25 replies to this topic

[JollyRogerCRO]

in both cases weapons have 5dps, both have 270m range, with enough heatsinks to have 100% heat dissipation ac/20 takes up 25 slots and weighs 29 tons w/o munition, 4 ml, that are supposedly most efficient of ew, take up 44 slots and weigh 44 tons, why is the difference so huge?
even when considering couple of tons/slots for ammunition, ml shouldnt produce more than 0,8hps instead of current 1hps

if ml are so ****** compared to ac/20, cant even imagine other EW against ballistics

Edit: people please explain your votes...with math preferably...

Edited by JollyRogerCRO, 27 March 2013 - 05:15 AM.

[Syllogy]

Heat Neutrality is a common mistake.

If you look at actual practical build application, you can see that they are actually fairly balanced out.

AC20:

• +All damage in a single shot/hit location
  
• +High Damage/Low Heat Ratio
  
• -Heavy
  
• -Lots of Slots
  
• -Ammo Dependant

Medium Lasers:

• +Lots of Damage
  
• +Lightweight
  
• +Only take up 1 slot
  
• -Lots of Heat
  
• -Damage spread out over time (and by extension, area)

Edited by Syllogy, 27 March 2013 - 05:22 AM.

[JollyRogerCRO]

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 05:21 AM, said:

Heat Neutrality is a common mistake.

If you look at actual practical build application, you can see that they are actually fairly balanced out.

AC20:

• +All damage in a single shot/hit location
  
• +High Damage/Low Heat Ratio
  
• -Heavy
  
• -Lots of Slots
  
• -Ammo Dependant

Medium Lasers:

• +Lots of Damage
  
• +Lightweight
  
• +Only take up 1 slot
  
• -Lots of Heat
  
• -Damage spread out over time (and by extension, area)

it doesnt need to be neutral, but MUST be equal, you can take 50% efficiency, ac/20 still wins

Edited by JollyRogerCRO, 27 March 2013 - 05:40 AM.

[Syllogy]

JollyRogerCRO, on 27 March 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

it doesnt need to be neutral, you can take 50% efficiency, ac/20 still wins

On paper, you are right. In practice, you are wrong. Not trying to knock your statement here. In closed beta, I did the math that proved that taking 5 Small Lasers was more heat efficient and lighter weight than a single PPC, and did just as much damage.

However, in actual practicality, the PPC is the clearer preference.

[JollyRogerCRO]

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

On paper, you are right. In practice, you are wrong. Not trying to knock your statement here. In closed beta, I did the math that proved that taking 5 Small Lasers was more heat efficient and lighter weight than a single PPC, and did just as much damage.

However, in actual practicality, the PPC is the clearer preference.

ppc has the range advantage, ml hasnt got any advantages over ac/20 when considering heat, competent players dont need much ammo on that range

[Khobai]

AC/20 weighs 14 tons plus at least another 4 tons for enough ammo... so 18+ tons. Four medium lasers weighs 4 tons. I would say the medium lasers pretty clearly win. Two ERPPCs weigh 14 tons, do the same damage, have three times the range, and dont use ammo. Again ERPPCs also pretty clearly win.

Ballistic weapons in general are terrible because of their absurd tonnage and crit slot usage. For doing 20 damage to one location, a pair of ERPPCs are equally good. And its not insignificant that they also double as sniping weapons.


"But the AC/20 has better damage per heat"

DPH is only relevant if youre firing non-stop. That rarely happens in the new sniping meta. Most of the time you're firing while dodging in and out of cover and cooling down in between. That is why Lasers and PPCs are generally better weapons. They weigh less so you can put more tonnage into heatsinks and engine.

Edited by Khobai, 27 March 2013 - 06:06 AM.

[JollyRogerCRO]

Khobai, on 27 March 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

AC/20 weighs 14 tons plus at least another 4 tons for enough ammo... so 18+ tons. Four medium lasers weighs 4 tons. I would say the medium lasers pretty clearly win.

