388 replies to this topic

[wwiiogre]

Great comments Kartr

chris

sarna.net isn't really a source for me, since I have all the books and source material in pdf format. I have all the new books in hardback.

chris

rereading the technical manuals you are correct the background fluff says firing bursts. Still a burst is different than full automatic and the aiming and targeting is such that the burst happens for one targeting solution just like firing an M16 rifle or the modern M4 which I used recently with the holographic sight recently for the first time with the heavy barrel and yes I did hit a quarter sized object 5 of 8 times the first 8 shots I ever fired out of the rifle. And that M4 was very small for me, I am a large person so stock did not even meet my shoulder when extended. So once again firing a burst is a one trigger pull action and therefore between bursts the targeting computer should and would be tracking the new solution and the reticle or tone will sound when you are once again in the right position and the weapon is ready to fire again. My argument stands as I am trying to express the point that a burst is not full auto while a burst could be 3 rounds with a single pull of the trigger or more depending on rof. So I guess I mistook you meaning bursts were full auto. So much more of your argument makes sense in those terms and my apologies for not understanding what you meant by bursts. I thought you meant full auto. Yes a canon even a large one can fire bursts if the mechanics of the weapon and the engineering of the components is upto the amount of explosive energy such that the weapon does not disentegrate under the stress.

Edited by wwiiogre, 16 April 2012 - 08:35 PM.

[Yeach]

So what is the difference between an AC2 and a machine gun (other than range)?
Are they the same thing (because both do 2 damage in TT)

(okay I admit I am biased by my signature)

[Karl Streiger]

First Machine Gun is supperior to AC 2 because you can kill more infantry...

Second - other than range? other than range? other than range? RANGE IS EVERYTHING IN TT - its the range that give you better chance to hit anything - and i used for some time house rule swaping the ACs into cluster weapons:
AC 2 roll for 4 cluster - Ultra 2 does 3 damage and roll for 4 cluster
AC 5 roll for 2 cluster - Ultra 5 does 8 damage and roll for 2 cluster
AC 10 roll for 2 cluster - Ultra 10 does 13 damage and roll for 2 cluster
what to say:
the Jaegermech is a total imba killer - and need to be nerfeeeed

Edited by Karl Streiger, 16 April 2012 - 09:45 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Yeach, on 16 April 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

So what is the difference between an AC2 and a machine gun (other than range)?
Are they the same thing (because both do 2 damage in TT)

(okay I admit I am biased by my signature)

Machine guns only cost a half ton so are pretty useful. The fact you can carry 10 and a ton of ammo for the price of just an AC/2 with no ammo makes them far, far more effective for the price you pay.

Obviously the range means these two weapons are incomparable - but I will say the MG is a redeemable weapon that gets a bad rap because most designs only mount 2 and a full ton of ammo. Not the gun's fault, really.

Outside of TT, MGs have been hit and miss. They were great in MW1, lackluster in 2, I believe pretty good in 3 (spent the least amount of time in 3), horrendous in 4 (they cost 2 tons and got damage nerf'ed!) and a mixed back in MWLL (Horrendous at hurting 'mechs - far worse than table top - but stellar at killing battle armor, hovercraft and even pretty effective against light aircraft.)

On opt of that, there's advanced rules for them to rapid-fire that totally changes their usefulness as well.

Definitely, a case can be made for effective MGs in the past and hopefully MWO copies the more effective examples of them.

[TheRulesLawyer]

In a world of single heat sinks they make sense. With doubles in the picture, not so much. At least not without special ammo (comes much later in canon) and TT ROF. The answer is twofold and simple. Give them knock like all AC's have. That alone give them a use. Then give them one of the fastest ROF in the game. Suddenly even a ac2 is dangerous. AC2's really should act almost like an armor sandblaster. At range you'll be pinging them all over the place, but by the time they close their armor will be thin just about everywhere. AC5's similar but less extreme.

[Damion Sparhawk]

I tend to favor ballistics over laser when I build because personally, I hate to overheat, having my mech shut down on me in the heat of combat is not only frustrating in the extreme but often lethal. since I can't control every potential heat source (i.e. flamers, inferno missiles, what have you) the less heat consumption I have on my mech the better imho so I would be far more likely to mount the biggest AC or AC group I can manage on the mech with maybe a PPC or pulse laser primarily for the longer fight when I actually manage to run out of ammo (I tend to stock heavy and use sparingly at long ranges, I figure if I get off a quick burst and hide I may not do as much per volley as a PPC but unless I'm taking return fire what difference does that make?) though truthfully I rarely enjoy the long game and I'm much more at home up close and personal with an LBX than a gauss or straight AC (another reason to avoid heat consumption, flamers and inferno's are somewhat less of a problem from the horizon than underfoot XD)

[Squigles]

Soviet Alex, on 13 April 2012 - 04:09 AM, said:

(Yawn) Another "buff AC2 & 5" thread. No ,they aren't competitive with PPCs or gauss rifles in Battletech. but we know nothing about how they'll play in MW-O, so let's wait & see.

