93 replies to this topic

[Yeach]

Wanted to post in this thread
http://mwomercs.com/...driven-weapons/
but
1. thread seems to be vearing from economic costs and towards (the mechanics of energy vs beam)
2. polls give an impression of what people favor or don't favor.
3. I screwed up my math on that thread

I am choosing the PPC and Autocannon because
1. they have same damage
2. they have similar "effective" range of 15 hexes

PPC
Damage=10
Heat=10
Ton=7
Critical Space =3
Weapon Range 3 to 18
TT Cost = 200k C-bills

AC10
Damage=10
Heat=3
Ton=12
Critical Space=7
Weapon Range 0 to 15
TT Cost = 200k C-bills
Ammo / ton = 10 rounds @ 6k C-bills

Balancing for heat and typical loadout would be as follows; heatsinks = 2k C-bills per
Costs
PPC + 10 heatsinks = 200k + 10 x 2k = 220k
AC10 + 2 ammo +3 heatsinks = 200k + 2 x 6k + 3 x 2k = 218k

AC10 slightly (1% difference) beats the PPC in terms of cost.
Assuming that damage is equal should the PPC cost more or less than the AC10?
Note: include 2 ton of AC10 ammuniton in decision.
(withheld the equal option)


For reference
in Mechcommander
PPC = 6900 RP
Autocannon = 7000 RP

In MW4 Mercs
PPC = 392,411 C-bills
AC10 = 319,845 C-bills

[Ravn]

I voted PPC because I love to harass and work the fringes. The AC10 does not have that capability. You need to commit to an engagement with an AC because you are limited by Ammo.

Edit: This to me makes the PPC worth more.

Edited by Ravn, 02 May 2012 - 09:26 PM.

[Nasty9]

It is hard to compare the finite to the infinite: the PPC is going to win the cost battle every time. What you really need to know is how the heat system is going to work overall before making any kind of judgement. Even though the PPC may win the longevity battle every time, it is likely that the AC10 will win in the short run.

[William Petersen]

Well, according to sarna they both cost 200,000 C-bills. So... I'm gonna go with that.

[Terick]

See my post in the other thread on the heat issues.

The cost of the AC/10 isnt' the issue, it is going to come down to cost of ammo. If the cost of ammo is worth usign the gun I'll use it.

An LB-10x or SRMs for the crit seeking though I'll add for sure. So I will be carrying ammo. Will have to figure out the cost issues.

[Victor Morson]

I'll say this: I'm not the biggest AC/10 fan. That said, it is a weapon I do respect at least, unlike the traditional 2/5. The 10 can be used to pretty devastating effect on the right setup and I've been consistently surprised that the AC/10 + PPC match up isn't found on more designs.

[Karl Streiger]

You have to deal with more heat by using a PPC...so you need heatsinks instead of ammunition. Would be nice if your mech needs from time to time new fluid. However the AC 10 deal more damage per second. Considering heat and reload cycle the AC 10 is one of the best guns in the game - the choice between AC 10 and PPC shouldn't be limited to costs only:

If i'm a sniper - i take the PPC - more range for more heat and longer recycle time
If i'm a brawler - i take the AC 10 - hits even at point blank, higher rate of fire for low heat

[William Petersen]

Terick, on 02 May 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

See my post in the other thread on the heat issues.

The cost of the AC/10 isnt' the issue, it is going to come down to cost of ammo. If the cost of ammo is worth usign the gun I'll use it.

An LB-10x or SRMs for the crit seeking though I'll add for sure. So I will be carrying ammo. Will have to figure out the cost issues.

Again, according to Sarna, the cost/ton is 6,000 C-bills. AC ammo is pretty cheap. Missile ammo is the real kicker, but then again, a missile system is cheaper than an autocannon of similar damage potential.

[Volthorne]

William Petersen, on 02 May 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

Again, according to Sarna, the cost/ton is 6,000 C-bills. AC ammo is pretty cheap. Missile ammo is the real kicker, but then again, a missile system is cheaper than an autocannon of similar damage potential.

Yep, launchers are pretty much one sodding giant piece of steel (plus whatever small amount of electronics is required to fire the missiles).

I'm partial to more *BLAM BLAM* than *pew pew*.

Edited by Volthorne, 02 May 2012 - 11:23 PM.

[RedDragon]

If you only look at the weapon's stats, you can't compare the heat-efficency of both weapons. You have to factor in that your mech comes with 10 heat sinks. This gives the AC/10 a huge advantage. You can mount two AC/10 without adding any heat sinks to your mech and you'll never run hot (without outside influence), making it only cost 406.000c (with one ton of ammo). You'd even have two heat points left to spend on other weapons (if you mount no JJs), so you could substract the cost for 2 HSs (for the sake of comparing), making the ACs cost only 386.000c. Now if you mount two PPCs, you need at least 10 heat sinks and still will run hot over time when moving. You'd need 12 extra sinks to be heat neutral, making them cost 520.000c.

[Cruiser]

An important factor that's left out which could be the breaker is the weapons recycle time. If the PPC uses some 10 seconds before it's ready again and the A10 use 2 seconds, then the sheer burst damage of the A10 would make it viable despite it's disadvantages in weight/costs.

[pursang]

Cruiser, on 02 May 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

An important factor that's left out which could be the breaker is the weapons recycle time. If the PPC uses some 10 seconds before it's ready again and the A10 use 2 seconds, then the sheer burst damage of the A10 would make it viable despite it's disadvantages in weight/costs.

Well, in short engagements perhaps. You need to remember however that the AC/10 is heavily reliant on ammo, which is its primary crutch. Once that ammo runs out, or worse the ammo cooks off from damage or heat, then you can say goodbye to one of your primary weapons.

