259 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 October 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

Independent of all this, though, I say PPCs are supposed to be BEAM WEAPONS. They are described as beam weapons and, realistically, they would be beam weapons because they don't shoot fuzzy lumps at hypersonic velocities, they shoot a stream of ions travelling at relativistic speeds, AKA fast enough that we might as well call it hit-scan at terrestrial scales. You want to know what the splash damage really is? Thermal expansion. The beam penetrates the top layer and deposits into the layers below, heating them up and causing structural failure. Dump energy fast enough and it will do so spectacularly. You'll also irradiate whoever is inside with a nice, healthy dose of bremsstrahlung. So you get a small hole at the impact, weakened material around the impact (depending on how heat conductive it is; less is worse for the target), and a dead pilot.

not so true...ok partly true
realistic a PPC is linear accelerator (of course they could also be a cyclotron but then they might be bad because of the complexity)
With a linear accelerator the acceleration is limited you can't accelerate stuff faster than light so with say 3m length the maximum speed might be "only" 60km/s -(0.0002c) with speed a constant the number of particles - aka mass need to be adjusted.

For example with using the hydrogen protons from the fusion engine you need ~2gramm for 5MJ kinetic energy. This is a beam -but only for 0.1ms

using a bigger less efficient diameter and more mass turn stuff into a single "ball" but at more mass and less velocity

Edited by Karl Streiger, 25 October 2017 - 01:33 AM.

[Nightbird]

The problem I have with PPC damage modelling is that it is a giant bolt but doing pin point damage. This is different from an AC shell in that the explosion from a shell is directed using a focused charge concept out the tip of the shell on impact to maximize penetration. An energy bolt the size of a circle 1m radius would only make a crater of 1m radius.

I would prefer making PPCs use the SRM spread method, those missiles do not spread in the sense that once they reach rated spread they never get any further part with distance. They also avoid pinpoint damage. The radius can be a balancing point between IS and Clan but small enough that a good pilots can put all damage onto one component, but if it hits a seam the damage will be split accordingly.

IS ER PPC : a bolt of radius 0.5m
Clan ER PPC: a bolt of radius 1m
All other PPCs: a bolt of radius 0.75m

Cooldown can be improved.

The main difference is, the spread is small so you can put all damage on one component, but it's much harder with the Clan version cuz spread is 4 times worse than IS ER PPC and twice as bad as regular IS PPCs. Now you can increase velocity as well without having AC20 and dual gauss flying around for low tonnage.

Edited by Nightbird, 25 October 2017 - 06:42 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Nightbird, on 25 October 2017 - 06:26 AM, said:

The problem I have with PPC damage modelling is that it is a giant bolt but doing pin point damage. This is different from an AC shell in that the explosion from a shell is directed using a focused charge concept out the tip of the shell on impact to maximize penetration. An energy bolt the size of a circle 1m radius would only make a crater of 1m radius.

I would prefer making PPCs use the SRM spread method, those missiles do not spread in the sense that once they reach rated spread they never get any further part with distance. They also avoid pinpoint damage. The radius can be a balancing point between IS and Clan but small enough that a good pilots can put all damage onto one component, but if it hits a seam the damage will be split accordingly.

IS ER PPC : a bolt of radius 0.5m
Clan ER PPC: a bolt of radius 1m
All other PPCs: a bolt of radius 0.75m

Cooldown can be improved.

The main difference is, the spread is small so you can put all damage on one component, but it's much harder with the Clan version cuz spread is 4 times worse than IS ER PPC and twice as bad as regular IS PPCs. Now you can increase velocity as well without having AC20 and dual gauss flying around for low tonnage.

I was also thinking about it more like a charged plasma weapon from how they describe it. As such it's more like a back loaded laser for damage - 1 damage/10th of a second for 5 10ths, then a 5 pt hit. Essentially creating a charged path to send the plasma down. Thwy describe it more like lightning or a plasma ball than a balliatic projectile.

[Nightbird]

A bolt of lighning travels at 100,000km/s, hitscan. A lighning bolt is a type of plasma bolt, but there are other types of plasma bolts. Basically, I can suggest a hitscan PPC with a wider bolt radius or what we have now with a smaller radius. Any thoughts?