Ah, when you work the numbers the AC/5 isn't "too" horrible compared to a PPC. PPC = 17 tons (7 + 10HS), for 10 damage. 2 AC/5's = 18 tons (16 + 2 HS) + ammo, so say 22 tons for 40 shots per gun for equal damage + hopefully a significant rocking to the targets aim.

Edit: And if Ultra/5's work as canon dictates and fires 2 shots at once instead of just having a faster cycle time, you're looking at an extra 2 tons to do twice the damage.

Edited by Squigles, 04 July 2012 - 07:21 PM.

[ManDaisy]

1 half the recycle time is more sweet and follows lore better for acs. I see them going with this rather then firing double, as Ultra Ac 20's would become unbalanced 1 hit killers.

Edited by ManDaisy, 04 July 2012 - 07:30 PM.

[Xytaglyph]

I would have to agree to an extent. They are good for ranging people down but i would much rather use a laser because much further than a laser can fire is almost too far to recognize a target.

[Damion Sparhawk]

Xytaglyph, on 04 July 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

I would have to agree to an extent. They are good for ranging people down but i would much rather use a laser because much further than a laser can fire is almost too far to recognize a target.

which is why you'd want enhanced optic package and extended radar, as well as a good scout mech to ping targets for ya XD

[MrM1971]

yah it never made sense that autocannons weight is so much more then a energy weapons weight they both have advantages and disadvatages but they should have made them weigh closer to the same that way it would have been more of choice to use or not use each type after all why have 1 autocannon 5 when you can have 8 med lasers for the same tonnage

[Federick Steiner]

2's and 5's are not that much damage on their own, however when you are facing several mechs with these weapons working together they will make a difference. I agree that on single mech missions or for a mech load out that really needs to pack a huge punch these weapons are not the ideal approach. That being said, each weapon and mech load out seems like it will have a place in the game.

[L Y N X]

If all weapons were balanced perfectly vs each other then their might only be 6 weapons (short/medium/long) ranged by (energy, ballistic) damage types. That would be boring imho... I like that there are better and worse weapons to add diversity. Too bad the main armament are not fixed, mechlab imho should have a greater role with more modular mechs and a more limited role in earlier era mechs. I'd like to know that centurion will be sporting an AC5 irregardless, not sporting a LBX10 or some such...

Edited by 7ynx, 04 July 2012 - 07:45 PM.

[Januph]

The beauty of those AC's is that they actually have range.
Ppl always talk about the ac20 but usually on an incredibly slow mech.

Edited by Januph, 04 July 2012 - 07:46 PM.

[Jacob Davion]

You would think that the smaller the autocannon, the higher the rate of fire due to the smaller round.

[Damion Sparhawk]

MrM1971, on 04 July 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

yah it never made sense that autocannons weight is so much more then a energy weapons weight they both have advantages and disadvatages but they should have made them weigh closer to the same that way it would have been more of choice to use or not use each type after all why have 1 autocannon 5 when you can have 8 med lasers for the same tonnage

because if you alpha strike all those medium lasers more than a few times you're going to suffer a hot shut down and sit down in front of the enemy. that's why ^.^

[VonFranz]

I think the thing that is usually overlooked is the crit factor. In terms of BV the AC2 and 5 are incredibly low point value. In a FPS setting an AC is direct fire allowing you to better aim for open sections to gain crits while LRMs are more of a crap shoot. It is true that in general a LRM5 launcher is better than an AC2 for most damage situations since it is about 3 damage for 2 tons and only slightly less range. In this game though I think it will have its place as a sniper rifle to hit internals and get crits. If the ROF is faster as well that would only enhance its role as a crit seeker. As for the AC5, in TT it is fine if you use special munitions.

Edited by VonFranz, 04 July 2012 - 07:58 PM.

[Bodha]

Victor Morson, on 13 April 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

LRM + Ammo = Long range sniper mech, fire support role, overwatch. Does 5 times as much damage for 1 ton less.