[Cruiser]

pursang, on 02 May 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

Well, in short engagements perhaps. You need to remember however that the AC/10 is heavily reliant on ammo, which is its primary crutch. Once that ammo runs out, or worse the ammo cooks off from damage or heat, then you can say goodbye to one of your primary weapons.

Yes, but thats always the issue with ammo weapons vs energy weapons right? Ammo weapons can unload their damage potential faster, making them better for short engagements where (hopefully) the enemy is dead when the weapon runs dry, and energy weapons are better for the protracted conflicts, but is kept from doing "burst damage" because of the heat system.

I find the Thor to be favorite because of these aspects. Got a LRM for long range softening of targets. AC to unload massive pain at short range, and a PPC for longer engagements and general kicking *** at most ranges.

[William Petersen]

pursang, on 02 May 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

Well, in short engagements perhaps. You need to remember however that the AC/10 is heavily reliant on ammo, which is its primary crutch. Once that ammo runs out, or worse the ammo cooks off from damage or heat, then you can say goodbye to one of your primary weapons.

If the ammo "cooks off" or gets critted, then you can usually say goodbye to your Mech on the whole, not just the weapon. =P

[Aethon]

I think we should wait to see how things work before we start talking about changing the system; no one even knows the cost of an AC10, PPC, or even a ton of AC10 ammo. Furthermore, no one has enough gameplay time to certainly say whether the cost of ammo is offset by the heat produced by a PPC.

Personally, I have faith that the devs will adjust the cost based on the item's performance, which is usually the case in most games.

[Egomane]

I wouldn't consider recycle times in this comparison, as we don't know how they will be handled in MWO.

To me it comes down to mech and mission design and ammunition costs. And those factors can not yet be calculated completly. Both weapons are good choices to punch holes into your enemies.

[pursang]

Cruiser, on 02 May 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

Yes, but thats always the issue with ammo weapons vs energy weapons right? Ammo weapons can unload their damage potential faster, making them better for short engagements where (hopefully) the enemy is dead when the weapon runs dry, and energy weapons are better for the protracted conflicts, but is kept from doing "burst damage" because of the heat system.

I find the Thor to be favorite because of these aspects. Got a LRM for long range softening of targets. AC to unload massive pain at short range, and a PPC for longer engagements and general kicking *** at most ranges.

Well yes, ultimately I think it will come down to how long the individual matches are and how intense the fighting will be. Will matches be short and sweet enough to pack on an A/C or two, or will they be longer and promote more energy-based configs? This is the question I'm trying to figure out here.

William Petersen, on 03 May 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

If the ammo "cooks off" or gets critted, then you can usually say goodbye to your Mech on the whole, not just the weapon. =P

Well sure, if you want to get all technical on me and all that...

Edited by pursang, 03 May 2012 - 01:22 AM.

[Steel Talon]

AC/10 works best chained with other ACs
its hit & run weapon
MWLL tactics:
1. ambush
2. empty all ammo to enemy
3. retreat back to base
4. reload repeat

[JamesBlond]

Yeach, on 02 May 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Wanted to post in this thread
http://mwomercs.com/...driven-weapons/
but
1. thread seems to be vearing from economic costs and towards (the mechanics of energy vs beam)
2. polls give an impression of what people favor or don't favor.
3. I screwed up my math on that thread

I am choosing the PPC and Autocannon because
1. they have same damage
2. they have similar "effective" range of 15 hexes

PPC
Damage=10
Heat=10
Ton=7
Critical Space =3
Weapon Range 3 to 18
TT Cost = 200k C-bills

AC10
Damage=10
Heat=3
Ton=12
Critical Space=7
Weapon Range 0 to 15
TT Cost = 200k C-bills
Ammo / ton = 10 rounds @ 6k C-bills

Balancing for heat and typical loadout would be as follows; heatsinks = 2k C-bills per
Costs
PPC + 10 heatsinks = 200k + 10 x 2k = 220k
AC10 + 2 ammo +3 heatsinks = 200k + 2 x 6k + 3 x 2k = 218k

AC10 slightly (1% difference) beats the PPC in terms of cost.
Assuming that damage is equal should the PPC cost more or less than the AC10?
Note: include 2 ton of AC10 ammuniton in decision.
(withheld the equal option)


For reference
in Mechcommander
PPC = 6900 RP
Autocannon = 7000 RP

In MW4 Mercs
PPC = 392,411 C-bills
AC10 = 319,845 C-bills

Sorry..
The AC10 can a Single Shot and Multi Shot !!
And the next :
PPC & AC is only for inner Pphere Weapons; on 3057 !
PPC = Short Att 1-6; min 3 / Med 7-12 / long 13-18
AC10 = Short 1-5 / Med 6-10 / 11-15 !

PS..
ER PPC = 15 Heat / 10 Dam / Short 1-7 / Med 8-14 / Long 15-23 / 7 Tons / 3 Crit !

Edited by JamesBlond, 03 May 2012 - 03:00 AM.

[pursang]

JamesBlond, on 03 May 2012 - 02:53 AM, said:

Sorry..
The AC10 can a Single Shot and Multi Shot !!
And the next :
PPC & AC is only foe inner Pphere Weapons; on 3057 !

Er... yes depending on the manufacturer an AC/10 may fire faster smaller caliber shells, or fire slower higher caliber shells. Perhaps you where referring to the LBX-10 which can fire both standard HEAP rounds and specialized cluster munitions? Also, both the PPC and AC/10 is in production and in wide use by the time the game starts - in 3049.