[Y E O N N E]

Karl Streiger, on 25 October 2017 - 01:33 AM, said:

not so true...ok partly true
realistic a PPC is linear accelerator (of course they could also be a cyclotron but then they might be bad because of the complexity)
With a linear accelerator the acceleration is limited you can't accelerate stuff faster than light so with say 3m length the maximum speed might be "only" 60km/s -(0.0002c) with speed a constant the number of particles - aka mass need to be adjusted.

For example with using the hydrogen protons from the fusion engine you need ~2gramm for 5MJ kinetic energy. This is a beam -but only for 0.1ms

using a bigger less efficient diameter and more mass turn stuff into a single "ball" but at more mass and less velocity

I would not assume a PPC is purely a linear accelerator rather than a circular one with an exit path precisely because of the length requirements. I also wouldn't use complexity to wave something away; there is nothing simple about a high-energy LINAC.

And while matter cannot reach 100% c, it can be accelerated about as hard toward it as you like, provided you've got the energy for it and the tools to apply it. Eventually, though, you approach infinite energy requirements as you near c and doing so becomes impractical. This is another mark against a PPC being a pure LINAC, because a circular track allows you to reduce your power requirements by spreading the energy application out over time.

Were your energy equations of the relativistic variety? Mass increases the closer a piece of matter us to traveling at c, and you can't use the classic E=0.5m(v^2).

Nightbird, on 25 October 2017 - 09:08 AM, said:

A bolt of lighning travels at 100,000km/s, hitscan. A lighning bolt is a type of plasma bolt, but there are other types of plasma bolts. Basically, I can suggest a hitscan PPC with a wider bolt radius or what we have now with a smaller radius. Any thoughts?

My thought is that your radii are so large that it is difficult to believe you could have enough power density in the particle stream do anything except singe my eyebrows and give me cancer unless you've got a power source much bigger than what is in the 'Mech. Also think about how big your aperture is and the implications that saying this is a conical spread has. Your earlier statement about how the impact site from an energy beam behaves is also not correct as it depends on the material composition of the target and the power involved (never mind that a particle beam is a matter stream and not just EM radiation). What I described on the previous page is exactly what happens when a particle accelerator like the LHC dumps its beam after an experiment. They have a giant mass of graphite encased in concrete that they spiral the beam into to spread the energy out and the reason they use graphite and not something denser is because they don't want to turn the dump into molten slag. And that's all AFTER they diffuse the beam a bit, else it would blow right through the 8 meter long slab.

Better suggestion, IMHO?

PPCs are what Pulse lasers currently are as short-duration beams and we use a combination of duration, cool-down, and a spool-up mechanuc to tune them. Pulse lasers become strobes. Remove splash damage, give cERPPC a longer beam and cooldown to compensate, longer than even HPPC because of the range.

[Nightbird]

Too much history to turn PPCs into pulse lasers... I put this here first so you can find evidence to the contrary.

Regarding LHC example, it would burn a circular hole the breadth of the beam or a tiny fraction of it at the center? A HEAT round focuses damage to a tiny fraction of the size of the shell itself. A particle stream damage is perfectly reflective of the size of the beam. That's all I mean.

[Nightbird]

Any luck? Of finding material to support PPCs as something other than a flying cylindrical 'bolt' of 'plasma'?

Any complains on the reasoning for IS heat and equipment bulk relationship?

Anything else I badly screwed up? (Other than the fact I'm trying to preserve lore)

[Koniving]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 October 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

Why would you want LB-X to be better at a distance, though? There are other weapons for that role. Why not make LB-X actually good as short-range weapons instead? The only reason the IS get the better spread is because they can't take as many supplemental weapons and have to lean harder on the big tonnage ones.

You could, but to be honest the LBX is canonically a long range weapon. All variants have superior range to traditional and UAC variants on the IS side, and comparable to superior for the Clan side.

This primarily because unlike normal autocannons which are multi-shot spray guns, the LBX in its original description, fires a flak-like shell that fragments into small explosives after being fired, creating a shotgun-like spread. If you read into flak weaponry, they detonate either after a set amount of time, or in more advanced cases (and if you compare LBX ammo prices to literally any other ammo it makes sense), within proximity to large metal objects.

It would thus be equally good at all ranges.

Even "Standard" ammo for the LBX is three times the price of traditional autocannon ammo. This is because unlike autocannon ammo which are short "HEAP" (High Explosive-Armor Piercing) rounds built to be cost effective, the LBX fires significantly longer (and thus larger) shells, similar to a Mech Rifle but without the issue of deflecting off the mech at lower calibers.

