(Ultra)Autocannons are ridiculous.

[Cloudburst]

Before I start claiming things that may or may not be true, I will start off being nice: I love MWLL and everything that has been done to it thus far. The devs are always taking steps in the right direction.

Now, this is a simple topic: Auto-cannons are ridiculous. Across the board with all of them, they deal great damage and generally are able to fire faster than non-auto-cannon weapons. It's easy to moderate fire to sustain a damage/sec much higher than all other weapons (except X-Pulse), and still have ammo left to gun down multiple enemy 'mechs and tanks much higher tonnage than yours-though usually not tanks because they will also have auto-cannons of some sort.

Specifically, AC5's are probably the most ridiculous, and anything they get put on are in large number (another reason: if you see something with AC's, the AC's are boated). The Partisan Prime in particular just dominates everything else you can afford at the start of the game, and I don't think it's any excuse to say "everything else you can afford at the start of the game is crap". It has excellent range, pin-point accuracy, rapid rate of fire, and good damage-and if your AC5's overheat using it, your just silly. UAC5's (mainly speaking of the "Siege Engine" Madcat MKII) are twice as ridiculous because they fire twice as fast. They shred everything they are shot at, even assaults.

(U)AC10's are harder to call because the 'mechs they are seen on are oddly priced or rarely used, but I'd assume they are the most neatly balanced, being the middle-man of the ridiculous family of auto-cannons.

(U)AC20's. I'm sure everyone knows what these are like. They tear shit up. They fire rather fast for how much damage they do. They can be fired in a regular manner to never overheat, and still be better. I understand that this is what they are supposed to do; they are after all ammo-fed auto-cannons with a reasonable limit on range. Anything with (U)AC20's is going to be an excellent brawler and even weight-classes above 'mechs or tanks with them get torn apart if they aren't wielding auto-cannons of their own.

SO, what makes auto-cannons so ridiculous?

I think it's their rate of fire. It's too fast. Their risk of overheating when firing does nothing to fix this as all you have to do is pay attention and maybe wait one or two seconds before unleashing relentless hell on your opponent once again. I don't see any other solution to this problem other than removing the heat function weapon-per-weapon and thereafter reducing the rate of fire for auto-cannons across the board (say, half what it is now). After this change there might be a problem with the fact they do not generate heat anymore, as such I think it would be reasonable to make them generate "heatsink heat" after reducing their rate of fire. It would still allow them to be more powerful in their own situations than other weapons, but it would not make them as undesirable as they were before.

[Steppin Razor]

The autocannon buff in 4.0 has been a welcome improvement for me as they were on the weak side previously and I rather like using them.  I think that one of the biggest differences is the improved hit detection.  The traditional balance between ammo based weapons and energy was rate of fire and low heat for ammo dependence and risk of ammo explosion.  In MWLL its more  good DPS/heat -VS-  Ballistic trajectory, lower range, ammo dependency.  The balance may need some massaging but it feels much better IMHO.  (U)AC should be a force to be reckoned with.  I'd love to see ammo explosions causing damage in future patches.  That would be true to CBT but I don't know how the engine will handle this.  Rate of fire seems about right to me.  If they need nerfing small adjustments in damage is probable the best way. 

[HAARP]

They are too powerful in my opinion. Yes, I know. That change was made to make brawlers more dangerous. But them, plus the new heavy lasers and ATMs greatly negated all the armor buffs 0.3 had.
UAC20 output a ridiculous amount of damage. Mounting 2 of them on a cheap and fast chassis is pure insanity.

[~SJ~ Atlessa]

greatly negated all the armor buffs 0.3 had

This.

[CHHš Rampage]

I am actually happy to see ballistics finally get some love. For the last year, they have been underpowered versus all the energy weapons. Did the pendulum sing too far? Maybe. But in BT the ballistics were the most feared weapons (next to fire). It is nice to see them take their rightful place in MWLL.

[=KoS=Zeus]

Even in 0.3 the Demolisher with twin AC/20s would headshot enemy assault mechs fairly rapidly. With the damage buff and all the other perks of demolishers you are seeing a ridiculous number of Demolishers on the field now, and head shots are happening constantly.

