64 replies to this topic

[Der Kommissar]

"20 rounds" does not mean "20 shells." Autocannons are burst fire weapons. A ton of AC/5 ammunition gets you 20 bursts of fire, whether that's 20 3-round bursts from the 120mm gun on a Marauder or 20 6-round bursts from a 60mm gun.

[That Guy]

based on current MWO game footage, its one round per shot, so currently yes, its 20 shells. in the TT its abstracted, and the source of all the fuss and controversy


if you want reality, most modern AC can fire 300 rpm and well beyond, depending on the design.

[Der Kommissar]

All fluff contradicts the beta footage of MWO. Which means...the game is wrong.

[Morashtak]

TT rules do not translate well here.

Would suggest a "double-tap" mechanism that allows one to fire again within .5 seconds of the first with a... 1 in 36 chance...? really? Only one in 36 chance of jamming? Should be a bit higher, say an even 5%. One in 20. Just "feels" better. (We backgammon players know how fickle fate can be and someone could go entire matches double-tapping like a mad man or get a jam with the first double-tap.) The player's skill, luck and opponents movement, if any, would decide where the shell(s) hit.

[John Talbert]

keep in mind that the ultra ac/5 etc had a tenancy to jam. this was the payoff in TT if you critical failed.

[Sassori]

Fluff != Holy Battletech Grail.

I'm perfectly fine with solid slug single shot autocannons. People talk a lot about modern weapons, but they forget that modern weapons are not mounted on walking machines of death.

There is space issues, loading a single shell is likely infinitely easier than managing belt fed ammunition, at least with the magazine that's less an issue too but seriously.

Then there is the Gyro issue. A gyroscope can absorb and recover from a single impact /much/ easier than repeated rapid impacts, it throws off their balance way way bad and everything goes crazy and boom collapse.

So, realize, mechs are not just big man shaped empty spaces to load stuff into. There's internal structure framework, myomer musculature, nuclear engines, heat sinks, jump jets, the gyro that keeps it upright, and then armor on top of all of that.

All 'auto' means is auto loading, it has nothing to do with rate of fire.

[Insidious Johnson]

I don't care either way on the whole ac/lbx/uac refire rate debate of the week whatever the caliber. Voted faster spew spew spew. Make your shots count.

[Mike Silva]

That Guy, on 14 May 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

if you want reality, most modern AC can fire 300 rpm and well beyond, depending on the design.

This is true, but most of the modern ones that are designed to take down heavily armored targets fire larger rounds at lower rates.

I really don't have a strong opinion on the rate of fire of ACs in this game. Burst or single round.... I'm fine either way.

[William Petersen]

Where's the option: can be toggled to fire 2 rounds with a 2.5% chance to be 'jammed' for the rest of the battle.

[eZZip]

Relying on a small chance as an option for balancing a weapon is poor. A much better choice than trying to balance like the following, though:

Major Tom, on 14 May 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

I'm good with whatever damage is selected as long as the C-Bill cost is appropriate.

Zakatak, on 14 May 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

I love MW3 autocannons to infinity, so I vote 5-round burst. If we could have that equally cool recoil back too, that would be nice.

I think in MW3, the UACs fired the same number of projectiles per burst, but had half the cycle time.

Edited by eZZip, 14 May 2012 - 06:45 PM.

[Thor77]

Christopher Dayson, on 14 May 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Fluff != Holy Battletech Grail.

I'm perfectly fine with solid slug single shot autocannons. People talk a lot about modern weapons, but they forget that modern weapons are not mounted on walking machines of death.

There is space issues, loading a single shell is likely infinitely easier than managing belt fed ammunition, at least with the magazine that's less an issue too but seriously.

Then there is the Gyro issue. A gyroscope can absorb and recover from a single impact /much/ easier than repeated rapid impacts, it throws off their balance way way bad and everything goes crazy and boom collapse.

So, realize, mechs are not just big man shaped empty spaces to load stuff into. There's internal structure framework, myomer musculature, nuclear engines, heat sinks, jump jets, the gyro that keeps it upright, and then armor on top of all of that.

All 'auto' means is auto loading, it has nothing to do with rate of fire.

Most depictions of the ACs in the literature and previous games have been multishot bursts. I distinctly remember one of the books were the rifleman's gun arms would kick out spent ammo casettes that held a burst's worth of shells. If they're doing it as one shot I'm sure it's workable, and there's certainly some logic to it along the lines of the main gun of a tank. Personally I think an AC is less fun if it shoots only one shot at a time, but it's not the end of the world either way.

Not sure which would 'really' be easier on the gyro since none of this stuff has been engineered. One could just as easily argue that the multiple smaller blasts over a span of a half a second or so are easier to absorb than one giant blast that overloads the gyro. It's all imaginary physics, so whichever way it plays out we can just suspend disbelief and get down to business.

Edited by Thor77, 14 May 2012 - 06:47 PM.

[Mike Silva]

Well consider that lasers do damage over time right now.... if ACs did burst fire they'd also likely be DOT. This was a good opportunity for the developers to create a difference in how these weapons handled and provide another reason why one would choose one over the other.

[Sassori]

Thor77, on 14 May 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

Most depictions of the ACs in the literature and previous games have been multishot bursts. I distinctly remember one of the books were the rifleman's gun arms would kick out spent ammo casettes that held a burst's worth of shells. If they're doing it as one shot I'm sure it's workable, and there's certainly some logic to it along the lines of the main gun of a tank. Personally I think an AC is less fun if it shoots only one shot at a time, but it's not the end of the world either way.

