112 replies to this topic

[Zaptruder]

AC5 could do with a slight refire rate buff.

1.5 seconds would be about right.

Similarly AC10 could do with... a projectile and refire rate buff.

2.2 seconds and 1100 m/s would be good.

What's great about the AC/10 is that it's roughly half the time of a laser refire. So you can fire Laser, AC10, Laser 2, AC10 in one 'rotation'. Plus you can keep up the damage while you wait for your lasers to cool.

I use it to particular great effect on mechs like the Dragon 1C/Flame and Hunchback 4G.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Steel Claws, on 08 April 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

Ummmmm how can it be poor dps and yet good damage? You do 5 points of damage - that's the same as - 1 medium laser. Think about that.

He said that the AC5 is poor DPS, but good damage per heat. which is accurate. It's ROF is a bit too slow, but the heat generated from each shot is negligible. ANd while it is the same damage as 1 ML, the ML has shorter range, more heat, and the beam duration usually results in you spreading that damage around (at least a little).

IMO, these are the changes that would make a difference without being OP.

• UAC5 needs it's recycle time increased to 1.4 (from 1.1 currently). Double tap remains. Jam % lowered a bit.
  
• AC needs it's recycle time decreased to 1.4 (from 1.7 currently).
  
• AC10 needs it's recycle time decreased to 2.0-2.2 (not sure exactly, but 2.5 is a bit too slow)

Those changes will balance the UAC5 and AC5, the UAC should have the same base rate of fire as the AC5 but with better range, the double tap is balanced by the reduced ammo per ton and the chance to jam. The AC5 would get a DPS boost, and would retain it's lower weight and additional 5 shots per ton of ammo.


The AC10 is one of my favorite weapons in MWO, but it is not *quite* where it needs to be. 15 shots per ton is reasonable, the range is good, the heat is fine. The weight and space is not going to be changed. That means that they can adjust the ROF or the base damage, and I do not think they are looking to change the damage of any AC at this point. So increase the ROF a bit and see what happens.

Edit: Changed my incorrect usage of ROF changes to better reflect what I was trying to say.

Edited by Tickdoff Tank, 08 April 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[Sanreal]

A weapon isn't ideally balanced until someone can find it a very difficult decision on which to use, provided that they all fit one's play-style.

I've used A/C 10s almost exclusively since the beginning of Closed Beta, so much so that I almost can't aim any other kind of projectile. It's fair to say that I love A/C 10s and do very well with them. However, they are not an optimal weapon. At close range, A/C 20s win, while at long range, Gauss Rifles win. The A/C 10 is therefore a mid-range weapon only... that does 50% less damage than a long range Gauss Rifle but weighs nearly the same, especially if heat sinks need to be added to offset the A/C 10's heat. And staying at mid range on maps that seem made either for long range or close-in brawls is not easy. Which is why we see almost nothing but A/C 20s and Gauss Rifles being run these days. All other autocannons can't compete.

In short, I think heat needs to be reduced on all autocannons, and the weight of A/C 5s and A/C 10s needs to be reduced slightly. LBX 10s are another matter....

[Noobzorz]

El Bandito, on 08 April 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

"Pros" can spam their UAC5s and AC20s all they want. All they do is go for the best weapons/cheese/tactics possible every single time. More you go for top, more you see cookie-cutter builds and it gets ******* boring. Even if AC10s are buffed, as long as AC20 is even SLIGHTLY better, they will still stick with AC20.

As I said above: Not every weapon has to be competitively viable. Just like not every mech variant has to be competitively viable. Just like not every champion, or rune has to be competitively viable in LoL.

Ignoring that the stated goal of Riot's balance team is to make literally everyone viable, that they have been working hard at it ever since LoL came out, and that the only reason they haven't accomplished this is the Sisyphean nature of the task, this is an incredibly dumb way to design a game. Hell, even the two developers Call of Duty strives to make all equipment useful, and the only thing preventing them is a lack of proper development time (well, and the fact that all IW's senior employees left).

Perish this thought forever. Everything should be viable at all levels of play. It's fine for things to be niche, so long as those niches are occur, but if X strictly dominates Y, Y needs some help.

Edited by Noobzorz, 08 April 2013 - 10:11 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

If you want a real analysis:

My approach is that what players are looking to optimize is their ability to deal damage with the weight they have. They have to consider heat sink weight and ammo weight so that build doesn't just overheat before it has dealt meaningful damage, or cannot sustain its firepower for long enough.

