388 replies to this topic

[Paladin1]

Mason Grimm, on 13 April 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

"Oh, but what about the Dragon versus the Grand Dragon. They upgraded to PPCs cause they are better"

Right. They slapped an ERPPC on that Grand Dragon and it has DHS as well. Unsure if they are integrated into the fusion reactor or added after the fact. If they were slapped on after then they take up 3 critical spaces.

Anyways, to make all that magic happen they slapped in an XL engine which turns your ERPPC weilding monster in to a glass cannon. One hit to any of those engine critical slots and POOF your monster has become a shiny paperweight.. Both the Dragon and the Grand Dragon are protected by 10 tons of armor so there was no added protection for that XL.

It's also worth noting Grimm that there was an intermediate version of the Dragon between the classic DRG-1N Dragon with the AC/5 and the DRG-5K Grand Dragon with the ER PPC, DHS and XL Engine.

It was known as the DRG-5N Dragon and mounted an UAC/5 in place of the standard AC and adding CASE to each side torso, while retaining the standard SHS and Engine.

Considering the DCMS's history of problems with being able to produce enough DHS to refit it's ground forces properly, I'd say that this is pretty damning evidence that replacing an AC with a PPC isn't always a good idea. For an example of what happens when you don't have enough DHS for high-heat weapons like the PPC and ER PPC, take a look at the PNT-10K Panther. (As if you didn't already know about that "sub-optimal" design)

Long story short, count me in with the group which sees a place for low heat, long range weapons like the AC/2 and AC/5.

[Victor Morson]

Paladin1, counting anything the fluff does as evidence of something being good is silly.

• DRG-2N - The 2N Dragon is also known as the Puffing Dragon. It is the version that Takashi Kurita piloted in 3052 during the defence of Luthien. Essentially an upgraded version of the 1N, it upgrades the AC/5 to an Ultra AC/5 and adds CASE to the right and left torso sections. The forward facing Medium Laser was dropped to free up the tonnage to do so. The heat sinks were upgraded to double heat sinks while the armor was reduced to nine tons.[9] Note: Elsewhere, it is indicated that the mech used by Takashi Kurita during the Battle of Luthien was a Grand Dragon.

All I can say is "LOL" to this one. They dropped the forward (!) medium laser to add heatsinks to a 'mech that doesn't run hot, then reduced the armor. I mean.. yeah. NOT a good indicator.

This is the same fluff that tries to suggest weapons all are awesome, when they're nerfs - i.e. see the Warhawk and it's LRM/10, making it a highly unstable 'mech that can't alpha (if the LRM was swapped for DHS, it'd be able to alpha).

[Rhavin]

From a shooter's perspective.

AC's have recoil as well with faster reload times, less heat to manage and should not have a minimum range. No bullet speeds up after it leaves the barrel, FPS is determined at muzzle exit and velocity goes down from there. AC's are be subject to ballistic arc to compensate for this, because no bullet travels in a straight line, they sink, constantly depending on mass/speed. This is real world info, AC's are everywhere in the modern military world. Machine guns are more or less AC's. However remember that the barrels of modern firearms can do bad bad things when they get too hot, an M-16 despite being able to fire 100's of RPM, it is often recomended at no more than 30 RPM and by the book 12 RPM. I would hope this is taken into account in the game with ammo feed jams/barrel explosions ect.

To explain ballistic arc and its effect on aim properly. IE : Technically you should aim higher the farther your target is from your zeroed range, aim lower the closer it is to you from your zeroed range. How this will work in MWO I can't say, only the devs can. Seems like a ton of programming though when you look at it from all the perspectives of how many types of AC's and Gauss rifles there are. Depends on how canon they keep the game as to whether or not all Ac-2's shoot 26mm shells or if say some shoot 2 26mm shells for 2 damage or some shoot 4 12mm shells for 2 damage.

PPC's while fireing a stream of matter should have ballistic arc as well, it however would just be negligable as the mass of protons and neutrons is so low as to be almost non-existant. The reason for lasers and PPC's to have a max range is more or less that the farther away the energy travels the more heat/energy from the beam/particles is shed into the air. PPC's techinically exist, The reason modern armys do not carry PPC's is the size, think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collider big. And thats just a few particles accelerated at an enormous energy cost and charge time. We are in the realm of Sci-fi though =) To be Canon PPC's should also have a range where fireing them would lower their damage and possibly damage your electrical systems http://www.sarna.net/wiki/PPC.

