125 replies to this topic

[XTRMNTR2K]

Before I'm going to describe what's been bothering for a while now I want to make clear that I have an incredible amount of faith in the developers to make MWO the Mech game we Mechheads have been waiting for for what felt like an eternity. This is especially true after watching the vids shown on IGN.

There is, however, one issue I'm having with what has been shown so far: In every video that shows a mech firing an autocannon, only one shot is fired. While I do know that the term 'autocannon' merely refers to an automatically reloading weapon classified as cannon (which would apply to single-shot ACs as well), it's not really what I've been associating with Battletech ACs for years. While I haven't read all of the novels (and never got a chance to play the TT game, Megamek aside) I can not remember a single instance where firing an autocannon wasn't described as leaving "a series of craters on a mech", "bellowing" and "spitting a stream of projectiles". When I think of an autocannon, I remember the deafening sound ACs used to make in MW3.

While I don't recall seeing anything other than AC10s and 20s in the videos released so far and these things probably aren't set in stone yet, I won't get my hopes up that the devs will depart from their decision to have ACs in MWO as single-shot weapons (similar to the main gun of a tank).

So... What I'd like to know from everyone else is this: What do you think about this? Am I completely off and maybe even delusional about my perception of this matter? Would you prefer single-shot ACs over burst-firing weaponry? Is this even important?

EDIT: Added a poll.

Edited by XTRMNTR2K, 07 May 2012 - 10:35 AM.

[Major Tom]

The primary benefit of Autocannons is focused damage.
Without burst damage what are you getting for the high tonage cost and ammo risk?

[Garth Erlam]

Major Tom, on 07 May 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

The primary benefit of Autocannons is focused damage. Without burst damage what are you getting for the high tonage cost and ammo risk?

Basically, this.

[EDMW CSN]

Front loaded damage is far more important. PGI can certainly make models of ACs that fire in burst but your damage will be scatter out all over. Which takes away pretty much the only major advantage the AC/20 has compared to 4 medium lasers.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 07 May 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[XTRMNTR2K]

Major Tom, on 07 May 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

The primary benefit of Autocannons is focused damage.
Without burst damage what are you getting for the high tonage cost and ammo risk?

Actually, I always thought that is what Gauss Rifles are for. Autocannons always struck me as being able to deliver the most damage in the shortest amount of time; also, if the damage was spread over a short duration and a number of - let's say - three shots, more experienced pilots would be able to get more damage out of them if they could keep the crosshairs on target.

[osito]

I voted for other. In canon i believe different ac designers do it both ways. Some ac do all the damage in one shell, when other companies do their damage in a burst fire mode. I don't know how the devs will work with this. If they will allow different ac do different damage or if they will choose one way or the other. Only time will tell for us.

[FaustianQ]

Garth Erlam, on 07 May 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

Basically, this.

"Basically this" meaning the AC/5 does 5 damage in 10 seconds, or each shot within a 10 second span does 5 damage? One makes the AC/5 very meh on a cost/performance scale and the other makes me want to strap two AC/5s to the nearest 55t mech I can find.

Garth, are you familiar with the French and American oscillating turret tanks? Both used drums with automatic loaders to achieve high fire rates at the cost of downtime while new drums were loaded in. I am hoping that is similar to what you have in mind - a kind of controlled rapid fire that allows for a high burst damage and a moderated damage per minute to prevent things like the AC/20 becoming horrifyingly effective.

[WhiteWereBear]

I think it should vary. Depending of the size and energy spended, it could be burst, a short burst with "reload time" or single.

[Siilk]

Bursts or full-auto. Single-shot AC feels lame.

[trycksh0t]

Never liked burst fire ACs, they never made sense to me. Autocannons put all damage into a single area, of that we can agree. I don't see how it is ballistically possible to fire a burst of 120mm shells and have all of them impact the same, relatively small, area of a target. So, regardless of canon claims that ACs fire in bursts, I don't buy it.

My thoughts are to keep 'em single shot (1 round = 1 round), just alter their cyclic rates so they all put out a ton of ammo in 30 seconds of continuous fire. So that way we end up with:

AC/2 fires every .6 seconds or so.
AC/5 fires every 1.5 seconds
AC/10 every 3 seconds.
AC/20 every 6 seconds.