Edited by Koniving, 26 October 2017 - 07:18 AM.

[Nightbird]

Absolutely nailed it on the proximity detonation Koniving, the only reason I avoided it is because I doubt the game engine and netcode can handle it today... if I'm wrong this is what I want.

[Koniving]

Nightbird, on 26 October 2017 - 07:18 AM, said:

Absolutely nailed it on the proximity detonation Koniving, the only reason I avoided it is because I doubt the game engine and netcode can handle it today... if I'm wrong this is what I want.

It could, but it would also throw out all the balancing of LBX, as well as use of the LBX spread nodes (as they would quickly become overpowered). An alternative might be nodes to change the detonation range of LBX cluster shells.

The other thing is since the "balls" are actually small explosive devices with damage roughly equivalent to one LRM, you also have the other issue that we would be rendering a lot more explosions at high rates of fire. If we went pure lore.

Sadly the technical limitations during the 1993 to 1995 development of Mechwarrior 2 have doomed us to the "shotgun" misconception. Post 1994 authors are not helping, either as the mentality just stuck with the less initiated, newer authors.

[Koniving]

Nightbird, on 26 October 2017 - 07:08 AM, said:

Any luck? Of finding material to support PPCs as something other than a flying cylindrical 'bolt' of 'plasma'?

Any complains on the reasoning for IS heat and equipment bulk relationship?

Anything else I badly screwed up? (Other than the fact I'm trying to preserve lore)

I'll touch on the first one.

The Timber Wolf fires a hexagonal shaped blast from its ER PPC and it has a swirling smoke ring effect. I'm not entirely sure how that works, but different brands tend to look different. In actuality though, the visual effect of "lightning" in the 1990s lore isn't what actually does anything. Its this huge heat wave of kinetic and thermal energy invisible to the eye. So the visual effects given are either natural or artificial reactions given to the weapon on purpose.

In this 1986-87 expanded lore...

In this particular version, the lightning bolt is the cause of damage.

Personally I like the description here because it partly breaks down some of the reasons for the weapon's weight, such as being consumed by on-board heatsinks (otherwise the 10 heat would be even hotter!) It inspired me to try and do a breakdown of each weapon type and possible modifications that different companies would do to the base design in order to have brand name edges over others. Turns out, this already existed in BT lore too as i will reference later.

The "weight is the reason for lower accuracy" makes a lot of sense, but is broken with the introduction of the ER PPC, and broken again with every PPC created after that. The new lore to minimum range is 'field inhibitors" to prevent the weapon from potentially exploding in your face by delaying the actual firing of the weapon to allow it to build energy up over time and then fire.

In keeping with the post 1990s lore, some canonical PPCs such as the Lord's Light is named after the fact that it builds up to a brilliant, blinding light for "almost two seconds" before the weapon actually fires. There's no magical minimum damage range for any PPC. The field inhibitor can be switched off to fire instantly, though there's a chance that the weapon may explode in your face. The minimum range, like for the ACs and the LRMs, are entirely minimum ranges to fire without an accuracy penalty.

IS LRMs fly up and over things and are always fired at a "ballistic launch angle" (this is actually written in the except above; the reason is that is PART of how they achieve the long range of 600 meters since LRMs are actually still smaller (narrower, longer, but overall volume is 20% less) than SRMs. Clans have more efficient fuel though for some reason that falls apart with Clan SRM ranges if taken at face value. Though with max-tech pilot skills you can double SRM ranges on either side so "accurate" ranges are not an indication of how far they could go, but how far they could go and hope to hit.

ACs have a minimum range due to barrels and weight in old lore. it is noteworthy that most ACs at the time are either held by the hands or mounted on turrets [Marauder anyone?]. The newer lore has a multitude of reasons, including convergence limitations or the blatant lack of being able to converge. There's actually so many reasons it is hard to keep track of. I think the reasons are supposed to vary by brand name.

PPCs, its a firing delay. ER PPCs have the exception of it being less than a half second (this is actually the reason for the excess heat.)

So that later reference I promised?
The GM Whirlwind/5. Someone plugged it into Sarna at some point.
1986-87 AC lore.

Note the GM Whirlwind reference.


So yeah, there was one with PPCs, too.

When discussing with Karl about brand name variants, he mentioned that Battletech (Harebrained Schemes with original FASA cofounder and Battletech tabletop creator Jordan Weisman) is doing brand specific weapon variants. (MW5 Mercs is also supposed to be doing it with their own made up values). One example that Karl said they mentioned was the Donal PPC being a harder hitting, less accurate weapon.