Ballistic weapons in general are pretty terrible in this game because of their absurd tonnage and crit slot usage.

and where are the heatsinks in your calculation?

you cant say that ac/20 is not much more effective with same space/weight
ml:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c80844001ac09e6
ac:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ed844f954387c73

Edited by JollyRogerCRO, 27 March 2013 - 06:15 AM.

[HammerSwarm]

It's like driving a car. You drive a prius because you want fuel efficiency and a smaller form factor. I drive a mustang because I want to go fast. They aren't the same thing at all, save for both being cars. You have to pick one though because you can only drive one car at a time.

You say AC/20s I say Medium Lasers as long as both are being used then we can both be happy.

[JollyRogerCRO]

HammerSwarm, on 27 March 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

It's like driving a car. You drive a prius because you want fuel efficiency and a smaller form factor. I drive a mustang because I want to go fast. They aren't the same thing at all, save for both being cars. You have to pick one though because you can only drive one car at a time.

You say AC/20s I say Medium Lasers as long as both are being used then we can both be happy.

but you dont get more power from ml, so its not like a mustang

[Syllogy]

JollyRogerCRO, on 27 March 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

but you dont get more power from ml, so its not like a mustang

*facepalm*

How many mechs can theoretically fit an AC20? (Hint: 18)

How many mechs can theoretically fit 4 Medium Lasers? (Hint: 37)

Now; how many mechs can practically fit an AC20? (Hint: +/- 10, about half)

How many mechs can practically fit 4 Medium Lasers? (Hint: still 37)

Like I said... On paper, in a perfect simulated environment, you are right, the AC20 kicks the junk out of Medium Lasers. However, Medium Lasers are much more practical for many more Mechs.

To fit an AC20, most mechs are restricted from running an XL engine. Only 6 Mechs can run an AC20 with an XL engine, and only the 4 Atlases can run a good size Standard Engine.

Every other mech that can run an AC20 has to deal with the lesser armor, lesser speed, and/or lesser firepower that comes with running a Standard Engine just so they can fit that AC20.

Edited by Syllogy, 27 March 2013 - 07:03 AM.

[Gabriel Amarell]

How I handled heat sinks.
(assume that the engine heat sinks are 0 weight and 0 slots, and that there are 9, an additional 7 outside the engine so 16 total / 21 slots = 1.31 slots per heat sink. 16 heat sinks / 8 tons (7 outside the engine, + 1 in the engine slot) = .5 tons / heat sink, in engine = 2.0 HPS, outside = .14 HPS so 8 * .20 + 8 * 1.4 / 16 = .7 HPS per heat sink)

summary, double heat sinks: weight .5 tons, slots 1.3, heat dissipation .17 HPS (this is not exact, but its close enough for my purposes)

AC-20: 20 dmg, 4 second recycle, DPS 5.0, 14 tons, 10 crits, 6 heat, 1.5 HPS, 900 ft/sec
+ 9 heat sink, + 4 tons ammo = 22.5 tons, 25.7 crits, 0 heat,

M-LAS: 5 dmg, 3.0 second recycle, DPS 1.67 , 1 tons, 1 crits, 4 heat, 1.33 HPS,
+ 8 heat sinks, = 5 tons, 11 crits, 0 heat

3 M-LAS = 5 DPS so multiply the M-LAS numbers by 3

M-LAS: 15 dmg, 3.0 second recycle, DPS 5.0 , 3 tons, 3 crits, 12 heat, 4 HPS,
+ 24 heat sinks, = 15 tons, 34.2 crits, 0 heat

SO, 3 M-LAS do the same dps as an AC-20

AC-20 is heat neutral at 22.5 tons and 25.7 crits
3 M-LAS are heat neutral at 15 tons and 34.2 crits

