16 replies to this topic

[DeadlyNerd]

Simple, bring back the 0,5sec recycle on AC/2. It's a hot peashooter but at least before the fire rate nerf it was a fun hot peashooter.

I don't know what xml says but the ingame recycle time is 0,75sec. ~30shots in 20sec

So, who wants PGI to bring back the good old hot and fast AC/2?

[Ocilfa]

It needs to be. Even though its relatively light, it still needs a fair amount of heatsinks to be used effectively. Faster rate of fire=more heat, which in my opinion would keep it balanced(I may be wrong tho). Something like this would keep it competitive to the U/AC5.

[Renthrak]

When was it changed from 0.5? Last I heard, it's a sync issue making them appear to fire slower than that. Known issue?

[Zaptruder]

Renthrak, on 18 February 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

When was it changed from 0.5? Last I heard, it's a sync issue making them appear to fire slower than that. Known issue?

Despite PGI's claims, it's not a sync issue. That is, you're not going to fire 120 rounds in a minute across all connections.

As far as I can tell, the game server sends the notification to client that the reload is available for refire, before allowing you to fire again.

Which means that the AC2 has approximately a 750ms refire time for me (500ms + 250ms lag). Which makes it not very viable really.

[DeadlyNerd]

Zaptruder, on 18 February 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

Despite PGI's claims, it's not a sync issue. That is, you're not going to fire 120 rounds in a minute across all connections.

As far as I can tell, the game server sends the notification to client that the reload is available for refire, before allowing you to fire again.

Which means that the AC2 has approximately a 750ms refire time for me (500ms + 250ms lag). Which makes it not very viable really.

It begs the question though, what the hell did they do to **** it up if it was fine before?

[kuangmk11]

This effects all weapons, its just more noticeable with the AC2 because of the rate. It also causes UAC5's to jam when they shouldn't

[Zordicron]

I have noticed that with UAC5. Sometimes I can rattle that thing off like crazy, other times it jams after a single shot lol. Mkes sense it is related to lag, as my ping fluctuates from 70-400 sometimes in one match.

[Rawrshuga]

No wonder my AC/2 Frak feels nerfed.

[Geadron Kane]

Does not the range of the ac2 offset its dmg/rate?

[Rawrshuga]

Geadron Kane, on 18 February 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

Does not the range of the ac2 offset its dmg/rate?

Mathematically, sort of. The main strength of the AC/2 was its DPS (damage per second). That, combined with its range made it not only the 3rd most powerful AC in terms of DPS, but also the #1 in terms of range. Which IMO made it a solid #2, being just inched out by the AC/20. But not all mechs can mount an AC/20 and if you factor in DPSPT (per second per ton) the AC/2 can be #1 choice (especially if you have multiple ballistics slots).

But on the practical level, most engagements begin around the 400-500 mark making the range point moot. Now while a change from 0.5 to 0.75 may not seem like much, it's huge for a DPS based weapon. Imagine if AC/20s recycled every 6 seconds instead of 4 (50% delay increase)! That would seem like a huge nerf to me, and I use both the AC/2s and AC/20s.

But then it's still a question of has the delay been nerfed or is it netcode. I used to think that autocannons had a fire delay, but that seems to have lessened if not disappeared with the new netcode, and there wasn't anything in the patch notes about changing the AC/2 recycle time. But then the patch notes have not been 100% reliable, so it's anyone's guess really. All we can report on is our end-user experience.

[Elder Thorn]

yeah, i found out about that nerf when i bought my first dragon and though "hey man, triple AC/2, that would be fun!" - then i noticed it firing very slowly and ******* up with the convergence when to close to an enemy, so i just went with a gaus rifle

[MustrumRidcully]

Lower its rate of fire to 1 shot per second, and lower its heat to 0.5 heat per second.

Now the AC/2 is not such a hot nightmare, but also not quite as damaging. Which befits a 6 ton weapon more. (Currently, it is the lightest of all auto-cannons but can out DPS all except the AC/20.)

Lowering its heat also makes it more attractive to run it on lighter mechs, since you don't need to boat ridicilious amoutn of heat sinks to run it effectively, and lowerings its rate of fire also lowers its ammo consumption. Maybe it's not enough to justify 4 ballistic slots on a light or medium mech, but it at least can justify one.

[DeadlyNerd]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 February 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

Lower its rate of fire to 1 shot per second, and lower its heat to 0.5 heat per second.