So I looked it up and found this. Donal PPCs are distinct for longer (than normal) barrels and blocky power chambers. The power chamber is probably the reason for additional damage. Longer barrel, not sure how that equates to less accuracy but perhaps it is necessary to have the accuracy it does possibly due to a less stable, overpowered shot?

Edit fixed a "80s" lore that was supposed to say "90s" lore.

Edited by Koniving, 26 October 2017 - 08:27 AM.

[Koniving]

One more quicky. This one from BattleTechnology which was canon until 2008 in which it is no longer currently counted as canonical due to its information being so out of date (and the excessive prevalence of the unseen mechs, rules that have changed and lores that have been retconned). The magazine is still occasionally mentioned in post 2008 Battletech novels and some short stories, however. Much of its original text is still recycled (and sometimes not even reworded) in newer publications such as the famous TechManual, TacOps, MaxTech and the new "Alpha Strike."

"The limited ranges in Battletech."


Keep in mind this is written before Guardian ECM, LBX, etc. existed. 30 years before we got a Tech Manual that said that due to the DI computer and with the measuring of the pilot's intent, a mech will automatically try to avoid being damaged (unless pilot intent can't be found, ie. the pilot is unconscious or the mech is not currently functional -- that's why you can only make "called shots" when the mech is off or the pilot is unconscious. The other exception is if the pilot INTENDS to take the damage in which case the mech will not try to avoid it such as protecting a structure, people, etc.)

One of the reasons for limited ranges is that mechs can sense incoming projectiles and will automatically try to avoid them, being more effective at this at ranges beyond the published ones. (Which its true, in megamek without any non-classic BT rules tacked in you can fire beyond the stated range for a short distance but the accuracy takes a penalty). Written 30 years before the TechManual said it with a detailed explanation.

Note the "ECM" blankets everything aspect, too. Before ECM is introduced into the game as something you can carry. This one took a page from gundam's "Minovsky particle" scheme to force more close range combat for the visual spectacle (as the show creator's reason for doing it). So you have traditional ECM everywhere, and later "reintroduced" are super ECM devices.

Speaking of which... TRO 2750 has the first entry for a number of things including the LBX and the Guardian ECM.

It turns out PGI got something half-right. It blocks target info, etc. at ranges beyond 180 meters and messes with detection. It cannot stop missile locks, however it interferes with advanced missile systems WITHIN 180 meters. In fact, it does so within 180 meters of ANY missile path, at any point in the path. So you use your Artemis to target someone 800 meters away, and somewhere along it there's an ECM mech, your Artemis enhanced LRMs are now just LRMs because the ECM interferes with your communication with the missile.

(Note BT LRMs have no need to keep locks after being fired. There's also the issue that traditional LRMs don't lock, period, but that's a whole different bag of potatoes. Artemis basically has a TAG-like invisible laser pointer that needs to be held on target to enhance their guidance. Guardian ECM can disrupt the range finding laser and it can disrupt communications with the missiles either within proximity to the launcher or to the missiles themselves [as the launcher also wirelessly talks to the missiles to guide them to the rangefinder's target even when the missiles can't see it].)

So, part of the ******** that ECM does for MWO is true at least. It also has "OS" versions of all missile weapons which are the weight of the launcher + 0.5 tons = a single shot version of any missile launcher.

Edited by Koniving, 26 October 2017 - 09:28 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Nightbird, on 26 October 2017 - 07:08 AM, said:

Any luck? Of finding material to support PPCs as something other than a flying cylindrical 'bolt' of 'plasma'?

Haven't had a chance to really look. I know p. 233 of the Tech Manual calls it a "bolt of protons or ions" (plot twist, both are ions), though you and I both know that is terribly vague. A "bolt" of lightning travels at a third the speed of light. That's a beam, not a bolt.

And pragmatically? Only the video games have ever shown them as something other than a beam with lightning swirling in a helix around the core. My nostalgia for the older games is non-existent and, mechanically, the Plasma Rifle/Cannon is the more appropriate weapon to make into an "energy autocannon". That one's operating munition literally is a flying, cylindrical (well, more likely toroidal, but looks cylindrical to your eyes) bolt of plasma.

And plasma, BTW, contains both ions and their dissociated electrons, which is decidedly not what a particle beam contains.

