21 replies to this topic

[Leimrey]

Can someone please explain to me why the AC/2 RoF is so low, compared to what it was before? I remember playing the game a few patches back in my 4X Cataphract with quad AC/2s and it was absolutely devastating, shredding even assault mechs in seconds with its high rate of fire of 2 shots per second. Now, it seems like the AC/2 is absolutely worthless, because the RoF is so low.

I tested the RoF in game by firing one AC/2 for 2 minutes straight (held the button) and I used up only 148 rounds, when I should have expended around 240, if the RoF was indeed 2. This means that the current RoF for the AC/2 is approximately 1.23 (let's assume that it's exactly 1.25 to make the numbers prettier), which leads me to the question: was the AC/2 RoF nerfed in some earlier patch or is this some strange bug? Several people have told me that this was a deliberate nerf, but I still want to ask this question just to make sure.

Personally, I think that the current AC/2 RoF made it practically useless, since its DPS was reduced by approximately 37.5 percent (dropped from 4 to 2.5), while the weapon still remains both ammo AND heat limited. Not only do you need to load up on ammo for the weapon, but you also need to take into account the relatively large amount of heat it generates (1.25 heat points per second, which is 0.05 points higher than that of an AC/10 and 0.66 points higher than that of an AC/5). This makes the AC/2 the least damaging (lowest DPS) and almost the hottest (HPS of 1.25, only the AC/20 with a HPS of 1.75 and the UAC/5 in double fire mode with a HPS of approximately 2 are hotter).

I don't think the current situation is balanced at all. Sure, the earlier iteration of AC/2 was quite powerful, but the main problem with it being "OP" was the constant screen shaking it produced when chainfired, not its DPS. Sure, it had very high DPS for such a light weapon, but this was offset by the insane amounts of heat it generated, so you had to fire in short bursts of 5 seconds of non-stop fire and then cooldown for some 20 seconds (a quad AC/2 4X Cataphract usually had some 13-14 dubs with heat dissipation of around 2.5 and heat threshold of around 55). Now, when the screen shaking effect from the AC/2 has been fixed, the weapon became absolutely useless, because it can no longer annoy the enemy with non stop screen shaking and has laughable DPS. There's just no reason to take it, since it's always better to scrounge up 3 tons from somewhere and take an UAC/5 with almost twice the DPS in standard firing mode instead.

TL;DR: PGI, please make the 4X quad AC/2 dakkaphract a viable build again so that I may have some fun with ridiculous amounts of dakka.

[Weaselball]

Leimrey, on 25 January 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

absolutely devastating, shredding even assault mechs in seconds with its high rate of fire of 2 shots per second.

Pretty sure you answered the "why was it nerfed?" question in your opening paragraph right there.

When you take down an 80-100 ton mech with weapons that do 2 damage a pop in "seconds," then something is wrong

[Joachim Viltry]

There was a thread that discussed this; It was suggested that the AC2 fire-rate was a stealth test for the Ultra AC5 (and future ultra AC2). Just as the 'reversion' of the LRM firing arc (to the closed beta high angle) looked to be a test for the new Artemis arc, when all was said and done and the screen shots of the angles were compared.

So if we run with that theory; just assume any and all changes/buffs to weapons systems are tests for similar systems.

[twibs]

Yes, bugged. Here is some explanation, although I'm not sure if the devs have noticed the less-than-RoF ammo consumption that would suggest something more serious

http://mwomercs.com/...39#entry1583139

[Leimrey]

The average dakkaphract with quad ac/2s had a heat threshold value somewhere around 55 and heat dissipation of approximately 2.5 (13-14 dubs). This means that it needs approximately 22 seconds to cool down from 100% heat to 0%. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that this value is exactly 20 seconds. Before the nerf, each AC/2 generated 2 heat points per second, which means that the cataphract would overheat after 6.9 seconds of non stop fire. To make things more simple, let's make this time equal to exactly 8 seconds (note that my simplifications will make the cataphract look more efficient than it actually is). Now during the course of these 8 seconds the cataphract is able to deliver 4x4x8 = 128 points of damage. Then the cataphract overheats and has to spend to spend 20 seconds to cool down to 0% heat. Total time which was needed for firing and cool down was 28 seconds. So, the actual DPS of the cataphract during these 28 seconds was 128/28 = 4.5. Does anyone still consider it OP when 24 tons of weapons + around 8 tons of ammo and 3-4 tons for additional dubs are worth only 4.5 DPS? This was BEFORE the nerf, the current situation is much worse.