The chart below is a result of such an analysis. I calculate only "boats", since adding mixed weapon loads adds a lot of complexity, so it is a bit simplistic - but if you want to know which weapons are efficient for such builds, this should be illuminating enough. I treat engine heat sinks as "free" in weight, and I account for in-engine heat sinks and out-of-engine heat sinks working differently (well, single heat sinks are all the same, but who cares about those anyway), and I assume a 250 rated engine for simplicity.

I have 3 benchmark variables that I can dial:
- The targeted engagement time (this basically means - after so many seconds it's okay to overheat, we assume that the engagement has ended due to manoeuvring or destruction of a target)
- The targeted damage output in that time frame. I tried to pick loads that do not require more than 2-3 of the heaviest weapons (e.g. weapons like the AC/10, AC/20 and Gauss Rifle because there aren't many mechs that can. This doesn't account for misses, though I have the ability to also include an accuracy stat in my calculations.
- The targeted number of engagements. This is important for ammo calculations. My calculations basically boil down to having enough ammo to be able to deal around 640 damage if you'd always hit (which you won't.)

The below chart tracks the efficiency for 3 different scenarios, 5 second, 10 second and 15 second interval with each scenario's damage linearly scaled with time, and the number of engagements set so that the total ammo requirements would be roughly equal. I then divide the total actual damage output of the weapon (this can be higher as the minimum, since few weapons will reach the minimum requirement perfectly) by the weight invested. This gives us a damage / ton value that we can compare - the higher, the better.

I sort the values by weapon range, implicitly assuming that more range should result in less damage/weight efficiency if things were balanced.



As you can see, the AC/10 is one of the worst weapons in the 5 second category (even outperformed by the Machine Gun. Which isn't an achievement for the MG, however, since it's worse than most weapons in its range bracket or close by).
In the 10 second category, it finally manages to outperform the Gauss Rifle, but is stilll worse than its neighbours.

The AC/5 beats the AC/10 in performance, but also represents a dip in overall weapon efficiency compared to its neighbours.

It should be noted that the curve here isn't indicating that the other weapons are well balanced. The Ultra AC/5 in single shot mode is never worse than the AC/20 for the listed engagement times, which is bad considering the vastly superior range of the Ultra AC/5. (Note, however, that we're comparing the figures of 2 Ultra AC/5 vs the figures of a single AC/20.)

Balance is still a mess, but the AC/10 and the AC/5 are in a worse mess than other weapons in their category.

[Roland]

Quote

Twin AC5 & adequate ammo is 19 tons, 11 crits, 2 heat, 10 damage, 5.84 DPS, range 540m
Gauss adequate ammo is 18 tons, 10 crits, 1 heat, 15 damage, 3.75 DPS, range 660m
AC20 adequate ammo is 17 tons, 13 crits, 6 heat, 20 damage, 5 DPS, range 270m

Twin AC5's and "adequate ammo" is 19 tons? So, 3 tons of ammo for TWO AC5's? And yet you need three tons of ammo for only ONE gauss, which fires slower? And you need FIVE tons of AC20 ammo?
So, basically, you have 450 damage total with the AC5's and gauss, but you have 700 damage with the AC20?

For a fair analysis, you really need to scale ammo to overall damage, with a penalty given to weapons with lower alpha strikes... because it will, in general, take more damage to kill a target if your alpha strike power is lower.

With that assumption taken into account, you end up with the following types of ammo requirements:
AC20 - 5 tons (35 shots, 700 damage) (although really, this is a lot of freaking ammo)</div>
Gauss - 5 tons (50 shots, 750 damage)
AC5 - 6 tons (180 shots, 900 damage)

So then, you have the following comparisons:
Twin AC5 &amp; adequate ammo is 22 tons, 11 crits, 2 heat, 10 damage, 5.84 DPS, range 540m
Gauss &amp; adequate ammo is 20 tons, 10 crits, 1 heat, 15 damage, 3.75 DPS, range 660m
AC20 &amp; adequate ammo is 17 tons, 13 crits, 6 heat, 20 damage, 5 DPS, range 270m

And now you start to see why, in practice, the AC5's not really that competitive.
But really, even beyond that, you can use the weapons and see how they're not competitive.

I mean, hell.... Two AC5's? I could also run ONE PPC, and get the same damage, for a mere 7 tons... and I could fire it forever.