Over the course of ~6.5 seconds (1 shot with 2 PPCs, and ~7 shots of AC/20 ammo), the AC/20 should be doing roughly the same damage as 2 PPCs. I'm pretty certain that a single AC/20 out damages a pair of PPCs in about 3 shots, however, meaning it is doing twice the damage it probably should be doing.

[IG142]

ACs aren't quite as all powerful as you say. They have very high DPS, but low burst damage.

(U)AC5s are quite powerful, but need sustained fire to be effective. If you take cover or twist your torso between shots you can greatly spread or diminish the damage you take.

  I have just a couple issues with AC20s, myself. But first off, I'm fine with the massive overall damage they do. They're a deterrent - you should not be getting in range of anything that has one. If you do, you either pull some fancy moves or get clobbered.
  One thing I find odd about (U)AC20s is that they seem slightly backwards with LBX20s at times. At short range, a LBX20 will concentrate all its damage on to a single point and utterly destroy it, while an (U)AC20 will still spread its damage out. In fact, AC20s are more effective at headhunting than LBX20s are - hit somewhere near the head and the splash will damage it consistently. I'd prefer if AC20s were more focused on direct damage. (LBXs with splash would also be nice, but that's probably too performance intensive for so many pellets)
  I do think UAC20s could be a bit more expensive. The Loki E with 2 UAC20s is the cheapest Loki variant right now, which I agree is ridiculous.

(U)AC10s are rarely seen for a reason. They're much more difficult to effectively use than any other weapon, which I personally think is slightly backwards as well. I've always thought of AC10s more as workhorse than niche weapons, which they are right now. A projectile speed increase might help here, along with damage adjustment if they turn out to be too strong once people can land hits with some consistency.

[=KoS= Tripod]

I agree with AC10 getting a speed boost. Maybe 20s too, but not too much.

The main reason I think ACs are so effective right now is because the average engagement range is far shorter than it used to be.
In TSA, ACs aren't that good because most people camp at max range with weapons that tear brawlers apart before they can use their ACs, but most people play TC, where you are forced to come in closer thanks to bases and more cover

Most fights in TC happen below 600 meters, with maps like Thunder Rift lowering that to 450ish meters (kinda funny comparing it to the giant sniperfest it used to be. Now long range mechs are a deathwish)

Having the bases be a bit more open (think this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxfKZZ4RNng), so they aren't a brawler heaven and more ranged variants can shoot in from outside (although not very effectively) might balance them out, instead of making them useless in one situation, but godly in the other (kinda why I hate aeros, too)

[sgnl05]

U/AC20s are completely out of control. I don't think the "but they're short ranged!" argument holds much water either. They do so much damage at 350 metres that you can open fire at about 500 and even with the falloff  they're still fairly respectable.

U/AC10s are about right I think. Damage is still very good but it can be tricky to keep a steady stream of fire on the enemy if you or they are moving about much, which means that real DPS isn't necessarily great unless you're fighting something pretty big. I like that they seem to increase in effectiveness vs larger, heavier targets.

U/AC5 damage will forever be wacky as long as we have partisans armed with 4 of them available towards the start of the match. They're supposed to be powerful enough that you can fit one of them to a light or medium and, along with a few other weapons, have a respectably armed mech. Right now there isn't a single light or medium armed with one, probably because it'd do laughably poor damage. But damage can't just be increased because the partisan would become unstoppable for the first 20 minutes of the game (it's already quite good for an AA tank), and the partisan's price can't just be increased because it's needed for early game AA defence.

What I'd like to see is U/AC2s become the "dedicated" AA weapon in the game. The partisan prime should have 4 of them and be available right off the bat. They generally wouldn't be fitted to any mechs and would be balanced almost entirely around the idea of having 4 or more of them for the purpose of shooting down aircraft. They should do some damage to mechs but the assumption, once again, would be that you're carrying at least 4. The 4x AC2 partisan would defend against lighter air units such as hawkmoths, sparrowhawks, and sullas, and there would be 4x UAC2 partisan that becomes available later in the game to deal with shivas.