Now, let's compare these numbers to a double gauss cat that can fire non stop until it runs out of ammo. The gauss has a DPS of 3.75 and has negligible HPS, so it can fire pretty much forever. Dual gauss has a DPS 7.5 which is constant. Dual gauss setup weighs 30 tons for weapons only + some 6 tons of ammo and no weight for additional heatsinks (those that are counted after the first 10). notice that the tonnage difference between the two setups is only some 2-3 tons, while the gauss setup has significantly higher average DPS (do not confuse the short term DPS of a quad AC/2 phract which is 4x4=16 with its average DPS of 4.5), delivers all of its damage to a single component in one alpha AND is easier to aim, since you do not need to lead the target constantly for the duration of whole 8 seconds.

TL;DR: the dakkaphract and the AC/2 in general were not overpowered pre nerf, because it was a setup with high burst damage for a short period of time (128 damage during 8 seconds, which is 16 DPS), but pretty low average DPS of 4.5. It's still inferior to the popular double gauss or double ac20 builds (7.5 and 10 constant DPS respectively), but can be fearsome when used properly.

[Leimrey]

twibs, on 25 January 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

Yes, bugged. Here is some explanation, although I'm not sure if the devs have noticed the less-than-RoF ammo consumption that would suggest something more serious

http://mwomercs.com/...39#entry1583139

THANK YOU, so this is a bug after all. This is exactly the explanation I wanted, which gives me hope that the dakkaphract will return and continue to instill fear into assault mech pilots, since their mechs are slow and fat targets.

Edited by Leimrey, 25 January 2013 - 06:25 PM.

[Cranky Poed]

Ultra Ac/2...DAKKA DAKKKA

[BlackBeltJones]

It is supposed to fire every .5 seconds, it doesn't. Change the documentation or change the RoF back. I miss my AC/2.

[MegaBusta]

After running a quad AC/2 dakkaphract, I do think the heat per shot is a little high, IMO, especially compared to the UAC/5. For 3 more tons and 3 more crit slots, you get more DPS for slightly less than half the HPS.

Now the AC/2 does have a higher muzzle velocity and max range, but those benefits definitely are not worth the costs to me, and likely to many others.

[Prophet of Entropy]

yea a weapon with thats 1 crit and 6 tons should totaly have the same dps as one that weighs 14 tons and is 10 crits. specialy if its projectile travels twice as fast and has 3 times the range as the other.

DERP!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kreisel]

Leimrey, on 25 January 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

The average dakkaphract with quad ac/2s had a heat threshold value somewhere around 55 and heat dissipation of approximately 2.5 (13-14 dubs). This means that it needs approximately 22 seconds to cool down from 100% heat to 0%. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that this value is exactly 20 seconds. Before the nerf, each AC/2 generated 2 heat points per second, which means that the cataphract would overheat after 6.9 seconds of non stop fire. To make things more simple, let's make this time equal to exactly 8 seconds (note that my simplifications will make the cataphract look more efficient than it actually is). Now during the course of these 8 seconds the cataphract is able to deliver 4x4x8 = 128 points of damage. Then the cataphract overheats and has to spend to spend 20 seconds to cool down to 0% heat. Total time which was needed for firing and cool down was 28 seconds. So, the actual DPS of the cataphract during these 28 seconds was 128/28 = 4.5. Does anyone still consider it OP when 24 tons of weapons + around 8 tons of ammo and 3-4 tons for additional dubs are worth only 4.5 DPS? This was BEFORE the nerf, the current situation is much worse.

Now, let's compare these numbers to a double gauss cat that can fire non stop until it runs out of ammo. The gauss has a DPS of 3.75 and has negligible HPS, so it can fire pretty much forever. Dual gauss has a DPS 7.5 which is constant. Dual gauss setup weighs 30 tons for weapons only + some 6 tons of ammo and no weight for additional heatsinks (those that are counted after the first 10). notice that the tonnage difference between the two setups is only some 2-3 tons, while the gauss setup has significantly higher average DPS (do not confuse the short term DPS of a quad AC/2 phract which is 4x4=16 with its average DPS of 4.5), delivers all of its damage to a single component in one alpha AND is easier to aim, since you do not need to lead the target constantly for the duration of whole 8 seconds.

TL;DR: the dakkaphract and the AC/2 in general were not overpowered pre nerf, because it was a setup with high burst damage for a short period of time (128 damage during 8 seconds, which is 16 DPS), but pretty low average DPS of 4.5. It's still inferior to the popular double gauss or double ac20 builds (7.5 and 10 constant DPS respectively), but can be fearsome when used properly.