This is what really cripples the small caliber AC's. The fact that energy weapons just CRUSH them when it comes to actually fielding them in effective configurations.

In order for ballistics to compete, they need to do stuff that the energy weapons can't.Currently, the good ballistics do this in two ways:
1) Crazytown DPS - This is the savior of the UAC5. The fact that it cranks out more damage than anything else allows it to transcend its other limitations
2) Large alpha strike potential - The gauss and the AC20 fit into this category. A single hit of 15-20 points of damage is, in itself, a useful quality in this game. Once you drop below 15, then you fall into PPC territory.. and once you fall below 10, you start getting useless compared to the huge amount of tonnage you are allocating.

EDIT: Editor made the formatting all stupid

Edited by Roland, 08 April 2013 - 11:19 AM.

[Noobzorz]

armyof1, on 08 April 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

No that is not right, small laser has 1 DPS, AC5 has 2.94, so it takes almost 3 small lasers for one AC5 to be equal in DPS.

Not a very strong endorsement even so.

[Escef]

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

Twin AC5's and &quot;adequate ammo&quot; is 19 tons? So, 3 tons of ammo for TWO AC5's? And yet you need three tons of ammo for only ONE gauss, which fires slower? And you need FIVE tons of AC20 ammo?
So, basically, you have 450 damage total with the AC5's and gauss, but you have 700 damage with the AC20?

I have found through personal experience that 3 tons of ammo is enough for twin AC5. I've found that 3 tons is needed for one Gauss because you will miss a lot at range, you will want the freedom to take those shots. And I don't know where you got me saying five tons of AC20 ammo from. Read those numbers again. I said 17 tons, 14 for the cannon, 3 ammo. You don't need a lot of ammo for an AC20, close range tends to make the shots more accurate, and the higher burst damage does funk. (Seriously, man, where do you come from that an AC20 masses 12 tons? Or did you brain fart and use the AC10's mass?)

This is why I tell you to let others reply. Because not only do you come across as an uppity SOB, you can't even read numbers without screwing it up.

EDIT: Before I forget...

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

I mean, hell.... Two AC5's? I could also run ONE PPC, and get the same damage, for a mere 7 tons... and I could fire it forever.

Yes, you could. You'd also get lower DPS, more heat, a minimum range (unless you went ER for even more heat), and one last detail you seem to be overlooking... PPCS DO NOT FIT IN BALLISTIC HARD POINTS! Comparing energy weapons to ballistics is almost always going to end up in the energy weapon's favor simply because of the lack of ammo dependence. Hey, compare them to missiles now, guess what happens? Energy weapons are still ammo independent! Can you at least stick to comparing ballistics to ballistics?

Edited by Escef, 08 April 2013 - 11:37 AM.

[Roland]

Quote

I have found through personal experience that 3 tons of ammo is enough for twin AC5. I've found that 3 tons is needed for one Gauss because you will miss a lot at range, you will want the freedom to take those shots. And I don't know where you got me saying five tons of AC20 ammo from. Read those numbers again. I said 17 tons, 14 for the cannon, 3 ammo. You don't need a lot of ammo for an AC20, close range tends to make the shots more accurate, and the higher burst damage does funk. (Seriously, man, where do you come from that an AC20 masses 12 tons? Or did you brain fart and use the AC10's mass?)

Sorry, my mistake regarding the AC20 tonnage. Was totally a brain fart on my part.
However, I would still point out that the tonnage of the ammo used should be linked to the overall damage output, with lower alpha weapons requiring higher overall damage due to needing more shots to kill a given target. So, AC5's would require more overall damage than a gauss, which would require more overall damage than an AC20. Given that I explained the exact rationale for this, and did so in a perfectly respectful way, I would think that you'd respond more warmly.

Although perhaps it is because you interpretted my prior posts as being antagonistic, and I must admit that I was rude. My only defense in that regard is that I am somewhat flabbergasted at the notion that folks would actually be arguing against the buffing of weapons that currently enjoy very little widespread usage in the game.

Regardless, I apologize for being rude, and hope that you will be able to put it behind you while reading my replies.

Quote

Yes, you could. You'd also get lower DPS, more heat, a minimum range (unless you went ER for even more heat), and one last detail you seem to be overlooking... PPCS DO NOT FIT IN BALLISTIC HARD POINTS!