So as far as I am concerned the nipples are awesome, even with the ballistic arc and Foot-lbs of energy at hit, and PPC's are just as awesome just alot more mess to deal with on the energy supply side.

[Volthorne]

Ballisitc arc shouldn't be too hard to code in, it's been done in the BattleField series since BF2 (which came out ages ago). I'm going to jump into the "those nipples can shoot lead, keep them" group.

[Najonii]

Quite a bit of fuss over weapons you can choose not to use. Something to consider though is the ability of AC2's and AC5's to deliver specialized munitions over long ranges. That AC2 becomes a fearsome weapon when it is loaded with a ton of armor-piercing ammunition.

[Sug]

I actually kinda liked how MW4 handled the reload times for the various AC's. The problem was they were too accurate at long range. Someone with 8 AC-2's could put all that lead on the exact same spot from like 900m away.

With a cone of fire all those AC-2's would spread their damage all over a mech and some shots would miss entirely. Instead of acting like a sniper rifle it would be more like a long range shotgun.

Firing multiple AC's at once should cause the cone to widen further and make the weapons take longer to reconverge on the reticle, making single AC's inherently more accurate. Solves the problem of crazy AC-2 boats.

Mech's like the Jagermech will have to stagger their fire for long range accuracy in a similar way the Awesome needs to stagger it's fire to manage heat.

Edited by Sug, 13 April 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

One thing to take into consideration that speed will be one of the primary factors to extend one's reach when pitting a PPC carrying mech verses an AC2 carrying mech.

The PPC has an extreme range of 19-24
The AC2 has an extreme range of 25-32

Marauder (MAD 3R) 4mp/6mp vs Dragon (DRG 1C) 1C 5mp/8mp

The initial difference in reach is 8 hexes. Backward speed for a dragon would be 5MP vs the marauder's 6MP. For every combat round (10sec for TT) the marauder gains one hex on the dragon.

In open terrain, in a one-on-one meeting, how long can the dragon keep its range simply by backpedalling (provided game does not allow shots from an alternate side view)?

8x5=40 (DRG)
8x6=48 (MAD)

8x10=80sec = 1 minute 20 secs that the dragon is peppering away at the marauder before it even has a chance to fire. Many pilots experienced this scenario with MPBT Solaris (both AOL and Gamestorm), especially after it went FFA (target areas of opportunity). Sub in Catapult for the Marauder and get similar results, especially against experienced pilots.

Will look at the math if any errors (crown and coke....Hmmm) Thankful for spell checkers But will say that against experienced opponents who initially sneered at the mech selection changed their minds after a few humbling defeats (and with a few choice words).

Until we are actually in the game, encountering how quickly (or slowly) C-Bills are generated vs the cost of upgrades, while also getting accustomed to the speed of the gameplay, all anyone can do is provide conjecture. This is not your father's/grandfather's/great-grandfather's game...sonny, hand me that cane /smacks........

(chuckles)

[Victor Morson]

LRMs are the weapon to compare to AC/2s, really.

PPCs are better compared against AC/5s.

[Rhavin]

I will say this depending on the cost of reloading your mech carrying an energy loadout over a ballistic one could be much cheaper c-bill wise, provided you don't have your energy weapons destroyed getting into range.

[Sug]

Try walking backwards while looking down a rifle scope.

[Der BruzZzler von Wiesndoof]

"AC2s and AC5s are as useless as nipples on a mech torso"

Hmm ... a Annihilator (MW4 Mercs) with 10x Ultra AC2 is fun!

[wwiiogre]

speaking of ballistic arcs lets think M1 Abrams fire control system which compensates for range with a laser range finder, which moves the barrel so arc is accounted for. It then adds in heat of barrel, heat outside, atmospheric conditions etc. Allowing the gunner to hopefully hit the target but its not perfect and even with a wonderful computer doing all of the ballistic math you still have to have a gunner that can keep the pip where it belongs. Note movement of the tank and the target can also make this much harder to do but with stabilization of the gun in the tank firing, well even then not all perfectly aimed shots hit the target.

So the questions about ballistics really don't matter since the gun is being aimed and adjusted by a computer program or for the sake of this game a module which can be upgraded giving the weapon system better performance. So lets set ballistic arguments aside and expect the dev's to have dealt with this as well as the BT canon and lore. I never expect a shot I take to hit exactly where I aim. Having been shooting since around when I could walk, with firearms and with bows and crossbows and thrown weapons there is skill and practice but if we could always hit exactly where we aimed even with scopes and electronic fire control systems you would never have a contest or tournament cause everyone would always hit.