Ummm.... High BURST damage is how you kill other players in any game pvp... It's highly effective to burst someone down, then spend a while avoiding conflict or playing defensive while you prepare to do it again, That's how you win pvp in most MMO's or heck... FPS in which you unload... duck in cover, reload...do it again. Yeah that's still pretty insanely powerful... if you can round a corner, deliver 128 damage (enough to core the vast majority of mechs, easily) and then walk back into cover and do it again... Not to mention you don't NEED to reach zero heat to start firing again... you could wait 10 seconds then fire a 4 second burst... which at 64 Damage is enough to entirely strip the CT front armor off many Heavy mechs.

The AC2 doesn't need to outgun a Gauss riffle (which weighs over twice as much and takes 10 times the crit space) to be a good weapon.

Also the dual Gauss and Dual AC20 builds you compaire it to are largely considered to be cheesy and of questionable fairness.... pointing to something else considered OP and saying 'but it's not as OP as THAT' doesn't make it more balanced. You need a more comprehensive look at where it fits in with the rest of the pack.

Edited by Kreisel, 25 January 2013 - 07:29 PM.

[Leimrey]

Prophet of Entropy, on 25 January 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

yea a weapon with thats 1 crit and 6 tons should totaly have the same dps as one that weighs 14 tons and is 10 crits. specialy if its projectile travels twice as fast and has 3 times the range as the other.

DERP!!!!!!!!!!!

Kreisel, on 25 January 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Ummm.... High BURST damage is how you kill other players in any game pvp... It's highly effective to burst someone down, then spend a while avoiding conflict or playing defensive while you prepare to do it again, That's how you win pvp in most MMO's or heck... FPS in which you unload... duck in cover, reload...do it again. Yeah that's still pretty insanely powerful... if you can round a corner, deliver 128 damage (enough to core the vast majority of mechs, easily) and then walk back into cover and do it again... Not to mention you don't NEED to reach zero heat to start firing again... you could wait 10 seconds then fire a 4 second burst... which at 64 Damage is enough to entirely strip the CT front armor off many Heavy mechs.

The AC2 doesn't need to outgun a Gauss riffle (which weighs over twice as much and takes 10 times the crit space) to be a good weapon.

Also the dual Gauss and Dual AC20 builds you compaire it to are largely considered to be cheesy and of questionable fairness.... pointing to something else considered OP and saying 'but it's not as OP as THAT' doesn't make it more balanced. You need a more comprehensive look at where it fits in with the rest of the pack.

Both of you are ignoring the fact that it's extremely difficult (I'd say next to impossible against a moving mech) to deliver all damage in a burst to a single component with an AC/2. So all that 128 damage would be spread among the entire target mech. Compare this to an ac20 cat that delivers 40 damage to a single component instantaneously and can instagib many mechs by blowing off their weapons in one shot. And no, 128 damage delivered from AC/2s are usually not enough to core moving mechs, because some of your shots would miss and the remaining damage would be spread among the torso sections.

And yes, we need to compare builds and balance them around the other existing powerful builds like the ac20 cat. Cheesy or not, they are part of the game and the people will use them, balancing weapons without taking into account these cheesy builds will lead to these builds dominating forever. A good weapon needs either to have good constant DPS, good burst DPS with the need for cooldown or good/average DPS with the ability to deliver a lot of damage in one shot. The currently bugged AC/2 has neither of these qualities and is worthless compared to gauss, AC20s and UAC/5 even when boated on a 4X cataphract.

Edited by Leimrey, 25 January 2013 - 08:15 PM.

[Prophet of Entropy]

yea im never worried about ac2 boaters simply cause they have to stand still and shoot at an immobile target to be very effective. doesnt mean i think having them at 4 dps is "ballanced"

[Kreisel]

Leimrey, on 25 January 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

Both of you are ignoring the fact that it's extremely difficult (I'd say next to impossible against a moving mech) to deliver all damage in a burst to a single component with an AC/2. So all that 128 damage would be spread among the entire target mech. Compare this to an ac20 cat that delivers 40 damage to a single component instantaneously and can instagib many mechs by blowing off their weapons in one shot. And no, 128 damage delivered from AC/2s are usually not enough to core moving mechs, because some of your shots would miss and the remaining damage would be spread among the torso sections.

And yes, we need to compare builds and balance them around the other existing powerful builds like the ac20 cat. Cheesy or not, they are part of the game and the people will use them, balancing weapons without taking into account these cheesy builds will lead to these builds dominating forever. A good weapon needs either to have good constant DPS, good burst DPS with the need for cooldown or good/average DPS with the ability to deliver a lot of damage in one shot. The currently bugged AC/2 has neither of these qualities and is worthless compared to gauss, AC20s and UAC/5 even when boated on a 4X cataphract.