M-LAS weigh 33% less (heat neutral) and take up 33% more space

This argument by the numbers is space vs. weight M-LAS to save weight, AC-20 to save crits, its that simple. factor in concentrated dmg, ammo dependency vs. infinite shots and IMO what you really have is two ballanced weapons each with virtues and drawbacks each different but equally useful if not for the same thing. AC-20 is a knockout punch, even 3 M-LAS are never going to be a knockout punch nor should they. Lasers are supplimental dmg in most mechs (yes there are some laser boats I am aware, I run an 4P hunchie with 7 M-LAS and even 7 is not the same as an AC-20 cat unless the target is standing still letting me unload the full burn on one section, and Im OK with that, I do not want 3 mediums to be as powerful as an AC-20, if they were what would be the point of an AC-20.

Edited by Gabriel Amarell, 27 March 2013 - 07:11 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

and where are the heatsinks in your calculation?

I dont need to calculate heatsinks. Because when my mech overheats I retreat behind cover where I cant be hit by enemy mechs until I cool off. Yes the AC/20 gives better damage per heat. Nobody is disputing that. But the game is not decided by whoever's mech has the best damage per heat. The game is decided by whoever does the most damage to the enemy while taking the least damage in return.

The reality is energy weapons, particularly ERPPCs, possess more of the attributes that win games than AC/20s. Specifically range and very fast projectile speed. Plus they consume less tonnage and criticals which means more DHS, bigger engines, endosteel, etc...

Quote

How I handled heat sinks.

Again that's all well in theory, but doesn't at all hold up in practice. Because rarely will two mechs just charge at eachother guns blazing until they overheat. There is far more to the game than that. It's not only possible, but in fact quite likely, that a mech with two ERPPCs will outdamage a mech with one AC/20. Even though your heatsink calculations would show that ERPPCs are inferior based on weight. Not everything is so easily quantified.

Quote

Like I said... On paper, in a perfect simulated environment, you are right, the AC20 kicks the junk out of Medium Lasers

Another thing thats been neglected is the fact that the 4 medium lasers are often spread out in different locations. It's often far easier to destroy an AC/20 than it is to destroy 4 medium lasers. Medium lasers give you much better redundancy against critical hits and component destructions.

Personally I feel ballistics still have a long way to go before theyre entirely worth using. Given their immense drawbacks with weight/size/ammo dependency, ballistic weapons should be the undisputed best weapons, and right now they're not...

Edited by Khobai, 27 March 2013 - 08:53 AM.

[Amaris the Usurper]

AC/20

• 20 damage
  
• 6 heat
  
• 4 second recycle
  
• 14 tons
  
• 10 slots

20 damage / 4 seconds = 5 DPS. 6 heat / 4 seconds = 1.5 HPS. Assuming DHS and at least a 250 engine (2 HPS of dissipation), the engine sinks will do the job. I usually carry 4 tons of ammo. Therefore, 18 tons and 14 slots.

Medium Laser

• 5 damage
  
• 4 heat
  
• 1 second duration + 3 second recycle
  
• 1 ton
  
• 1 slot

5 damage / 4 seconds = 1.25 DPS. It takes four medium lasers to match one AC/20 in DPS. 4*4/4 = 4 HPS total. Assuming a 250 engine, there is 4-2 = 2 excess HPS to take care of. This will require 14 DHS (actually 15 to get rid of all the heat), weighing 14 tons and occupying 42 slots. If we instead use SHS, the engine sinks will provide 1 HPS of dissipation, and there will be 3 HPS left over. This will require 30 SHS, weighing 30 tons and occupying 30 critical slots.

So, to match DPS and remain heat-neutral with a 250 engine, we have the following.

AC/20 (DHS)

• 18 tons
  
• 14 slots

4 x Medium Laser (DHS)

• 18 tons
  
• 46 slots

4 x Medium Laser (SHS)

• 34 tons
  
• 34 slots

On the other hand, with engine engine heat sinks only, we have a heat threshold of 50 and 2 HPS of excess dissipation. Therefore, after firing the four medium lasers once, we will have taken on 8 heat by the time they are ready to fire again. So we could fire the lasers 6 times without overheating (which takes 5*4+1 = 21 seconds).

