38 replies to this topic

[Ikarti Danaro]

It's not a great weapon by any measure but it's extremely useful when used correctly due to screen shaking. I had a lot of fun suppressing the **** out of enemy teams with it and denying approaches. Now I won't be able to. I could understand tweaking it down but the philosophy seems to be "Lower AC number=less impulse," with AC/2 being at the bottom of the barrel.

A little finesse would go a long way in balance changes. Tweaking LRMs from 1.7 to 1.8 is an example of this. Secretly changing their arcs back to resemble more of what they were when they were extremely overpowered is not. Nor is failing to nerf the Streakpult for a few weeks and giving it Beagle at the same time (though I did have a lot of fun with this.) Nor is sticking so rabidly to TT rules that you give new players horrible Trial variants, but then arbitrarily cut down DHS to 1.4 (needs to at least be 1.6) but with all of the costs of TT DHS. ****, at least make them cost 2 slots now instead of 3. Hey, turns out the AWS-9M Trial is crap because the DHS required to make the 3x ERPPC somewhat viable (and still not recommended) is nerfed and it has an XL engine which I don't expect a new player to really understand.

But let's look at the AC/2:

• Low damage
  
• Fast rate of fire
  
• High heat
  
• High impulse

I'd say on paper that looks balanced. In fact, fielding AC/2s on most Mechs in my experience is a ridiculous waste of time, space, and resources. Also the hallmark of a bad player. Any sort of 2xAC/2 Atlas is representative of this.

But there was one build that really shines with AC/2s. The CTF-4X running 2xAC/2 2xAC/5s. Spew bullets all over the place and shake screens to stop the enemy from aiming. Use suppressing fire to clear ridges. Deny approaches, especially the arch in Forest Colony. In fact, with a competent pilot, this build can slug it out with Atlases 1v1 and come out on top, albeit severely damaged. But played the way it's meant to be, you support your assaults with screen shaking while doing a respectable amount of damage while they tank for you. The target then needs to make a judgment call, drop the Atlas, or drop the Cataphract screen shaking. If he targets the Cataphract, chance is he misses as he attempts to aim at a new target. It's a great range build if you've got a good field of fire against assaults. The number of Awesomes I've dropped from 500m+ range is impressive because pilots don't know how to react to the shake, so they just lock up instead.

That's why I think we're getting the nerf. Not because it's unbalanced, but because of complaints. Rather than learning how to deal with this build, whose natural predator in the wild is the Streakpult of all things and of which there is no shortage, whining about it achieves far more effective and spectacular results. Unfortunately PGI seems to have developed a conditioned response, acquiescing to the loud voices of pubbies as soon as they are heard.

This is currently the only Mech in the game that can mount a configuration like this and produce a suppression effect. Is it optimal for competitive 8v8? I would like to say it is but in my heart I feel that it isn't. It is the most fun Mech I've ever played. It's not losing any of its damage which is good, but until I see what the changes actually do the ability to effectively suppress targets is out of the game for now. Try it, you still have some hours before the patch. At least having that option for suppression opens up new strategies (for players whom I am assuming have not considered this) in what I expect to be nothing but 8v8 ECM D-DCs or Jenner rushes.

[PanzerMagier]

Well said. I struggle hard with my quad Ac2 cataphract to make a good mech. I make do, I usually find something to focus down while my atlas buddies mop the floor ,but I've never really had a chance to "stand in the spotlight" with this mech even though I think It deserves the attention.

Now they're nerfing ac2's. Pathetic...

[Ikarti Danaro]

PanzerMagier, on 04 December 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Well said. I struggle hard with my quad Ac2 cataphract to make a good mech. I make do, I usually find something to focus down while my atlas buddies mop the floor ,but I've never really had a chance to "stand in the spotlight" with this mech even though I think It deserves the attention.

Now they're nerfing ac2's. Pathetic...

4x AC/2 is pretty solid but not as good on heat as I would have liked. As far as sheer bullets being shot it takes the cake though.

[Brilig]

Personally I'm glad they are tweaking it. I think the screen shake was way overboard for something like an AC-2. Some of the issue is the screen being obscured because of the explosion effect, but the shake was a little much.

I don't want them to take it all the way away, or make it so light as to not affect the pilot. It could use a downgrade though. It might have been fun to pilot, but it was not too fun to be on the receiving end of that CTF-4X build.

[stjobe]

The screen shake is excessive, as is the smoke, and I'm glad that they're toning it down (note: Not removing, reducing).
The AC/2 still has a DPS of 4, it's still a viable weapon without the excessive screen shake.

[BFalcon]

Actually, I heard that some of the staff actually saw videos of the shake and hadn't realised how bad it was.

