I feel AA as it currently exists is a pointless mechanic

[(TLL)Sky_walker]

Different Ammo types are required to balance the AC2 & AC5 IMO, not new armour types.

Yes, but different type of ammo requires additional work. If it'd be simple & good solution than we'd have it since beta 1 We don't have ammo types, so we have the light armor - plays identical function.

[Rally]

I'm not a fan of the beta's AC2 & AC5s firing style, feels like a heavy machinegun and not an autocannon IMHO, as I've said before it makes them niche weapons and reduces configs like the Mauler Prime to worthless status. I think the fire rate of the LB5-X is about right, and would like the same firing rate in the AC5, with 4AC5 firing standard ammo having the same DPS against 'mechs as an AC20 firing standard ammo.  Sure you can hit ASF and VTOLs with that ammo, but it's not ideal.

I on the other hand like the fast rate of fire these small ACs have. It makes it easy to hit stuff and there's no boring wait between shots. It's modeled after real guns like the French 30mil DEFA cannon you know. Yes, it's a "small" cannon with a rate of fire that exceeds most machine guns. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFA_cannon

And the thing with the Mauler Prime, I've tried it and it's not that bad. Although it's not that great either. Anyway, that can be fixed by boosting AC2 damage, nothing else.

[(TLL) Heretic]

Different Ammo types are required to balance the AC2 & AC5 IMO, not new armour types.

Yes, but different type of ammo requires additional work. If it'd be simple & good solution than we'd have it since beta 1 We don't have ammo types, so we have the light armor - plays identical function.

Yes, but that does nothing to the AC2&5 vs ground vehicles, that imbalance is still there, and the creation of another armour class is just a bad idea as it necessitates the uber/nerf weapons and Rock Paper Scissors imbalance for example:

You can hit a VTOL with a UAC20 (Rock), the VTOL (Paper) shrugs it off and wanders away (I've done this) whereas a few mgun rounds and AC5 slugs (Scissors) and the VTOL falls out of the sky, all due to the magic of "Light" armour.  You can fire the same AC2 slugs all day long at a 'mechs torso to no noticeable effect (ergo Rock Paper Scissors).

Battletech uses a hitpoint system, it's one of the fundamentals of the gamesystem, and influences such things as why 'mechs are armed the way they are, why they just don't have 1 BIG gun capable of destroying any machines in 1 hit (instead of the mix of weapons most carry), and why every weapon in the game can inflict the same amount of damage on any asset in the game.  It's a fundamental baseline in the BTU.   It's how CBT avoids being Rock Paper Scissors.


@Rally,  I would agree but your out of scale by some orders of magnitude (what your describing is the CBT machine gun and not any of the smaller autocannons);  the 1st Battletech Book describes the AC5 on the 45ton Shadowhawk in depth, they're 90mm shells, fired automatically from a cassette of 10 that are loaded from the Magazine by an autofeeder; so when the pilot pulls the trigger a burst of 90mm shells pour out of the gun (these 10 rounds are viewed as 1 shot in CBT), now assuming that these cassettes are reloaded as fast as the LB5-X is in MWLL, you've got AA fire snaking into the air, with very little gap in between if you chain-fire 4 of them. That I believe is much better than just making the AC2&5 just a copy of the mgun, would take a little more skill too, so it's all good by me.

There are proximity grenades (Claymores) in Crysis already, there's also grenades launchers (in Crysis as a weapon attachment & Warhead as a gun).  Switching ammo type code is also in the Korean assault rifle (FY-72 or something) already, where standard and incendiary rounds are available.

Now imagine those AC5 shells were Crysis grenades with a proximity trigger and a slightly changed particle effect, any loss of damage from RoF would be replaced with splash from the air-bursts.  We'd have our skies filling with flak, and a AA weapon that didn't just feel like yet another machine gun.  Use it against 'mechs and you'd knock them around while slowly melting their armour all over, which is much more fun and points worthy than legging.

Switch the ammo types to anti-vehicular and you've got the cassette of HEAP 90mms back, no real splash but better penetration (more damage to a single component).


Ultimately I'm not an expert, but I understand the amount of work the Devs have already done to get things to where we are, and I appreciate that.  I think the AC2&5 (and therefore the UAC2 &5) need some loving in this game and hate the fact that they are worthless against anything other than ASF, VTOLs and BA.

