190 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

Karl Streiger, on 15 March 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

The AC 5 worked bad in the MW games?
In MW 5 the ACs where in general killing weapons, but the main problem was that you could hardly have enough ammunition. In MW-4 ammunition was never a problem even with the Heavy Gauss. There the AC 5 had the nice advantage to knock down the enemy aim its drawback was that it was hardly possible to kill a enemy with a clean headshot or in this case in a clean tripple shot - something that was possible in MW2 and MW3

MechWarrior 5? Are you from the future? Could you share some winning lottery numbers with us?

That said, from what you are explaining I think you're talking about the RAC/5 in MW4. The RAC/5 was actually a very good weapon for knock back and such and Rotary ACs are just really nasty weapons no matter where they've appeared (MechWarrior games, table top, etc). The main reason is that while they fit similar size and space to an Ultra AC, they can fire up to 6 times as fast and can unjam if they lock up (unlike the Ultra); in MW4 you couldn't aim at all if you were being hammered by RACs.

However, if you are talking about standard ACs or even Ultra ACs, they really didn't impact your aim all that much in MW4; LRMs were far, far better for rocking a target before RACs came along.

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net...Mech_Technology

There you go, the lion's share of it as directly relates to an MW video game. The link is in my signature on every one of my posts.

I.. uh.. what do I say to this? Yeah, the 'mechs in CBT are the same 'mechs in MW and.. what are you trying to say? Of course they share a canon base, it doesn't mean any of their systems of gameplay are the same.

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

I didn't derail anything.

You'd like specificity?

http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__107060

Another of my sig links.

I can't see how you could possibly have any valid reason from anything I've posted in this thread to say that my comments were kneejerk.

I suspect you won't put in the time to wade through either of those links, and I bet that won't stop you from making comments that are wrong.

Honestly I have to agree that you've kind of de-railed, but I think "gone off the rails" might be more accurate; you're talking about a lot of metagame fluff that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that ACs have been pretty bad in table top, and terrible in all but one MechWarrior game (due to the inclusion of aircraft and infantry, which ACs were given a non-canon buff to damaging).

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

So, there should be no penetrating hits system, no way of damaging what's inside of a mech at all, until it's armor is fully stripped?

Yeah, exactly what I'm saying. To be honest we've started turning TACs off even in our Megamek games, as they add nothing but a random chance of the game ending to a single bad dice throw. In a MW title such randomization is even further a bad idea.

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

You have the developers phone numbers or some such? How can you know what they're planning to eventually add?

They've said repeatedly that the game will not have aerospace or tanks, pending a far, far, far future expansion at which case the role of light ACs could be re-evaluated.

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

I guess damaging your opponents at extreme range doesn't count if it's not a knock-down shot, than? Nor any other factors beyond damage for weight/tonnage/heat... factors beyond those like cost, availability, and ammo types?

Factors like size and tonnage are exactly what we're talking about, for one. The light ACs weigh far too much to make them favorable to weapons like the Gauss Rifle, and the minute range advantage is not enough to sway popularity. If you can get 3 tiny 2 damage shots on a target before they pull into Gauss range and then, in a single shot, do more damage than you could over the next 30 seconds why on Earth would you ever take the terrible weapon aside from a gimmick?

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

The BTU is not nebulous; it's all printed out and well known, and the MechWarrior video game genre, by definition, is all about the BTU.

However just due to the nature of it - realtime vs turn based, strategy vs sim, etc. it IS nebulous. Sharing a common universe and concepts doesn't really change that? It's impossible to straight port gameplay from one part of the BTU to another without changing it to represent the basic idea.

The reason we're talking about light ACs is honestly, they're bad even in the board game so representing them as they are is just insuring that people avoid them like the plague.

Edited by Victor Morson, 16 March 2012 - 01:25 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Victor Morson, on 16 March 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

MechWarrior 5? Are you from the future? Could you share some winning lottery numbers with us?

AC 2 AC 5 MW5 MW2 MW3---numbers number more numbers
Talking about all the numbers made me nervous...meant 2 as you may know
the RAC is indeed a good killing weapon - achieving the aim with raw force - and the best argument versus standard ACs - little less range, only 2 tons more weight, only 1 crit more...drawback available not before 3062

I still believe that the AC will become a common sight on the battle field of MWO...my suggestion with a nervous heat level - like it looks in the in game vid - because even the Altas was overheating. Dealing damage with low heat is better as dealing no damage with a PPC because you mech is allready overheated

Edited by Karl Streiger, 16 March 2012 - 02:26 AM.