In case there was any confusion, I am not saying it should pulse. I am saying it should essentially be a laser with more sparkly effects and an inferior damage/heat profile. The reason I said be like a pulse laser is because a short duration (and cracking sound effect) is necessary to convey that whole " bolt of lightning" aesthetic and because a short duration beam weapon would be MIA with Pulse Lasers applied as strobes.

Quote

Any complains on the reasoning for IS heat and equipment bulk relationship?

Anything else I badly screwed up? (Other than the fact I'm trying to preserve lore)

Need to look again, will probably post later. I also have an answer to your previous question on the LHC that I'll include.

Nightbird, on 26 October 2017 - 07:18 AM, said:

Absolutely nailed it on the proximity detonation Koniving, the only reason I avoided it is because I doubt the game engine and netcode can handle it today... if I'm wrong this is what I want.

That also just makes it mediocre at all ranges, including up close, rather than just from a distance. If it is potent enough to not be mediocre, then it just replaces the AC/10. That whole mechanic is really a non-starter.

You have to make the weapons useful in some role, and you have to avoid operational overlap at least within the tech base. You can't just change the stats or mechanics for giggles or just to suit the lore, which you are already taking liberties with to justify alternatove mechanics anyway. Lore or not, the shotgun approach satisfies those requirements cleanly.

Also worth noting: do not confuse TT stats with lore. Not the same thing.

[Nightbird]

Yeonne, I believe we're quite close on our understanding lore PPCs. Velocity is hitscan, the difference between bolt and beam here is just in how damage is calculated. I think duration would be so short that there's no point in breaking up over more ticks. The visual effect can be residual ions sparking in along travelled path. But, a hitscan autocannon would be game breaking. So where do we go from here?


Re:AC being multiple shots, I knew that it could be, however sarna lists up to 203mm which is basically 1 shell for AC20. A 203mm shell weighs 220pounds irl, the cannon that shoots it weighs 20 tons. The lore can be used to further nerf ACs, but I think right now we need them as PPFLD to balance against UACs.

Edited by Nightbird, 26 October 2017 - 11:20 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Nightbird, on 26 October 2017 - 07:08 AM, said:

Any luck? Of finding material to support PPCs as something other than a flying cylindrical 'bolt' of 'plasma'?

Any complains on the reasoning for IS heat and equipment bulk relationship?

Anything else I badly screwed up? (Other than the fact I'm trying to preserve lore)

A quote from PPCs on the SARNA page:

Quote

The Particle Projector Cannon (or PPC) is an energy weapon, firing a concentrated stream of protons or ions at a target...

The ion beam also extends to much farther ranges than autocannon fire, though PPCs generate large amounts of waste heat.

Here's a 'lore' picture used from a book cover of an Awesome firing its PPCs.




I would say there's plenty to support it being a beam-type weapon.

[Koniving]

Nightbird, on 26 October 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

Re:AC being multiple shots, I knew that it could be, however sarna lists up to 203mm which is basically 1 shell for AC20. A 203mm shell weighs 220pounds irl, the cannon that shoots it weighs 20 tons. The lore can be used to further nerf ACs, but I think right now we need them as PPFLD to balance against UACs.

It lists 203mm, yes.
There is exactly one mech in history that uses that caliber.
The Ebon Jaguar.
Its 203mm cannon has twin barrels, and on ultra fire it churns four shots (2 per barrel) before the barrels need to cool before warping, in 6 seconds. Supposedly one of the reasons the Ebon Jaguar can use this high caliber UAC/20 which no other mech can, is its incredibly squat, low to the ground design as any other mech would topple over. Even then it needs to slow down and brace briefly (something you can't really accommodate for in tabletop beyond slowing down for accuracy). Of course making that restriction for just that mech while any other mech can fire while moving isn't fair, since there's no difference in tabletop UAC/20s.

Each shot is "comparable to an Inner Sphere PPC making it the most powerful autocannon ever seen."

But that comes out to 2 shots = one rating.