If you recall, I preemptively identified the issues that you are laying out here, and addressed them specifically:
1) The heat issue becomes largely removed by the existence of double heat sinks, which give you the equivalent of 20 internal heat sinks on any mech with a 250 engine or larger. This has the effect of meaning that once you get above a certain heat efficiency rating, you are effectively just wasting your heat capacity. To a large extent, heat efficiency doesn't really matter that much in MWO, except with certain very high heat builds.
2) While you cannot fit energy weapons into ballistic hardpoints, essentially every mech has the hardpoints to run a PPC. That is, it's virtually never going to be the case where you have a chassis capable of mounting two AC5's but not a PPC... because, in general, energy hardpoints are so prolific that the tonnage and slot limitations required to mount two AC5's is going to be far more problematic than finding a single energy hardpoint and 3 critical slots.

[jeffsw6]

Escef, on 08 April 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

I have found through personal experience that 3 tons of ammo is enough for twin AC5.

I believe this depends on your style of play. My Heavy Metal has

• UAC5 ammo 3 tons
  
• AC5 ammo 2 tons

I haven't kept track, but I know I exhaust all my gun ammo in a significant portion of my matches. Definitely more than 10%. You are suggesting only 1.5 ton of AC5 ammo per weapon, or less than me.

My hit rate with AC5 is only 54% because I will often take a gun shot at a distant opponent who might be about to snipe me or my teammates, and I will always be spamming it in brawl situations but some shots will certainly miss.

Because I carry a little more ammo, though, I can afford to take shots that might miss and simply hope for the best (or hope that an opposing sniper takes cover instead of shooting back.) I don't think I've lost a match yet that I could have won if I had conserved ammunition better (or carried more) but there are certainly enemies I haven't been able to kill because I was out of AC5 and/or UAC5 since that is more than half my DPS and they don't make enough heat to worry about.

MustrumRidcully, on 08 April 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

If you want a real analysis:

The effort you've put into that chart is commendable, but your conclusions are simplistic. For example, you say The Ultra AC/5 in single shot mode is never worse than the AC/20 for the listed engagement times, which is bad considering the vastly superior range of the Ultra AC/5 but you don't account for the AC20 dealing all its damage to one section or its slower rate of fire giving you a chance to do more damage in short intervals, potentially torso-twisting (or pop-tarting, whatever) between shots to mitigate incoming fire.

Also the UAC5 jams so often you are lucky if it is firing 2/3rd of the time. Go ahead and reduce its DPS by 30%. I will admit I made up the numbers here, but UAC5 users all know, it jams a ******* lot more than it's supposed to -- the thing doesn't double-fire nearly as much as it jams, and that is not how it is described.

[Escef]

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

Sorry, my mistake regarding the AC20 tonnage. Was totally a brain fart on my part.
However, I would still point out that the tonnage of the ammo used should be linked to the overall damage output, with lower alpha weapons requiring higher overall damage due to needing more shots to kill a given target. So, AC5's would require more overall damage than a gauss, which would require more overall damage than an AC20. Given that I explained the exact rationale for this, and did so in a perfectly respectful way, I would think that you'd respond more warmly.

This is all well and good, but using the ammo amounts I listed...

AC5 = 30 shots/ton, @ 3 tons ammo = 90 shots * 5 damage/shot = 450 damage
Gauss = 10 shots/ton, @ 3 tons ammo = 30 shots * 15 damage/shot = 450 damage
AC20 = 7 shots/ton, @ 3 tons ammo = 21 shots * 20 damage/shot = 420 damage (I should think the better accuracy of closer range mitigates the 30 points of difference in damage potential)

So, as you can see, my ammo counts are within your equality guidelines, and 2 out of 3 line up with total amounts I have found proper through actual usage (I haven't used the AC20 enough to be 100% certain of the 3 ton figure, but in my limited usage of the weapon the figure has yet to fail me).

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

Regardless, I apologize for being rude, and hope that you will be able to put it behind you while reading my replies.

It isn't necessarily your position that irks me, it has been the way you present yourself. This is a step in the right direction. I tend to get short with people who present themselves the way you have. I'm willing to let it be in the past, but part of that is on you. Kindly refrain from the self aggrandizement, it is very unbecoming.

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

If you recall, I preemptively identified the issues that you are laying out here, and addressed them specifically:
1) The heat issue becomes largely removed by the existence of double heat sinks, which give you the equivalent of 20 internal heat sinks on any mech with a 250 engine or larger. This has the effect of meaning that once you get above a certain heat efficiency rating, you are effectively just wasting your heat capacity. To a large extent, heat efficiency doesn't really matter that much in MWO, except with certain very high heat builds.