To fight for 21 seconds at equivalent DPS without overheating, therefore:

AC/20 (DHS)

• 18 tons
  
• 14 slots

4 Medium Lasers (DHS)

• 4 tons
  
• 4 slots

I conclude that the AC/20 is best for sustained brawling. The medium lasers are best for hit-and-run tactics with 'mechs that have limited weight and space available. Also, many more can be added while still remaining superior to the AC/20 in terms of weight and space, albeit with a shorter time to overheat.

Medium lasers are also useful as "stocking stuffers" for heavier designs, allowing extra damage to be done in the early phase of a fight, before the available heat dissipation starts to limit the damage output.

Thus, both weapons seem to occupy a particular gameplay niche. Trying to adjust attributes to make them identical in sustained DPS for given weight and space would remove variety from the game.

Edited by Amaris the Usurper, 27 March 2013 - 11:22 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

JollyRogerCRO, on 27 March 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

and where are the heatsinks in your calculation?

you cant say that ac/20 is not much more effective with same space/weight
ml:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c80844001ac09e6
ac:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ed844f954387c73

Where are your engine heat sinks in the calculation? I did go through the math a while before: Calculating the perks of engine (double) heat sinks, the cost of ammo and heat sinks, the weight of the weapon, and tried to figure out how efficient weapons actually were if you assumed "reasonable" time frames for reasonable amounts of damage.

Results are still here:
http://mwomercs.com/...-5th-2013-patch

The Medium Laser turns out be in practice more efficient than the AC/20. The AC/20 is still good, however.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 27 March 2013 - 09:13 AM.

[JollyRogerCRO]

im sorry, but TT is in my oppinion still far more balanced with ml heaving 3h and ac/20 having 7 heat per shot, and no one can convince me otherwise especially with "double"(lol) heatsinks not being double

Edited by JollyRogerCRO, 27 March 2013 - 09:29 AM.

[HammerSwarm]

JollyRogerCRO, on 27 March 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

but you dont get more power from ml, so its not like a mustang

The medium lasers were the prius.

[Deathlike]

When you're trying to compare 4 meds to 1 AC20, you're already in a losing battle.

AC20s are devastating... that's obvious. They are efficient. The inherant problem with them is that they consume ammo, and they require a lot to add them on a mech in the first place, which already limits the mechs that can use them.

It's far easier to get the equivalent of 4 meds on most mechs (2 large lasers, or 2 PPCs, or some combination), so if you are soley concerned about 4 meds being underpowered somehow, how about making sure you make your shots count (like, good CT shots) instead of thinking they are underpowered.

There's always pulse lasers for those who need help.

Edited by Deathlike, 27 March 2013 - 09:43 AM.

[JollyRogerCRO]

HammerSwarm, on 27 March 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

The medium lasers were the prius.

lol, medium lasers were clearlly presented as an inefficient mustang

either way that analogy simply does not work, this is not a joy ride, its war, an dealing maximum concentrated damage with maximum efficienci wins(asuming all players have equal skill)

Edited by JollyRogerCRO, 27 March 2013 - 09:54 AM.

[Royalewithcheese]

AC/20 takes up 14 tons and 10 crit slots. (Plus ammo!)

Medium Laser takes up 1 ton and 1 crit slot.

[blinkin]

Royalewithcheese, on 27 March 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

AC/20 takes up 14 tons and 10 crit slots. (Plus ammo!)

Medium Laser takes up 1 ton and 1 crit slot.

with this most mechs that have ballistic slots still are incapable of mounting an AC20 because of the number of slots. most mechs cannot mount AC20 in their arms, the ones that can have limited range of motion. AC20 ammunition is also very explosive.

add in the flight time included on all AC weapons, and lasers tend to look very attractive.