Not sure which would 'really' be easier on the gyro since none of this stuff has been engineered. One could just as easily argue that the multiple smaller blasts over a span of a half a second or so are easier to absorb than one giant blast that overloads the gyro. It's all imaginary physics, so whichever way it plays out we can just suspend disbelief and get down to business.

Novels /ARE/ Fluff. Period.

End of story.

They do not accurately represent the rules or the game.

Says so in the game books.

Riflemen are one of the most abused mech's in the novels, they absorb sooo much damage in the novels and keep right on trucking even when they have less armor than many medium mechs.

I stand by my statement that them using a single fire auto-cannon is still just as accurate as any other possibility. Probably more so in many ways, since AC damage isn't supposed to spread at all.

[Reaver 1 1]

That Guy, on 14 May 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

this is one of those things that you guys really need to get the tabletop rules out of your heads. It makes no scene (from a realistic, or game-play standpoint) to have a mounted weapon that only shoots in "controlled pairs".

the standard AC5 rate of fire (groan) 20 rounds per min, and the UAC5 40 rounds per min. (Bolt action cannons!)

I dont understand what you are saying you agree or disagree with any one way. I watched some of the vids for MWO and it looks like the AC's just shoot one big round as it is then has to recharge/reload before it can be shot again. If you just double that speed then hey what do you know you shot twice before the guy with the normal ac did again.

[Trogusaur]

Mystwolf, on 14 May 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

it fires twice as quickly because it fires 2 rounds in the same amount of time. Not reloading any faster really.

and while burst fire sounds cool...... having the damage spread out would make having an AC detrimental. the added threat of overheat, running out of ammo and ammor explosions and the benefit of the high dmg to one area gone.

Considering how TT was turn-based, there wasn't really an accurate way to relay recycle times in an actual firefight. The rules could really be interpreted either way, but I think this poll is more preference based anyway.

Having the UAC fire at twice the rate rather than a double-shot would ensure some damage spread, and people have to put a bit more effort into aiming. This goes along with the other weapons' schema as well (lasers fire like MW3 pulse, LRMs are fairly inaccurate), in that it forces you to work for your kills.

Edited by Lord Trogus, 14 May 2012 - 07:54 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Prosperity Park, on 14 May 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

The rules say the Ultra AC/5 fires twice as quickly as the AC/5, so it should have half the reloading time as a normal AC/5...

This.

[Belisarius1]

It needs to fire twice as many shots as the AC5.

Personally, I'm hoping they'll change normal ACs to burst fire as well, in which case the UAC would just have a longer burst.

Edited by Belisarius†, 14 May 2012 - 08:14 PM.

[Stormeris]

2 round bursts sound good for me

[Monky]

I think the simplest solution is to double the rate of fire.

2x damage potential, 2x rate of heat buildup, 2x rate of ammo consumption, 2x increase in innacuracy when the trigger is held down.

However, if you stagger your fire it functions like a normal AC5 but with the slightly different stats the UAC/5 has.

This mimics TT's ability to benefit from a UAC's increased capability or fire it slower and more accurately if desired. There should be a risk of jams, but they should be capable of clearing themselves given a period of time (10 seconds? seems like most weapons fire every 5 seconds, give or take) vs. the permanently jammed version the TT has, after all the games focus is on action instead of penalties.

Edited by monky, 14 May 2012 - 09:01 PM.

[Owl Cutter]

To me, this looks like one of those places where adherence to canon would not be good for gameplay; the defining characteristics of the Ultra are twice the overall cycle rate and some extra range for only a small increase in mass, balanced by a risk of failure that turns the weapon to dead weight for the rest of the fight. This is fine for a game emphasising the role of die rolls, but not for a real-time PvP game. As such, I think the overall power of the weapon should be scaled back from double that of a standard AC, since the total cost of the weapon, ammo, cooling, etc. is going to be less than double that of a standard version AND the ultras have improved ranges. Speaking of that, IMO something also needs deviate from canon to keep Star League "fountech" in general from being excessively powerful relative to bog standard AC...

For a starting point for the Ultra, I was going to suggest a double-tap mechanism much like Morashtak described, except less specific about how the timing should work, and without the jamming. Keep the range boost, and just pad the overall recycle time to wherever makes the weapon end up feeling like it offers about the same bang-for-buck as the standard AC/5. I am thinking, since it's just one ton and one crit more, to have it end up with the same sustained firepower since IMO the ability to double-tap is already probably more than worth that extra ton.

As for single shot vs. burst fire, terms like "AC/5" refer to broad ranges of ballistic weapons whose capabilities are such that they translate to the same simplified abstraction in the TT game. It looks impractical to me to implement for each class in MWO a large enough variety to be faithful to canon, all the way from single-shot monsters to volley guns that fire a whole cassette of stacked charges like a Roman Candle, _but_ I think it would be totally awesome if each class got a different interpretation, since not only would that help illustrate the broad diversity that is being abstracted as "one" weapon type, but could also add variety to the game and be sourced for balancing mechanics. It would obviously be more work to make four totally different guns than to make four guns that share all or nearly all the same code with just a few numbers being different, but probably worth it in this case since there are balance issues rooted in the source material anyway.