The big problem with high heat builds is that the limit on your RoF stops being the weapon's own cyclic rate and becomes your heat sinks' ability to deal with the output. Shutting down is often a death sentence.

Roland, on 08 April 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

2) While you cannot fit energy weapons into ballistic hardpoints, essentially every mech has the hardpoints to run a PPC. That is, it's virtually never going to be the case where you have a chassis capable of mounting two AC5's but not a PPC... because, in general, energy hardpoints are so prolific that the tonnage and slot limitations required to mount two AC5's is going to be far more problematic than finding a single energy hardpoint and 3 critical slots.

I would like you to say hello to the CN9s A, D, and YLW. None of which can mount a PPC. (Though, granted, the A also can't mount more than one ballistic, either.)

On most mechs, one will generally see a mix of weapon systems. Rarely have I seen pure missile or ballistic based mechs. The SRMcat has fallen out of favor (used to see it a lot), and I have found AC20/Gauss based Cats and Jagers usually mount at least token energy weapons. Even the "Dakka-phract" frequently has a medium laser or two on it. Because, quite honestly, no one wants to be the guy with his ammo tapped out, no back-up weapons, being harassed by a Commando or Jenner.

[jeffsw6]

Escef, on 08 April 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

Because, quite honestly, no one wants to be the guy with his ammo tapped out, no back-up weapons, being harassed by a Commando or Jenner.

I don't want to be harassed by a Commando or Jenner even if I have all my weapons and ammo.

[Escef]

jeffsw6, on 08 April 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

I believe this depends on your style of play. My Heavy Metal has

• UAC5 ammo 3 tons
  
• AC5 ammo 2 tons

I haven't kept track, but I know I exhaust all my gun ammo in a significant portion of my matches. Definitely more than 10%. You are suggesting only 1.5 ton of AC5 ammo per weapon, or less than me.


My hit rate with AC5 is only 54% because I will often take a gun shot at a distant opponent who might be about to snipe me or my teammates, and I will always be spamming it in brawl situations but some shots will certainly miss.

Because I carry a little more ammo, though, I can afford to take shots that might miss and simply hope for the best (or hope that an opposing sniper takes cover instead of shooting back.) I don't think I've lost a match yet that I could have won if I had conserved ammunition better (or carried more) but there are certainly enemies I haven't been able to kill because I was out of AC5 and/or UAC5 since that is more than half my DPS and they don't make enough heat to worry about.

My current AC5 accuracy isn't significantly higher than yours (a shade over 57%), but let me make a guess about something... You rely on those ACs to be your primary source of firepower, don't you? I run a K2 'pult with 2 AC5 and 2 Large Lasers. I will usually get 2 shots from the twin ACs (4 rounds total), lash out with the twin lasers, then go back to the ACs. I don't like the lack of target shake from the lasers, nor the fact that I might as well be holding up a billboard with "HERE I AM!" in neon letters, but the ammo independence is nice. (That and I've found the lack of shake sometimes misleads people into thinking they've taken less damage than they have, been on both sides of that one.)

If you are relying on teh AC5 to be your only (or at least primary) source of damage, yeah, it's generally better to go a little heavier on the ammo. If I were to go nuts with a quad AC5 machine, I'm thinking I wouldn't dare go lower than 7 tons of ammo without extensive usage showing otherwise.

[p00k]

i would be all for bringing the ac5's dps roughly in line with the other autocannons

ac10 honestly from a damage standpoint is fine. 4dps is respectable. do think it could benefit from being lighter though to be more respectable, but it still sort of falls in that gap between being a sniper weapon and being a brawler weapon

[armyof1]

Noobzorz, on 08 April 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Not a very strong endorsement even so.

The AC20 is 5 small lasers in DPS, so it really isn't that bad in comparison. AC5 is most certainly not a Ballistic you'd use in the only slot on an Atlas, it should be used at least as a pair or more.

[jeffsw6]

Escef, on 08 April 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

My current AC5 accuracy isn't significantly higher than yours (a shade over 57%), but let me make a guess about something... You rely on those ACs to be your primary source of firepower, don't you? I run a K2 'pult with 2 AC5 and 2 Large Lasers.

My HM armaments are similar to your K2: 2 LL, 1 UAC5, 1 AC5.