I could keep citing examples, but is it really needed? The AC/2 is terrible at it's role, let alone any other role.

1. LRM's dont always hit
2. LRM's dont hit a single location on the mech.
3. A sniper AC/2 or AC/5 can snipe an enemy mech in a single location or limb at range.
4. Unlike the gauss rifle an AC/2 or AC/5 can be placed in a much smaller mech.
5. AC/2s and AC/5s are excellent if used to harass an enemy early or used to disable a damaged assault late in a match.

I have seen a lowly light kill a stalker in a TT game late in a match by using his combination of speed and an AC/2 to stay alive while peppering the Stalker for crits. Eventually the stalker had its gyro taken out.

In MWO I can easily see a scout or fast medium using an AC/2 to harass assaults and heavies into chasing him into unfavorable positions OR to finish off a crippled brawler after a heated fight between the two sides. Where I dont think the AC/2 or AC/5 is so successful at is in heavier weight class mechs. These heavier mechs are better suited using a Gauss Rifle if they want to perform a similar task OR going to a PPC if they are willing to deal with the heat issues.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

I happen to agree with your concerns.(Although I'm not yet going to resort to calling them as worthless as Mech nipples) I think the issue will be that people will simply slot a Gauss Rifle or 2 and completely forget about these longer range ACs. The Jagermech for instance is the guy that has 2x AC2 and AC5. But what do you want to bet every player come release will simply drop all those ACs and slot 2 Gauss Rifles in their place? The Gauss is max range and actually hits as hard as an AC20. Why bother then with lighter ACs??? Sure it weighs more, but even if you stack those up to use the same weight you won't get the damage of a Gauss Rifle out of them. You'll probably also spend less weight on added ammo. I hope Piranha is taking all of this into account as I would like every weapon in the game to be equally viable. I fear that come release people will only use an AC20 or Gauss Rifle and simply forget every other Ballistic weapon. Energy weapons will most likely have the same issue with PPCs. If a Mech can fit a PPC on it, you'll likely slot that and just forget the lasers.

[Damion Sparhawk]

Bluten, on 04 July 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

I happen to agree with your concerns.(Although I'm not yet going to resort to calling them as worthless as Mech nipples) I think the issue will be that people will simply slot a Gauss Rifle or 2 and completely forget about these longer range ACs. The Jagermech for instance is the guy that has 2x AC2 and AC5. But what do you want to bet every player come release will simply drop all those ACs and slot 2 Gauss Rifles in their place? The Gauss is max range and actually hits as hard as an AC20. Why bother then with lighter ACs??? Sure it weighs more, but even if you stack those up to use the same weight you won't get the damage of a Gauss Rifle out of them. You'll probably also spend less weight on added ammo. I hope Piranha is taking all of this into account as I would like every weapon in the game to be equally viable. I fear that come release people will only use an AC20 or Gauss Rifle and simply forget every other Ballistic weapon. Energy weapons will most likely have the same issue with PPCs. If a Mech can fit a PPC on it, you'll likely slot that and just forget the lasers.

the guy above you pretty much answered that, but I'll reiterate, the lighter AC's are very much meant, and best used by, lighter mechs, chances are in this instance with the jager that yes, people will change them out for other weapons, because these weapons are stock on the jager for the purpose of ANTI-AIRCRAFT, seeing as how there is unlikely to be any aircraft in the game, at least to start, it isn't likely to be of any use in that respect and while it still wouldn't be useless, it might be more viable with a slightly different configuration. Energy weapons are of similar story however there you have to consider heat over time as well as damage output, if you replace all your energy weapons with PPC's you're going to run into situations where you simply can't fire without overheating and... that's just as bad as being shutdown except that you can still run for cover, sometimes you'd be better off with doing less damage per volley (i.e. using smaller energy weapons) to reduce the risk of inneficient heat (just because you overload on heatsinks doesn't mean you're safe from this scenario, it just makes it less likely) and packing gauss and AC-20 instead of the lighter weapons sometimes isn't the most efficient either, generally I've found that a good balance of weapon types makes you far better equipped to handle more scenarios than focusing on any one type, I almost always run with at least one good damaging energy weapon, a missile system that is appropriate for my mech's intended purpose and range increment, and the best ballistics weapon I can equip on the mech that all said. This ensures not only can I deal death in a variety of ways depending on the necessity but that even if I use up all my ammo I'm still capable of dishing out some damage with the energy weapons (or DFA depending XD)