So how do we judge the value of an AC5 or AC2, in BT we knew what the ranges of the weapons are and how much damage they did over a ten second period and how much heat they produced and how many shots you got per ton of ammo and how much the weapon weighed and how much critical space it took up in the mech. We also knew the that there were random critical hits that once you hit a mech then there was a 1 in 36 chance that even a 2 point damage weapon could cause a critical hit. What does this mean in a pc version of the game as a sim.

Unless there is a random chance for the golden bb doing a nasty critical hit damage to an important system, then the use of the weapon which in reality for the AC2 is merely the plinker or .22 of the BT universe becomes less satisfying because its original intent of a standoff weapon designed to damage aero (lightly armored flying units) and vehicles with even a higher chance to crit them on every single hit better than 1 in 36 and closer to 20% per hit. Means without these targets this weapon is not going to be as useful initially in MWO until vehicles and aero units make themselves known and then only if there is a chance for random critical damage thru armor even if the armor isn't breached. This is truth was one of the ways weapons were balanced.This gave certain weapons very specific jobs in the BT universe and in canon.

Now an AC 5 and an AC 2 can be used to kill a mech in some of the PC games. Especially once some of the advanced weapons become available as well as the advanced ammo. AP ammo anyone with a good chance to crit on every shot? How about upgraded autocanons. But unfortunately we aren't there yet for the lowly AC2 or AC5 and we don't have omni mechs that will allow us to put 8 AC's on a mech to boat them and alpha strike them.

So I doubt we will actually see them in the initial mechs released. Perhaps the odd AC5, but the AC2 armed mechs may not be seen until the devs actually can have a reason for them being there. I would assume all of these issues are being thought about and talked about on how to implement them. The AC 5 for me with enough ammo because of its range is a viable option to a medium laser and as a standoff mech would allow you to use it well. The AC 2 not so much. But who knows I may be surprised and love to use the Jagermech. I know if it is available I will buy one, cause hey its another mech and I want them all. I know I will pilot it and try to figure out how to use it well. Because I like doing that. Just cause I don't see its value initially doesn't mean I can't figure out how to make it an asset for my team.

chris

[Mason Grimm]

I had purposefully withdrawn from this argument discussion because I agree to disagree with your side of the yard. I'm perfectly willing to use AC/2 and AC/5 in my mech builds if the role requires it. Thats enough for me.

UncleKulikov, on 13 April 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

You neglected to mention that the PPC does as much damage as 5 AC2s, and 2 AC5s, altering the heat calculations.

I don't recall neglecting anything but in case I did; We are dealing with individual weapons and not weapon groups. Your statement is both valid but also ridiculous at the same time. That is like saying "ZOMG, the AC/2 isn't nearly as effective as 12x Gauss Rifles and 100x Large Lasers). Really?

I am sure other people have done the math to discuss your particular angle. Scroll through the posts plz.

Quote

You also didn't include critical space and tonnage, considering that ACs require additional slots for ammunition, which can then detonate through over heating or damage.

Actually, I believe I covered how to minimize ammo explosions due to penetration. As for over heating and cooking off your rounds? If you are over heating a mech that has primarily ballistic rounds that mechwarrior shouldn't be sitting at that computer let alone inside the cockpit of a mech.

I do believe that you forgot to mention the extra tonnage and critical space that is required to cool the PPC by adding heat sinks; I won't get in to that since this is about showing I have given this careful consideration and not just decided "Today, is AC day!! yaaay! all hail AC day!".

What do you mean I forgot to mention the heat sinks needed to run PPCs? OK I have double heat sinks!!!!

Fair enough, don't forget to mark 3x the number of critical spaces unless they are included in your fusion reactor at a hugely higher price point which, even in 3049, wasn't the standard for mech construction yet. All those shiny toys come with a price tag which acts as a negative in my opinion; especially if reactors, gyros blah blah blah are destructible items in MWO

(sighs) I will reiterate for the sake of continued discussion.

Let us take the PPC and the AC/2 since most people seem to think that is the most useless weapon.