[(TLL)Sky_walker]

Battletech uses a hitpoint system, it's one of the fundamentals of the gamesystem, and influences such things as why 'mechs are armed the way they are, why they just don't have 1 BIG gun capable of destroying any machines in 1 hit (instead of the mix of weapons most carry), and why every weapon in the game can inflict the same amount of damage on any asset in the game.  It's a fundamental baseline in the BTU.   It's how CBT avoids being Rock Paper Scissors.

See the bold part. It's not true in real time game. You cannot balance the weapons without forgetting of dices and moving on to the realtime battlefield.
Or maybe if we like CBT so much - let's put it in math example which should illustrate quite well what I mean:

UAC20 fires salvo of projectiles - in game they have like... 95% chance of hitting the Hollander, and 2% of hitting the Shiva (that's why it sux as AA weapon - you hardly can hit anything other than a brick)
AC5 fires salvo of projectiles - in game, due to constant rain of bullets, the player can adjust aim making 99% chance of hitting the Holly and 20% of hitting the Shiva.

Now - imagine that Shiva has as much armor as Holly (it's nearly-true to the Beta 0.2.0 values). In all-the-same system we assume that balance point is when AC5s destroy the holly CT in 10 seconds of constant fire...
In game it'd mean that good gunner need to fire 10.1 seconds at Holly or 50 seconds at Shiva.
You cannot fight with aerospace when dedicated AA unit requires 50 seconds to get rid of it! And what's worse - lower refire rate (as you suggested - chain fire) lowers the accuracy even more. 50 seconds is enough to make several attack runs without even bothering to do anything!

(ps. sorry if I did the math wrong)

If you'll have higher-kick yet lower-refire weapons - as you suggested "reloaded as fast as the LB5-X is in MWLL (...) you chain-fire 4 of them)" all that would be done would me even further increasing the gap between combat efficiency against ASFs and against Mechs, making situation even worse.


That's why the Aerospace NEED light armor.
Or you have instant-death for Mechs/ultimate ASF haven Or you have reasonable approach which the Light Armor takes.

Yes, adding the ammo types is a good solution, very good, as it gives also other weapons new abilities, but unless You can to make it yourself I think that MWLL lacks the resources to implement it on the request. That's basically the reason why there's no MechLab or why not all of the planned units were implemented.
Remember that MWLL team has limited human resources - that's why sometimes it's required to put other, faster and easier solutions in order to make game playable and fun.

ps. This post is my private opinion and it does not state any of MWLL dev team position.

[(TLL) Heretic]

UAC20 fires salvo of projectiles - in game they have like... 95% chance of hitting the Hollander, and 2% of hitting the Shiva (that's why it sux as AA weapon - you hardly can hit anything other than a brick)

Actually the reason it sucks is because if you hit with it (ie. use it very skillfully or he's coming right at you) it does even less damage than a dozen good AC5 hits, whereas it should be doing many times that damage in that moment of impact - when you consider that reloadtime and splash taken into consideration it should be doing the equivalent dps of 4AC5.

 
AC5 fires salvo of projectiles - in game, due to constant rain of bullets, the player can adjust aim making 99% chance of hitting the Holly and 20% of hitting the Shiva.

Now - imagine that Shiva has as much armor as Holly (it's nearly-true to the Beta 0.2.0 values). In all-the-same system we assume that balance point is when AC5s destroy the holly CT in 10 seconds of constant fire...

Well the Shiva is meant to have what, 10tons of Armour vs the Hollander IIs, what 4ish?  Would expect a Warhammer to be a better comparison, but then again I'd also imagine a Warhammer pilot being as cautious of a Partisan with 4 AC5s, after all if the 4AC5s held CT fire for 3 reloads of the 'Hammers PPCs then the 'Hammer would be dead using CBT maths).

In game it'd mean that good gunner need to fire 10.1 seconds at Holly or 50 seconds at Shiva.
You cannot fight with aerospace when dedicated AA unit requires 50 seconds to get rid of it!

Difference is that you only kill a 'mech via cockpit or CT damage, an ASF looses any component and it goes boom, and on VTOLs if the rotor is hit by anything it's good night.  If the AA took 20-30 seconds (and in 0.2 it's comfortably under 10) to kill a 95ton ASF I'd have no problem, as long as the flak was knocking the Shiva off it's bombing run as a side effect, meaning I'd be churning up the Assault bomber while protecting my buddies and earning cash, area-denial fun could be a cool dynamic.