They've all got the same DoT (Except AC/2s), they just get there differently. Also, thanks to not having pin-point, "look at me I'm the Immortal Warrior and I never miss" weapons fire, it keeps the lighter calibers balanced out because, even if they fire faster, you're not going to get every shot on target.

Edited by trycksh0t, 07 May 2012 - 11:47 AM.

[Ravager AI]

Personally I feel that the tremendous sound of a single massive round being fired is always going to be one of my favourite sounds. Not only do your enemies get a psycological rush of adrenaline and assorted feelings, but when that massive round strikes home in their (ex.) left torso and the entire mech jerks from the impact it is all so much sweeter.

Also, having it being a single fire mechanism (albeit with a relative reload speed to the caliber of round) will make it more accurate.

However the Ultra AC's I've always understood them as being burstfire weapons.

EDIT: Typo.

Edited by Ravager AI, 07 May 2012 - 11:56 AM.

[pursang]

Has to be different to Ultra ACs somehow.

[XTRMNTR2K]

pursang, on 07 May 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Has to be different to Ultra ACs somehow.

As far as I understand, Ultra Autocannons simply chew through their ammo in half the time - meaning either a higher rate of fire or double length bursts.

At least that should be the main difference between regular ACs and Ultras.

Edited by XTRMNTR2K, 07 May 2012 - 12:07 PM.

[Havoc2]

FaustianQ, on 07 May 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

"Basically this" meaning the AC/5 does 5 damage in 10 seconds, or each shot within a 10 second span does 5 damage? One makes the AC/5 very meh on a cost/performance scale and the other makes me want to strap two AC/5s to the nearest 55t mech I can find.

Major Tom, on 07 May 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

The primary benefit of Autocannons is focused damage.
Without burst damage what are you getting for the high tonage cost and ammo risk?

Garth Erlam, on 07 May 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

Basically, this.

He quoted the post that he was agreeing with.

[FaustianQ]

}{avoc, on 07 May 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

He quoted the post that he was agreeing with.

:\ I was trying to tease out a more definitive answer on potential AC/2, 5 and 10 mechanics (burst fire 20s make no sense)

[XTRMNTR2K]

FaustianQ, on 07 May 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

:\ I was trying to tease out a more definitive answer on potential AC/2, 5 and 10 mechanics (burst fire 20s make no sense)

Why not? They're no different from other autocannons aside from their size.

[Sven Svenson]

Actually I think they should have both auto and single fire weapons in the game. Let us choose what type we want to mount. Variety is good. If you want a single shot ac20 to punch that that assault in the chest. If you want a gatling type ac20 that lays down a stream of fire to try and spray that pesky Jenner then you should have that option. So it doesnt have the same kill power as a single shot it would be FUN and look cool.

[Ravager AI]

Hmm... I looked up Autocannon on Sarna and found this: The Autocannon is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.

So that would basically mean that both are possible. Basically it would have two firemodes, one for burst and one for single.

[FaustianQ]

XTRMNTR2K, on 07 May 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

Why not? They're no different from other autocannons aside from their size.

From a balance perspective, not an in universe engineering perspective. Allowing the highest alpha weapon in the game burst fire is madness, even if you can't really boat AC/20s. There is also nothing comparable to the AC/20, where the AC/2 AC/5 and AC/10 have direct comparisons in SLas, MLas and PPC respectively, for damage output and need to be able to differentiate themselves.

[Sven Svenson]

FaustianQ, on 07 May 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

From a balance perspective, not an in universe engineering perspective. Allowing the highest alpha weapon in the game burst fire is madness, even if you can't really boat AC/20s. There is also nothing comparable to the AC/20, where the AC/2 AC/5 and AC/10 have direct comparisons in SLas, MLas and PPC respectively, for damage output and need to be able to differentiate themselves.

I may be wrong but I believe what is meant by a burst fire AC20 is a gun that still does 20pts damage but in a stream of fire not a single shot. The Ultra AC20 on the other hand fire two 20 pt shots per turn at cost of increased weight double heat and double ammo use