PPC = 10 damage per shot, 10 heat per shot, 3 critical spaces, requires no ammo and weights 7 tons
AC/2 = 2 damage per shot, 1 heat per shot, 1 critical space (+1 critical space for ammo) and weighs 6 tons (+1 for ammo)

So, let's break it down

Again, lets take arbitrary numbers that are easy to work with (and not necessarily what the game will have) I've even upped the ROF on the PPC to something slightly more realistic than once per 60 seconds. Combine this with any math that I have done in previous posts within this thread to get the FULL picture since I am not gonna repeat what I've already said (or attempt not to).

PPC fires 3 times per minute (20 second recharge time) so that is 30 heat per minute with 30 damage
AC/2 fires 20 times per minute (2 second reload time) so that is 20 heat per minute with 40 damage spread out

The PPC fires from a max range of 19-24 hex (whatever that translates to in game meters)
The AC/2 fires from a max range of 25-32 hex (again, whatever that translates to in game meters)

Positives
- Weighs the same as the PPC (the weapon + 1 ton of ammo)
- Can out-shoot the PPC in terms of distance
- Has a faster rate of fire than the PPC
- Does more damage over time versus the PPC
- Uses less critical space than the PPC (1+1 = 2 for AC and AMMO versus 3 for a PPC and ?#? for the HS to run that PPC)

Negatives
- Doesn't do as much damage as a PPC per single volley per single hit location
- Requires ammunition (which can explode but which can also be dumped)

The RoF on ACs will be much faster than that of PPCs (as stated before) thus doing more damage per minute (DoT)

As for your risk of explosion? Any pilot worth his salt will dump his ammo in an attempt to reduce the chance of explosion due to armor penetration. CASE (while awesome) isn't needed. If you are at the point where you have no external armor and are STILL attempting to brawl it out with someone using your highly exposed ammunition then you deserve the roman candle you are about to become.

Fact of the matter is the weapons are designed for two totally different roles. I wouldn't take an AC/2 or even an AC/5 in to a brawl fest with an Awesome. That would be suicide. I would however sit back and snipe at an awesome while he is engaged with my buddies and cackle maniacally as I plink his armor down and he can't hit me for squat without exposing himself to my close quarter combat buddies.

Then again I wouldn't take a PPC and attempt to fire off three or four of them at maximum range (doing the same role as the AC/s mentioned in the previous paragraph), maxing out my heat and limiting my ability to escape with jump jets or a run. Or worse yet; causing unintentional shut downs and leaving myself exposed.

(big breath and a smile) Now, can we all agree that I am right to disagree?

Victor Morson, on 13 April 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

LRMs are the weapon to compare to AC/2s, really.

PPCs are better compared against AC/5s.

How is this the case? Because the math then works in your favor? An AC is an AC and a PPC is a PPC and an LRM is an LRM

[Victor Morson]

Rhavin, on 13 April 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

I will say this depending on the cost of reloading your mech carrying an energy loadout over a ballistic one could be much cheaper c-bill wise, provided you don't have your energy weapons destroyed getting into range.

If C-Bills figure into a drop limitation, that will be a fine way to make them viable.

Mason Grimm, on 13 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

How is this the case? Because the math then works in your favor? An AC is an AC and a PPC is a PPC and an LRM is an LRM

No, because the AC/2 is a Long Range Weapon so it should be pitted against a Long Range Weapon (LRMs). The AC/5 is a Medium Range Weapon that should be pitted against a medium range weapon. Pitting a long range gun versus a medium one is just trying to skew the reality of the situation - i.e. that said weapons are terrible in their own class.

An "AC is an AC" brings 10s and 20s into the mix too, so really, no. That's not right at all.

Mason Grimm, on 13 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

I don't recall neglecting anything but in case I did; We are dealing with individual weapons and not weapon groups. Your statement is both valid but also ridiculous at the same time. That is like saying "ZOMG, the AC/2 isn't nearly as effective as 12x Gauss Rifles and 100x Large Lasers). Really?

The point was the reverse of that. Groups of Autocanons can't even measure up to a single gun - two AC/5s can't match a single PPC in terms of damage, and if you add some heat sinks where the ammo would have been, it can even deal with the heat just fine.

Edited by Victor Morson, 13 April 2012 - 11:37 AM.

[BerryChunks]

LRMS have this problem with AMS systems that cause LRMs to do less damage and waste ammo. Also, they generate more heat than ac/2.

[Victor Morson]

BerryChunks, on 13 April 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

LRMS have this problem with AMS systems that cause LRMs to do less damage and waste ammo. Also, they generate more heat than ac/2.