To be perfectly honest, a lot of people miss the fact that an AC/2 is not supposed to be as good as an AC/5 or an AC/10, yet, due to the higher rate of fire, can actually be better than those weapons. Because of their small size, they are supposed to be used either to fill out weapon payloads to allow longer-ranged damage, to enable sniping (before the Gauss, they were the long-ranged weapons of choice) and for those mechs who physically could not carry the larger weapons.

From a logical standpoint, given that all ACs are single-shot weapons (with the exception of the LBX "buckshot"), an AC/2 round, which does around the same damage as 2 MGs, was deemed not to be sufficiently large to warrant ANY kind of cockpit shake. Apparently, from the notes, the AC/20 on the other hand, is looking to REALLY rock the house when it hits.

Think of it this way. If the AC/2 is that bad... how bad would the UAC/2 have been when they finally make one?

[Ikarti Danaro]

DPS assumes you connect with every single shot and no one certainly does, especially with the nature of ballistics and the netcode. Now I'm a pretty good shot with the 4X but I would never use AC/2s to do anything but interfere with someone's aiming. They fire too fast and give off too much heat for the damage they do. That's why I keep the AC/5s around.

[Redoxin]

Ikarti Danaro, on 04 December 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

But let's look at the AC/2:

• Low damage
  
• Fast rate of fire

The fast rate of fire makes up for low damage per shot. In fact, the AC2 has more DPS than the AC5 and the same DPS as the AC10, while even having a better range and less bullet drop. Furthermore, the AC2 weighs much less than these weapons. It provides much more DPS per ton than any other AC. Its drawback is the heat. But to say that its underpowered compared to other ACs if shaking is reduced is just ridiculous.

And the shaking was way too much on missiles and ACs. Everybody except for very few users of these weapons agrees on that.

[Ikarti Danaro]

and unfortunately, we gotta work with what we have here. PGI can't just make up some new weapon that does no damage but shakes cockpits because it's not in the lore. I don't see why some of these unintended consequences can't stick around as how things go for MWO. It beats having the AC/2 join the SPL, MG, ERPPC, etc. in the useless weapon pile.

[BFalcon]

Redoxin, on 04 December 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

[/list] The fast rate of fire makes up for low damage per shot. In fact, the AC2 has more DPS than the AC5 and the same DPS as the AC10, while even having a better range and less bullet drop. Furthermore, the AC2 weighs much less than these weapons. It provides much more DPS per ton than any other AC. Its drawback is the heat. But to say that its underpowered compared to other ACs if shaking is reduced is just ridiculous.

And the shaking was way too much on missiles and ACs. Everybody except for very few users of these weapons agrees on that.

Agreed - except being hit by the AC/20 (the largest round in the game) should make you feel like your head's being unscrewed from your mech... the slow rate of fire on those, though, would make it acceptable, since the recipient has time to correct aim and fire before the next one comes in... something you can't do with a hail of AC/2 or UAC/5 rounds coming in if you're not already aiming in the right spot.

Ikarti Danaro, on 04 December 2012 - 03:43 AM, said:

and unfortunately, we gotta work with what we have here. PGI can't just make up some new weapon that does no damage but shakes cockpits because it's not in the lore. I don't see why some of these unintended consequences can't stick around as how things go for MWO. It beats having the AC/2 join the SPL, MG, ERPPC, etc. in the useless weapon pile.

UGH you say that, but I was actually killed by an MG the other day - admittedly my centre torso was red, but those things DO chew away at the location and cause all kinds of fun with regards crits. Small Pulse? Meh... maybe useful for Lights, but yeah. ER-PPCs desperately need help though.

[sarkun]

I guess they're doing it not because it's OP, but for the fact that it's not really fun to fight against a mech with multiple ACs / SSRM. Against other weapons, even if you finally die, you still could have had fun by returning fire, maneuvering etc. With the insane cockpit shake we have now, you can try to aim for that red box while your screen tries to make you vomit. Not my idea of fun.

[Rifter]

Yeah you guys are delusional if you dont think the shake needs to be toned down. There is no reason a single AC round doing 2 damage should cause more screen shake than a 6 pack of SRM's doing 2.5 damage each.

I think the AC20 shake needs to be huge though right now its laughable that the AC2 screenshake is as bad if not worse than the AC20.

[John Norad]

If you use the AC2 as a primary weapon, it uses too much ammo and the additional tons required will make it inefficient. Otherwise it's rather powerful for it's weight. Both range and dps are high.
But to complain that it's a bad weapon for boating is a bit silly.

[Redshift2k5]

They are not only nerfing the AC-2 ; they are adjusting the impulse of all ballistic weapons to scale in proportion to their damage. Why should a 2 damage round shake you the same as a 5, 10, or even 20 damage round?

The same is being applied to SRMs to reduce the aggravating SSRM2 spam cockpit shake.