And what's worse - lower refire rate (as you suggested - chain fire) lowers the accuracy even more. 50 seconds is enough to make several attack runs without even bothering to do anything!

Lower Refire rate, yes, but when you fire a burst of say 10 rounds, and combined they do as much damage as the faster RoF bullets did over the same time there's not much other than feel of the weapon changed. Chain fired on the Partisan you would soon find the correct lead and hit over 40% home (40%s quite low, even at 90degree angles I'd have thought most people hit more consistently than that, no?)

We also have ER Lasers that are hit scan,  so 100% against anything, why not just put 4 of them on a Partisan for AA work?  That would do the job without having to create a new mechanism that impacts other things like re-inventing the AC2&5?  The Pulse Huit is an excellent AA platform without being OP after all.  And Gauss rifles which do horrible things to ASF, 4 Light Gauss on a Partisan would also be an effective AA platform.

(ps. sorry if I did the math wrong)

If you'll have higher-kick yet lower-refire weapons - as you suggested "reloaded as fast as the LB5-X is in MWLL (...) you chain-fire 4 of them)" all that would be done would me even further increasing the gap between combat efficiency against ASFs and against Mechs, making situation even worse.

Remember everytime you press the button a string of 10 of them are fired, so they're only 3/4 second delay as a cassette is loaded so you'd have a complete chain of lead in chain-fired UAC2s (would help make the Huit a better AA platform than the Partisan, which it should be on price and paper).


That's why the Aerospace NEED light armor.

They don't, Light Armour is non-cannon and creates imbalance by necessitating a mucking around with established BT dynamics.


Or you have instant-death for Mechs/ultimate ASF haven Or you have reasonable approach which the Light Armor takes.

It ain't necessarily so....We have seen CBT translate rather well in MW2-3 and sort of screwed up in MW4, so please don't keep repeating that "you can't translate between CBT and Simulation", because it's already been done to various degrees of sucess (MW3 being the best representation to date).  Only thing here that's new to the established MW2-4 mix is the playable Tanks and ASF/VTOLs (and thank the gawds for having them finally in a game together).


Yes, adding the ammo types is a good solution, very good, as it gives also other weapons new abilities, but unless You can to make it yourself I think that MWLL lacks the resources to implement it on the request. That's basically the reason why there's no MechLab or why not all of the planned units were implemented.
Remember that MWLL team has limited human resources - that's why sometimes it's required to put other, faster and easier solutions in order to make game playable and fun.


Personally I'd rather see Lasers & Gauss used as the primary AA weapons rather than the reinvention of the smaller autocannons and the creation of new niche weapons.  With the mucking about of the AC&UAC 2&5s all we have guarantee'd is the disappearance of these weapons totally when mechlab does eventually come out..... a 4 Light Gauss Partisan can do AA and folks could do more to the 'mechs than aim for the legs, would pay 70k+ for such a machine easily.

ps. This post is my private opinion and it does not state any of MWLL dev team position.

But it is good to air these things in debate while we await the new beta none-the-less.

EDIT: mixed up my AC5 and AC10 weights so a Partisan would only be able to carry 3 Light Gauss, or 2 Light Gauss and 2 ERPPC  which would be good for all targets(or 2LtGauss & 2 ERLLaser and some ammo if you want it purely for AA).

[SquareSphere }12thVR{]

Well we did have skycamping in 0.1.0 with hawkmoths balloning to beyond any maximum height.  This was eventually countered by people learning about the Harasser with the l.grifle.  0.2.0 grifles get air nerfed but the AC5 gets crazy range which causes massive lock downs on air assets.  Added to that landing in 0.2.0 is near impossible so even if the pilot survives the AA fire, they can't really repair.

I'd want the AC5 to get a faster "over heat" so they can't constantly lay down heavy group fire.

[Redvan]

I'd want the AC5 to get a faster "over heat" so they can't constantly lay down heavy group fire.

would be a grand idea

also, perhaps the roll input needs to be toned down a little on the aeros to help with landings and have more control.  it can be a challenge to get a sulla lined up with how shaky it is.

[Italianmoose]

Hear hear on both points.