If we're talking T2 tech like AMS, then we can start bringing ER Lasers/PPCs and such into this which even further out dates the AC/2.

The problem is an AC/2 is so heavy that it takes so much out of a 'mech you could literally pit a fast moving design with nothing but close range weapons against it, make it run across an entire field, and the AC/2 'mech would still get utterly mauled. It just does not do enough damage to accomplish anything at all for it's extreme weight - as has been the case in every MW game aside from LL.

EDIT: The irony of all of this isn't that I'm trying to tell people to not like light ACs, but rather, encourage them to be made into viable weapons that actual competitive players will consider carrying or even deem vital to their company's make up. Everyone seems to be literally fighting against buffing them under the impression they've been good weapons in the past, when really, other than HC and LL - two unofficial products - they have never been.

Edited by Victor Morson, 13 April 2012 - 11:42 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Well, if it really needs to be changed (for the sake of discussion/proposals), what about this:

• AC-2: 2.5 second recycle, 2 units of damage per salvo, 1 unit of heat per salvo, 1 unit of ammo expended per salvo; 6 tons and 1 critical for the weapon, and 45 units of ammo per ton
  
• AC-5: 5.0 second recycle, 5 units of damage per salvo, 1 unit of heat per salvo, 1 unit of ammo expended per salvo; 8 tons and 4 criticals for the weapon, and 20 units of ammo per ton
  
• UAC-5: 5.0 second recycle (normal ROF mode) or 2.5 second recycle ("ultra"/double-ROF mode), 5 units of damage per salvo, 1 unit of heat per salvo, 1 unit of ammo expended per salvo; 9 tons and 5 criticals for the weapon, and 20 units of ammo per ton

versus

• Large Laser: 7.5 second recycle, 8 units of damage per salvo, 8 units of heat per salvo; 5 tons and 2 criticals for the weapon
  
• ER Large Laser: 10 second recycle, 8 units of damage per salvo, 12 units of heat per salvo; 5 tons and 2 criticals for the weapon
  
• PPC: 10 second recycle, 10 units of damage per salvo, 10 units of heat per salvo; 7 tons and 3 criticals for the weapon
  
• Gauss Rifle: 7.5 second recycle, 15 units of damage per salvo, 1 unit of heat per salvo, 1 unit of ammo expended per salvo; 15 tons and 7 criticals for the weapon, and 8 units of ammo per ton
  
• AC-10: 5 second recycle, 10 units of damage per salvo, 3 units of heat per salvo, 1 unit of ammo expended per salvo; 12 tons and 7 criticals for the weapon, and 10 units of ammo per to
  
• LB-X AC-10: 5 second recycle, 10 units of damage per salvo, 2 units of heat per salvo, 1 unit of ammo expended per salvo; 11 tons and 6 criticals for the weapon, and 10 units of ammo per to
  
• AC-20: 7.5 second recycle, 20 units of damage per salvo, 7 units of heat per salvo, 1 unit of ammo expended per salvo; 14 tons and 10 criticals for the weapon, and 5 units of ammo per ton
  
• LRM-5: 7.5 second recycle, 5 units of damage per salvo, 2 units of heat per salvo, 5 units of ammo expended per salvo; 2 tons and 1 critical for the weapon, and 120 units of ammo per ton
  
• LRM-20: 7.5 second recycle, 20 units of damage per salvo, 6 units of heat per salvo, 20 units of ammo expended per salvo; 10 tons and 5 criticals for the weapon, and 120 units of ammo per ton

and

• Standard Heat Sinks: -1 heat per 10 seconds (-0.1 heat per second) per Heat Sink
  
• Double Heat Sinks: -2 heat per 10 seconds (-0.2 heat per second) per Heat Sink

In other words, how about keeping each weapon's physical aspects (as listed on the Weapons and Equipment Lists) constant as a per-salvo measure and using the 'Mech Duel Rules for ROF, but having Heat Sinks dispense heat at a rate consistent with their CBT values?

Under such a system, during a 10-second period:

• An AC-2 would fire 5 times (t = 0.0s, t = 2.5s, t = 5.0s, t = 7.5s, t = 10.0s), dealing a total of 10 units of damage (2 damage per salvo * 5 salvos) and generating 5 units of heat (1 heat per salvo * 5 salvos) and consuming 5 units of ammo.
  