If the other builds are out of line power wise, they need to be brought back into line, not have more kicked up into that place.
Even spread between locations...The spread isn't really going to be across the whole mech, it's going to be across the 3 torso's. lets look at my maxed armor Catapult as an example... across the front it's RT 40 armor, CT 64 armor, LT 40 armor..... let say that damage spreads evenly between all 3... I end up with -2 armor left on each side torso and 22 left of the CT.

You don't NEED to be able to accurately core a single location when you can strip the armor off ALL it's torso locations in 8 seconds. Just look at how effective the the SRM6 Catapult is with it's 96 dmg alpha that spreads itself across the entire mech the nearby ground.

Really what concerns me more is what this fire rate will mean for Ultra AC2 and rotary AC2, which are supposed to shoot twice as fast and six times as fast respectively! The way the AC2 was it felt like what I would have expected the Rotary AC2 to be like, and it has better range and no chance to jam, for 2 less tons!

Plus at the speed it attacks it leaves us without a moderate weight ballistic weapon you could maintain firing while hot to keep some damage on without worrying about overheating.

Honestly I expect the weapon to have the bug fixed and go back to the way it was... it should have a consistent fire rate, and the fact it doesn't is a problem, but I honestly feel that they should atleast test it at .6 and .75 instead of just keeping the jump from 1 to .5 without checking to see if something in between would bring a better balance.

Edited by Kreisel, 25 January 2013 - 10:23 PM.

[khorazy]

I run a 2x uac5 2x ac2 and 1 ml ctx 4x and its totally viable and very effective ill try 4x ac2s but i dont think itll be as good.

[Joseph Mallan]

The AC2's Rof per Ohms tables is 20 shots per turn. (0.5 cool down). Thats 40 damage per turn or equal to an AC20s damage per turn.

I don't know, a S.A.W. doesn't do the same level of damage as a 50 cal per minute.

Just my take on the issue.

[MustrumRidcully]

Lower its rate of fire to 1 shot per second. Lower it's heat per shot to 0.5.

Now it's DPS is more reasonable for a 6 ton weapon (2 DPS, not 4 DPS), but it's heat is also much more manageable (0.5 per second) and befitting a ballistic weapon. The lower rate of fire should also make it easier to use it effective at long range (since you need to line up your shot at that range, which takes time.) Basically, the tweak would make the weapon more heat manageable at long and short range, and only affect its potential "burst" damage at lower ranges.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 18 February 2013 - 06:22 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

AC2 is pretty useless now.
It was already balanced by eating all its ammo in seconds, and heating you up like the sun.

[Esplodin]

Vassago Rain, on 18 February 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

AC2 is pretty useless now.

My AC2 spider disagrees with you. It's magic when I can be 1000 meters away and watch heavies and assaults wonder where they are getting plinked from. I'm sure the constant turning backwards makes those match DPS numbers soar.

[Wintersdark]

Vassago Rain, on 18 February 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

AC2 is pretty useless now.
It was already balanced by eating all its ammo in seconds, and heating you up like the sun.

Yup.

Much like how the AC10 and AC20 both do the same DPS, and the AC2 *should* do the same DPS (as should the AC5, though it's terribad in comparison).

The extra weight and tonnage pays for higher up-front damage. Doing 20 damage every 5 seconds is better than doing 4 damage every second, and by a significant margin even though you'll theoretically do the same damage over a given stretch of time.

This is for three reasons.

First, the most obvious: High up front damage (see: AC20) weapons allow you to fire in an instantaneous opportunity window, and continue to cover taking no return damage. The high ROF weapons require you to remain exposed to incoming fire.

Second, and related to the first: It's much easier to hit with a single instant shot than to hold your fire on target (not to mention on a specific location) for 5 seconds. The high ROF weapon is in most practical cases going to miss with some rounds.

Third, and often ignored: The lower the ROF and higher the individual shell damage, the higher the average damage done at any given point in time given identical DPS except the instant before the slower weapon fires again, where it's equal.

If you chart damage done between a pre-nerf AC2 and an AC20, assuming every single shot hits, you get: https://dl.dropbox.c...6101/Damage.ods

I'd include it as an image, but I still haven't figured out how to do that here.

In short, though, even at the same DPS, the AC20 is doing vastly higher effective dps for the first few seconds of fire. Barring standup Atlas battles, it's rare for anyone to hold a weapon on target for over 8 seconds, and at any given point the AC20 has done more damage than the AC20, and usually MUCH more.

Edited by Wintersdark, 18 February 2013 - 07:43 AM.