U/AC5s (and LBX 5s) could then be rebalanced so that one of them could be taken on a mech and used as a cheap, light, fairly low damage (but still useful) sniper weapon. Larger mechs might boat a few of them but since they're mechs they won't really be doing much AA work and so they won't become an "anti everything" weapon. Partisans could perhaps still take them, but one armed with them would cost waaaay more than they do now (heavy mech cost perhaps), to reflect the fact that it'd basically be effective against most mechs from long range, plus ASF, plus BA.

[AlfalphaCat]

Th Loki E should have 2 UAC10, it would be a hell of a lot more useful.  I wouldn't be caught dead in, cause it's way too short range, lightly armored, and specialized.  Don't fear the reaper, just stay away from it!!!  It being the cheapest Loki is funny, I didn't know it was that cheap, hahahahahahaha.  good joke Devs!!

[xInVicTuSx]

What I'd like to see is U/AC2s become the "dedicated" AA weapon in the game. The partisan prime should have 4 of them and be available right off the bat. They generally wouldn't be fitted to any mechs and would be balanced almost entirely around the idea of having 4 or more of them for the purpose of shooting down aircraft. They should do some damage to mechs but the assumption, once again, would be that you're carrying at least 4. The 4x AC2 partisan would defend against lighter air units such as hawkmoths, sparrowhawks, and sullas, and there would be 4x UAC2 partisan that becomes available later in the game to deal with shivas.

U/AC5s (and LBX 5s) could then be rebalanced so that one of them could be taken on a mech and used as a cheap, light, fairly low damage (but still useful) sniper weapon. Larger mechs might boat a few of them but since they're mechs they won't really be doing much AA work and so they won't become an "anti everything" weapon. Partisans could perhaps still take them, but one armed with them would cost waaaay more than they do now (heavy mech cost perhaps), to reflect the fact that it'd basically be effective against most mechs from long range, plus ASF, plus BA.

Yup, I've advocated this for awhile now, its my main gripe when it comes to weapon balance. The AC/5 is the only weapon I feel needs to be reworked, besides maybe the LBX-2.

AC20s are annoying if you're in something big and slow, but not that scary if you can dodge them. Are they doing too much damage? Probably, but again I will go back to the splash damage making them super weapons more than anything because it negates the need to be accurate with them to do damage, same problem with the CERPPC while the Gauss rifle sits in the corner and cries.

[Frostiken]

Why don't we just make MGuns good anti-air weapons and give the UACs back to mechs? It'd certainly make an 8x MGun Partisan dirt cheap...

[~SJ~NotSoCoolJ]

Energy boats that don't run away from an AC20 are doomed and moronic. How can he cockpit you if you don't show your cockpit @ under 500m? He can't. You are supposed to run away from an AC20 brawler or die. Deal with it. AC20 cannot hit from 1000m away like the snipers can. ACs are supposed to be the strongest weapon on the battle field.

Add on top that, if you are a moving target, you stand a chance to dodge most of the fire. I say stop trying to brawl with energy boats and you'll have less of a problem. The Loki and the Demo could be a bit more expensive. As far as nerfing them goes, sounds like you all want to sit around and snipe, but still be able to brawl. Sorry, you'll have to take a different Mech for that. I fail to see what is stopping any of you from using the AC variants your selves. Games would be a lot less boring then.

Don't ignore the downsides of using them. They run out of ammo, have horrendous ballistic trajectory and they still over heat pretty damn quick.

[=KoS= Tripod]

not to mention they fly at a whopping 5 mph

[HAARP]

Sure, I will run away from bases in the future if they happen to have an UAC20 machine in them :>
I get the whole brawler vs sniper thing. It makes sense. I'm not complaining about that. But (U)AC20 stick out so much for the horrendous damage they deal (I can hit Owens with them that try to circle me). Don't get me started on the lolbringer

We wouldn't have this problems if loadout had a nice balance between ballistic and energy (and missiles) to them instead of always wanting to boat one or another.