing. And comparing AC/5s to PPCs and Gauss Rifles? Apples to Oranges.

Your mech of choice is the Sentinel.
The right arm can take either a ballistic or a energy slot.

Then presuming you have 9 tons to play with.
Would you choose an AC/5 + 1 ton ammo or a PPC + 2 HS (10 HS free from a mech to make it heat neutral).

The AC/5 has only 20 shots.
The PPC has unlimited.

Both won't suffer from heat issues.
Both have the same minimum range.

So which weapon would you choose then ?

[Damocles]

Im sorry how would a Sentinel have an energy slot in the right left arm?

The MWO mechlab blog has stated you will only trade ballistic for ballistic and not across types (energy).
So you'd what...sacrifice some speed and armor or strip out all other weapons and be a walking AC/10 and open yourself up to all kinds of punishment at that range?

Edited by Damocles, 13 April 2012 - 07:45 AM.

[AlanEsh]

[EDMW]CSN, on 13 April 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

So which weapon would you choose then ?

For me, that depends on Rate of Fire and my mech's role. If my role is more scout than shoot, and if that AC5 can spew bullets fast enough, I might choose it over the PPC. This would let me dispatch other scout or anti-scout mechs with a rapid-fire weapon, then get on with my recon duties.
But if I think there is a good change I'll be at range plinking away for more than a couple of shots, the PPC is going to be my choice.

[EDMW CSN]

Damocles, on 13 April 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Im sorry how would a Sentinel have an energy slot in the right left arm?

Same reason as why the Clint can mount an AC5 and then switch to a ERPPC.
And it is a official field refit kit by the Capcon themselves.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 13 April 2012 - 07:46 AM.

[Damocles]

Aye, if you WANT a PPC for the heavy hit (with slow recycle) then TAKE IT (and a chassis that will mount it)
but that doesn't mean that an AC/whatever is less of a weapon because it isn't a PPC.

They're made to hit and hit and hit and hit. Not knock you on your arse

[EDMW]CSN, on 13 April 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

Same reason as why the Clint can mount an AC5 and then switch to a ERPPC.
And it is a official field refit kit by the Capcon themselves.

So you're talking about:

• STN-3KB - The 3KB Sentinel is an uncommon field refit of the 3K. This variant replaces the autocannon with a PPC and three extra heat sinks.^[3][10] (sarna.net)

We do not know how MWO will handle refits. We do know that variants will be an entirely different model. So you wanna buy a different model? Go ahead. But you won't fill the same role as someone who buys the 'standard'

Edited by Damocles, 13 April 2012 - 07:50 AM.

[EDMW CSN]

Angelicon, on 13 April 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

For me, that depends on Rate of Fire and my mech's role. If my role is more scout than shoot, and if that AC5 can spew bullets fast enough, I might choose it over the PPC. This would let me dispatch other scout or anti-scout mechs with a rapid-fire weapon, then get on with my recon duties. But if I think there is a good change I'll be at range plinking away for more than a couple of shots, the PPC is going to be my choice.

Damocles, on 13 April 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Aye, if you WANT a PPC for the heavy hit (with slow recycle) then TAKE IT (and a chassis that will mount it) but that doesn't mean that an AC/whatever is less of a weapon because it isn't a PPC. They're made to hit and hit and hit and hit. Not knock you on your arse

And that would only happen if the AC/5 has a ROF of under 3 seconds. Which is the direction to go.

[Leetskeet]

Didn't want to read like 40 replies, but U/AC5's have always been a pretty decent semi-long range workhorse weapon in the Mechwarrior games if you're rocking 2-4.

In TT they're pecking at random locations for mediocre damage, but when you can actually aim them and keep the high dps in the same general location they start to hurt.

A single AC/5 like the Dragon has, unless they make it have some sort of unique feature, probably isn't going to do much. If it had two or something that would be pretty decent constant long range firepower. But one? Ehhhh....

Edited by Leetskeet, 13 April 2012 - 08:02 AM.

[Leetskeet]

[EDMW]CSN, on 13 April 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

And that would only happen if the AC/5 has a ROF of under 3 seconds. Which is the direction to go.

Side note, unless it's shooting a burst of like 5 shells, the rate of fire for the AC/5 probably needs to be something more along the lines of every .5 seconds, with the AC/2 slinging rounds out fairly quickly. Not machine gun quick, but an AC/2 should be a constant hail of 30mm rounds, perhaps 20 round bursts if they are going the burst route.