• An AC-5 (or UAC-5 in normal-ROF mode) would fire 3 times (t = 0.0s, t = 5.0s, t = 10.0s), dealing a total of 15 units of damage (5 damage per salvo * 3 salvos) and generating 3 units of heat (1 heat per salvo * 3 salvos) and consuming 3 units of ammo.
  
• An Ultra AC-5 in double-ROF mode would fire 5 times (t = 0.0s, t = 2.5s, t = 5.0s, t = 7.5s, t = 10.0s), dealing a total of 25 units of damage (5 damage per salvo * 5 salvos) and generating 5 units of heat (1 heat per salvo * 5 salvos) and consuming 5 units of ammo.

versus

• A Large Laser would fire twice (t = 0.0s, t = 7.5s), dealing a total of 16 units of damage (8 damage per salvo * 2 salvos) and generating 16 units of heat (8 heat per salvo * 2 salvos).
  
• An ER Large Laser would fire twice (t = 0.0s, t = 10.0s), dealing a total of 16 units of damage (8 damage per salvo * 2 salvos) and generating 24 units of heat (12 heat per salvo * 2 salvos).
  
• A PPC would fire twice (t = 0.0s, t = 10.0s), dealing a total of 20 units of damage (10 damage per salvo * 2 salvos) and generating 20 units of heat (10 heat per salvo * 2 salvos).
  
• A Gauss Rifle would fire twice (t = 0.0s, t = 7.5s), dealing a total of 30 units of damage (15 damage per salvo * 2 salvos) and generating 2 units of heat (1 heat per salvo * 2 salvos) and consuming 2 units of ammo.
  
• An AC-10 would fire 3 times (t = 0.0s, t = 5.0s, t = 10.0s), dealing a total of 30 units of damage (10 damage per salvo * 3 salvos) and generating 9 units of heat (3 heat per salvo * 3 salvos) and consuming 3 units of ammo.
  
• An LB-X AC-10 would fire 3 times (t = 0.0s, t = 5.0s, t = 10.0s), dealing a total of 30 units of damage (10 damage per salvo * 3 salvos) and generating 6 units of heat (2 heat per salvo * 3 salvos) and consuming 3 units of ammo.
  
• An AC-20 would fire twice (t = 0.0s, t = 7.5s), dealing a total of 40 units of damage (20 damage per salvo * 2 salvos) and generating 14 units of heat (7 heat per salvo * 2 salvos) and consuming 2 units of ammo.
  
• An LRM-5 would fire twice (t = 0.0s, t = 7.5s), dealing a total of 10 units of damage (5 damage per salvo * 3 salvos) and generating 4 units of heat (2 heat per salvo * 2 salvos) and consuming 10 units of ammo.
  
• An LRM-20 would fire twice (t = 0.0s, t = 7.5s), dealing a total of 40 units of damage (20 damage per salvo * 2 salvos) and generating 12 units of heat (6 heat per salvo * 2 salvos) and consuming 40 units of ammo.

Armor values and durability are held at canon/TT values.
Heat dissipation rates are held at canon/TT values.

With that, the lighter ACs:

• are generally much more closely-comparable, in terms of damage applied over time, with most of the "traditional heavy hitters" (particularly those that are direct-fire weapons with similar ranges).
  
• have very high (and very favorable) damage-applied-over-time vs heat-generated-over-time ratios.
  
• are much more effective, in terms of damage applied over time, against more heavily-armored targets.
  
• are much more effective in delivering and maintaining suppression fire, especially at longer ranges.

They still won't be "the target has to die RIGHT NOW!!!"/"insta-glib" weapons, which seems to be most people's (skewed, IMO) definition of "effective weapon"), but they would no longer be quite so much less "effective" than currently perceived.

Your thoughts?

[Anastasius]

In MPBT:3025 AC2's were an exellent range weapon to wear down the opponent as they attempted to close. I recall doing an outstanding job with my Blackjack firing off all 45 rounds of AC2 ammo before using the 4 med lasers in the torso once the enemy got into range.

Never underestimate the AC2.

[stun]

I boated AC2's to make really good long range harassers on the hot maps. I had a Gesu with 2 ac2 and 2 ERLL that went about 120kph, which is great for 45 tons.

Didnt really use AC5's all that much though, besides RAC5's..

Edited by stun, 13 April 2012 - 12:03 PM.

[Mason Grimm]

Strum Wealh, on 13 April 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

(lots of snippy snippy)

Thanks for doing that math. All that gave me a headache and I don't have that resource (I don't think).