In a brawl, I spam them all until I get hot, then I keep shooting the cannons and only fire the lasers when I have spare heat capacity.

Vs light enemies, I will usually fire only the lasers unless I think I have a solid chance of hitting with the guns. That basically means either a poorly-piloted opponent light, or one running straight for/away from me, or one I sneak up on / catch while he is engaged with a teammate.

Against ranged enemies, I try to decide if I am likely to hit the opponent (fire) or if I want him to take cover (shoot.) Otherwise, I might not fire the cannons unless I think I will hit. But at the start of a match when I've got full ammo, I am not going to waste any opportunities to damage an enemy. If it looks like I will be alive for a while, I will try to be a bit careful about wasting rounds on ranged opponents.

[Trauglodyte]

• AC2 heat needs to be dropped down to 0.6-0.75 range
  
• AC5 rof needs to be dropped to 1.25
  
• AC10 rof needs to be lowers, slightly, to 2.25

If you do that, everything is good in the hood. I personally kind of like the AC2 but would much rather tote the AC5 if I could. But the damned recycle time is too prohibitive given the damage, range, and slug velocity.

[Side Step]

AC/10 and AC/5 are fine.

Only noobs choose AC/10 and AC/5 while skilled players choose other weapons. All weapons are fine, because you can also pick the same weapons. The skill is in recognizing which weapons are good and which aren't. When you figure this out, you will also become a master.

This is called a learning curve.

[Demos]

IMHO AC/5 and AC/10 needs a slight buff in RoF, e.g.
AC/5 1,50s cooldown
AC/10 2,25s cooldown
Heat of AC/2 needs a bit reduced.
And I'd love when the ammo supply would be increased by 33% (to double of TT standard), for all AC/Gauss of course.

[Roland]

Escef, on 08 April 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

So, as you can see, my ammo counts are within your equality guidelines, and 2 out of 3 line up with total amounts I have found proper through actual usage (I haven't used the AC20 enough to be 100% certain of the 3 ton figure, but in my limited usage of the weapon the figure has yet to fail me).

Well, I would tend to believe that the AC5, given that it does only 30% of the damage of the Gauss per shot really should require more than equivalent damage to the gauss. Regardless, given that we are roughly in agreement here, and the source of disagreement stemmed primarilly from my mistake, there is little need to pursue this further.

Quote

It isn't necessarily your position that irks me, it has been the way you present yourself. This is a step in the right direction. I tend to get short with people who present themselves the way you have. I'm willing to let it be in the past, but part of that is on you. Kindly refrain from the self aggrandizement, it is very unbecoming.

While I understand, I think that you'll find my posts did not so much present myself as better than average, as much as I disparaged certain other comments as stemming from ignorance. While this is perhaps just as bad, I think it is in fact different.

I also would point out that there are certain posters who while arguing that certain weapons I consider trash are in fact effective, are simultaneously arguing in other threads that certain other builds are somehow unfair, because they are using other weapons like PPC's and AC20. The same people are making these arguments simultaneously, which leads me to believe that they are missing some critical aspect of balance.

A weapon is not balanced if it's only effective against other poor weapons, but gets beaten when going up against other weapons. You can't say, "This weapon is fine!" and then turn around and say "Those guys are using weapons which are too strong!" This is not to say, of course, that you are one of those people. But such conflicting arguments are in fact being made, and it baffled me to the extent that I was perhaps rude.

Quote

The big problem with high heat builds is that the limit on your RoF stops being the weapon's own cyclic rate and becomes your heat sinks' ability to deal with the output. Shutting down is often a death sentence.

Yes, but as I pointed out, the point where you are limted by heat is often pretty far down the line, especially since the introduction of DHS, and the heat reduction of PPC's.

Quote

I would like you to say hello to the CN9s A, D, and YLW. None of which can mount a PPC. (Though, granted, the A also can't mount more than one ballistic, either.)

Yes, which is why I didn't say that literally every single mech could mount a ppc,.. just that VIRTUALLY every mech could. Those three variants of the centurion are the exception... although I'd also point out that they are also not good contenders for running AC5's or 10's. They tend to run better as zombie mechs, with medium lasers and SRM's... For the wang, the largest reason to run it at all is to leverage the removal of the lower arm actuator so that you can run an AC20. (The AH used to also be able to do this, but then they killed that variant when the wang came out, because it was basically just BETTER than the wang)