[Blark]

sarkun, on 04 December 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

I guess they're doing it not because it's OP, but for the fact that it's not really fun to fight against a mech with multiple ACs / SSRM. Against other weapons, even if you finally die, you still could have had fun by returning fire, maneuvering etc. With the insane cockpit shake we have now, you can try to aim for that red box while your screen tries to make you vomit. Not my idea of fun.

Imo thats exactly it.

btw: You might see it as a nerf to the ac2, but depending on how much the shake will be toned down it could also be an advantage of sorts: right now any enemy will know the second he is under ac fire; if it's less noticeable one might even be able to get more rounds into the target before it knows what is happening.. guess we will have to see

[SinnerX]

The way I see it, they had to nerf the AC2, and to a lesser extent the -5 and -10, to make the PPC viable in a metagame that's already dominated by ballistics and missiles. Once they finally add the ECM hit effects, the PPC will be the goto cockpit disruption weapon, but with the drawback that it can't be spammed like the AC2 or SSRMs because of its high heat.

[inquisitor]

Ok people, this is really simple.

It's not okay to create a weapon whose purpose is to make the game less fun for your opponent. Good game design is around balancing both sides of the equation: how is a weapon good for the user, and how does it create an appropriate challenge for the recipient. The current AC/2 is grossly broken by this simple but necessary approach.

Every weapon does not need to be fundamentally good, it only needs to fill a nice or have a function not overlapped by other, obviously better, weapons. Even without the screen-shake, AC/2 fits that bill, having longer range and higher rate of fire that it's bigger brothers. Adding the screen-shake in just means an unenjoyable experience for the recipient. It utterly defies any sense of physics (and whether you like it or not, the brain does physics automatically—when it's flat out nonsensical, you are hard pressed not to feel unsettled by it), and there is no way to 'work around it'. It doesn't present a tactical problem. It's just a blazing inconsistency staring you in the face. It may not be so bad if you have a high frame rate, but the way this game runs for many, it's a one-way ticket to 'I can't even steer anymore'-ville.

Bad game design. Bad implementation. Virtually proof that those in-house testers aren't worth their weight in mud, let alone gold.

[Cybercobra]

there tweaking it becouse it is realy. realy. realy. realy. realy damn annoying.

[Star Captain Obvious Kerensky]

inquisitor, on 04 December 2012 - 04:42 AM, said:

It's not okay to create a weapon whose purpose is to make the game less fun for your opponent. Good game design is around balancing both sides of the equation: how is a weapon good for the user, and how does it create an appropriate challenge for the recipient. The current AC/2 is grossly broken by this simple but necessary approach.

Every weapon does not need to be fundamentally good, it only needs to fill a nice or have a function not overlapped by other, obviously better, weapons
...

Fun is subjective. To most of the people who post on this forum, any weapon that beats them makes the game not fun. Its not fun getting LRMed, SRMed, lasered, or hit by Gauss. ECM is certainly going to ruin the day of LRM boats, I guess that makes ECM not fun, and should be removed?

The only weapons that are fun to be hit by right now are machine guns and flamers, since they don't do anything, and I get a nice chuckle.

"Boo hoo, I stood still waitinging for my Gauss rifles to reload and the AC2 shook my mech non-stop and I couldn't fire and after 30 seconds of being hit in the CT got killed and never had a chance to fire back".

The AC2 is a good weapon against bad pilots who stand still and try to wait for the shaking to stop. Its a terrible weapon against good pilots who keep moving and have learned how to shoot despite the shaking.

BFalcon, on 04 December 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

UGH you say that, but I was actually killed by an MG the other day - admittedly my centre torso was red, but those things DO chew away at the location and cause all kinds of fun with regards crits. ...

That is not how crits work. Machine guns are good at scoring crits, but unlike table top, each component has 3-10 hitpoints and takes damage equal to how much damage the weapon deals. So a machine gun nibbbles away at components at .04 damage a crit, while the Gauss does 15 damage a crit. Lasers do damage in .25 damage ticks, making lasers a superior crit seeker over machine guns.

Its still possible to die by machine guns, but the machine gun is not what did 99.9% of the damage.

Edited by Eldragon, 04 December 2012 - 06:27 AM.

[Lootee]

I wonder if all these earthquake simulator advocates would like it if AC/20 hits automatically put the victim into the 3rd person fall down stand up animation?

PGI should do that for the big ACs and PPCs so no one can play the game between the smoking, blurring, darkening, earthquaking, and falling.

No PVP game should have a CC ability that can be chained with itself to keep a player out of the entire rest of the match once it's used. That applies to MWO as well.

Either nerf the earthquakes already, or bring back the Dragon conga lines so everyone can get in on the chain stunlock games.

Edited by PanchoTortilla, 04 December 2012 - 07:08 AM.