Now the AC/2 is not such a hot nightmare, but also not quite as damaging. Which befits a 6 ton weapon more. (Currently, it is the lightest of all auto-cannons but can out DPS all except the AC/20.)

Lowering its heat also makes it more attractive to run it on lighter mechs, since you don't need to boat ridicilious amoutn of heat sinks to run it effectively, and lowerings its rate of fire also lowers its ammo consumption. Maybe it's not enough to justify 4 ballistic slots on a light or medium mech, but it at least can justify one.

We dont' ******* care about heat balance.
I asked whether people want the good old fast AC/2 back.
You're off topic, suggesting something no one here wants to hear and with that probably trying to look smart.
So, go away with your philosophizing, make your own thread, just stay away from this one as it's not making you look smarter.
Your "wisdom" is definitely not needed here.

I'm sorry mods, but he's obnoxious with his philosophies wherever he posts. It's irritating and I don't want his walls of text and self proclaimed wisdom.



On topic, I figured with the changes they made to projectile speeds and mechanics in cry engine, somewhere they forgot to set that server calculates in latency when sending back the signal for recycle to begin.

Still the 25% decrease in fire rate is somehow too exact.
If someone from US could test the AC/2 out and report numbers so I could compare them to EU.

[Elder Thorn]

DeadlyNerd, on 19 February 2013 - 03:46 AM, said:

We dont' ******* care about heat balance.
I asked whether people want the good old fast AC/2 back.
You're off topic, suggesting something no one here wants to hear and with that probably trying to look smart.
So, go away with your philosophizing, make your own thread, just stay away from this one as it's not making you look smarter.
Your "wisdom" is definitely not needed here.

I'm sorry mods, but he's obnoxious with his philosophies wherever he posts. It's irritating and I don't want his walls of text and self proclaimed wisdom.



On topic, I figured with the changes they made to projectile speeds and mechanics in cry engine, somewhere they forgot to set that server calculates in latency when sending back the signal for recycle to begin.

Still the 25% decrease in fire rate is somehow too exact.
If someone from US could test the AC/2 out and report numbers so I could compare them to EU.

um... welcome to a discussion board, people will voice their opinions, no matter if you like them or if they are 'correct'.

It's in fact not THAT wrong to question, if the AC/2 should cause more DPS than bigger weapons. The downside of high dps however is, that you have to stay on target and can't twist away if needed, or you'll lose a good amount of damage.

I think the worstproblem was the ultra high cockpit shake the AC/2 caused, it was as bad as a chainfiring streakcat, so that needs to be another factor kept in mind.

[DeadlyNerd]

Nah, that wasn't an opinion, that was trying to look clever by posting his on theory as a wall of text explanation.
I made a simple poll about AC/2 fire rate and never asked for any opinions on the AC/2 itself apart from whether the fire rate should be >>raised<<.
In the least, he's being heavily off topic.

The AC/2 already has a big downside, and that's heat. Boating 4 of them, or 3, provided high dps but high heat too. It was the only AC that was balanced and fun at the same time.

True, the high cockpit shake and smoke is the problem and I'm not sure why they haven't addressed that graphic wise.

[Elder Thorn]

DeadlyNerd, on 19 February 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

I made a simple poll about AC/2 fire rate and never asked for any opinions on the AC/2 itself apart from whether the fire rate should be >>raised<<.
In the least, he's being heavily off topic.

and someone else made a simple statement on why he thinks it should NOT be raised.
Would you have liked it more if he just posted "NO!"?

I probably can't say much about that heat issue. When i was using the AC/2 it wasn't that bad when using 3 of them.

[DeadlyNerd]

Elder Thorn, on 19 February 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

and someone else made a simple statement on why he thinks it should NOT be raised.
Would you have liked it more if he just posted "NO!"?

I probably can't say much about that heat issue. When i was using the AC/2 it wasn't that bad when using 3 of them.

Nah, he made a suggestion to >>lower<< the rate of fire. I never asked anyone to do that, but voice their choice as "yes" or "no". He could've simply voted "no".
He made a whole summary on the AC/2 instead of just voting "no".
I can understand if someone explains their "no", but this is just trying to look smart by posting something irrelevant.

4X was running a little hot with 4 of em, but damn if it didn't kill a charging hunchie in several seconds.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 19 February 2013 - 06:06 AM.