(Side note: The biggest gun in the IS arsenal is the 185mm Chemjet Gun, at 4 shots per cassette (and as it states above, a "Cassette" is a magazine, falsely labelled as a 'round' by the ammo computer. Second biggest gun is the Tomodzuru AC/20 of Hunchback 4G fame. It is 180mm, and phases out due to increasingly rare ammunition, replaced on the transition of a new company manufacturing 'retro' Hunchbacks on a new Crucis Type V chassis circa 3030-ish which is actually slightly larger than the traditional, more squat Komiyaba Type VII chassis of the classic Hunchback. Making parts for the old ones incompatible (so that all the field kits are useless, so that the company can make more money), but also expanding the mech so that it could be compatible with XL engines, double heatsinks, and the like. The Tomodzuru mount type 20 AC is a 5 shot magazine which can fire in burst or single shots, though it takes a full cassette to do 20 damage.

It is the detail about the Tomodzuru cannon that gives Sarna and other places their mention of "can fire either singly or in bursts." It doesn't mean a single shot does full damage.

That makes the 203mm 10 damage, the 185mm 5 damage, the 180mm 4 damage, the 150mm Crusher Super Heavy 2 damage (10 shot mags), the 120mm weapons (almost all models) 1.6667 damage, and 30mm Pontiac 100 a miniscule 0.2 damage per shell

Spoiler

with an entire 100 round cassette being spent in "a few blinks of the eye." (It is one of the fastest guns to burn through its magazine, but the reload time is between 4 and 7 seconds long on the Victor; 4 for the primary reload, 7 for the backup reload IF you have a left hand still).

For comparison, the only detailed "Heavy Rifle" aka Mech Rifle is 190mm, does 9 damage, but loses 3 against any unit with a Barrier Armor Rating above 7. Mechs and most tanks have a BAR of 10.

Side note: The twin barrel design of the Ebon Jaguar's UAC/20 is likely where PGI got its twin barrel UAC/20 concept from. That or they took their 3 barrel design and just said "screw it, two barrels."

Edited by Koniving, 26 October 2017 - 12:28 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightbird, on 26 October 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

Yeonne, I believe we're quite close on our understanding lore PPCs. Velocity is hitscan, the difference between bolt and beam here is just in how damage is calculated. I think duration would be so short that there's no point in breaking up over more ticks.

There would be a point in that it would allow for some spread however minor due to a player's accuracy not necessarily the weapon's precision.

It is interesting to think of PPCs and lasers in the following way (as it seems to be what Yeonne is pretty much aiming for):

• PPCs = `PPFLD` version of lasers
  
• Pulse = `UAC` version of lasers in the sense that you juggle multiple 'shots' in one trigger pull
  
• Beam = DPS version of lasers that are intended to be used for sustained DPS roles

In Destiny 2 terms, PPCs are your Scout Rifle, Pulse Lasers are your Pulse Rifles, and Beam Lasers are your Auto Rifles. Basically covering the 3 different spreads of damage over time for a single weapon, the only thing lasers lack is something that spreads damage spatially and not just by time.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 26 October 2017 - 12:35 PM.

[Nightbird]

I absolutely buy that AC class is the total damage done with a magazine or cassette of smaller shots. My problem then is the velocity and range. If an AC20 weapon system shoots 10 rounds of the same size and caliber of an AC2 round, shouldn't it have the same range and velocity even if aiming is more difficult due to the 'stream'?

Edit: Actually I take this back, it's not an issue. My main issue is how to differentiate UACs and ACs if they are both stream. Currently, C-ACs are completely inferior to C-UACs.

Edited by Nightbird, 26 October 2017 - 01:16 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightbird, on 26 October 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

Edit: Actually I take this back, it's not an issue. My main issue is how to differentiate UACs and ACs if they are both stream. Currently, C-ACs are completely inferior to C-UACs.

That's why it doesn't make sense to have standard ACs that stream fire. How do you then differentiate them between all the other ACs, for example here are the following types of ACs:

• Standard
  
• LBX
  
• Ultra
  
• Rotary
  
• Hyper-Velocity
  
• Light (these are sort of special in that they are meant to be ballistics for lighter chassis where tonnage is very sparse, ideally you'd see light variants of all the AC types instead of just standards)

This is the reason I tend to jump down anyone's throat when they suggest that standard ACs should be stream fire because "mah lorez" as they create serious overlap in roles at that point.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 26 October 2017 - 01:20 PM.

[Nightbird]

MischiefSC, on 26 October 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

Here's a 'lore' picture used from a book cover of an Awesome firing its PPCs.

I would say there's plenty to support it being a beam-type weapon.

Problem still remains of how to differentiate it from lasers. For a game play perspective, I'll have to give it a 6 meter damage spread if it is hitscan FLD.