[Cifu]

Karl Streiger, on 16 March 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

the RAC is indeed a good killing weapon - achieving the aim with raw force - and the best argument versus standard ACs - little less range, only 2 tons more weight, only 1 crit more...drawback available not before 3062

I hope i never seen the RAC, Heavy Lasers, Sub-nose PPC and such abnominations in the game. We have more than enough type of weapons even in 3049, why make zillion new, which make the earlier weapons useless?

Karl Streiger, on 16 March 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

I still believe that the AC will become a common sight on the battle field of MWO...my suggestion with a nervous heat level - like it looks in the in game vid - because even the Altas was overheating. Dealing damage with low heat is better as dealing no damage with a PPC because you mech is allready overheated

Actually as i know the current mech chassis line, and understand the game setup, we won't really see many AC/2 (and perhaps not even AC/5) in the current frame. The only basic chassis use AC/5 is the Dragon, and there is a Dragon version (DRG-1C), which exchange the AC/5 for an AC/2. I have the feeling it's far from a popular choice...

Edited by Cifu, 16 March 2012 - 06:55 AM.

[SnowDragon]

Heavy Lasers and RACs are canon. But not from 3049 I don't think, I can't be sure. I know heavy lasers were Clan though. In TT, they gave a negative modifier (Bad way) to hit.

Edited by SnowDragon, 16 March 2012 - 03:44 AM.

[Cifu]

SnowDragon, on 16 March 2012 - 03:43 AM, said:

Heavy Lasers and RACs are canon. But not from 3049 I don't think, I can't be sure. I know heavy lasers were Clan though. In TT, they gave a negative modifier (Bad way) to hit.

Both are 3062, as i recall. But even if they canon, i think it's from the darkest age of Battletech IP. Personally i prefer the 3025-3055 era. From 3060's there is more and more unlogical, unbalanced and ugly desings become spreading in the Battletech world, without a real reason (there is many advanced rules exits even in the 3025-3050 era, like reflective or reactive armor, which hardly emerge in the MWO...).

Edited by Cifu, 16 March 2012 - 07:01 AM.

[Outlaw2]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net...Mech_Technology

There you go, the lion's share of it as directly relates to an MW video game. The link is in my signature on every one of my posts.



I didn't derail anything.

You'd like specificity?

http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__107060

Another of my sig links.



I can't see how you could possibly have any valid reason from anything I've posted in this thread to say that my comments were kneejerk.

I suspect you won't put in the time to wade through either of those links, and I bet that won't stop you from making comments that are wrong.

Well this is going nowhere....Seems you are basing most on the TROs / Tech manuals(just going off the sarna article ...that you wrote) and your wall of text reads like a BTU literalist manifesto .
It also seems anybody saying something is wrong in the Mechwarrior games gets a reflexive response that everything is fine if they followed BTU/parent game, with no basis in past MW games. Due to the nature of the PC game, somethings will not satisfy your desire for strict adherence to TRO/BTU due to gameplay considerations...and you need to get over that.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 16 March 2012 - 07:22 AM.

[Corsair114]

Let's not forget: Even if you make them high-DPS weapons, you're still faced with the fact that they're only adding up vs, say, Gauss rifles, if your target is out in the open letting you shoot it. If it's peeking and shooting (and with the current sensors setup, it looks very likely it'll not be overly hard to get close undetected) you're going to come up so far behind on damage it's not even remotely hilarious. Now, that said, one thing I can virtually guarantee is that the AC2 and AC5 will both have much, much higher projectile velocity than, say, the AC20. Those AC20 shells were slow in the GDC trailer, to the point that if 'mech movement was faster, it'd not be terribly hard to reflexively dodge them every time.

[Strum Wealh]

Yeach, on 16 March 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

Not a fan of the AC2. Sure you can plink people from far away, but all that does is give your position away.

AC5 needs a boost in range; it only has a 3 hex range advantage over the AC10. Need to at least give it the range of the regular PPC.
Tonnage and crits not withstanding, i don't think IMO the various ACs (compared to each) have been well balanced to each other.
If ACs damage goes up exponetially: 2 -> 5 -> 10 -> 20,
Range should have also have gone up exponentially (from larger ACs to smaller);
AC5 should have 4 times the range of the AC20 instead of the 2x it has now.

Actually, the Standard AC-5 does have the same range-brackets as the Standard PPC - that's part of what makes the main armaments of the Marauder work so well.
Moreover, it's the same set of range brackets used by the LB-X AC-10, the UAC-10, the LAC-2 the RAC-2, and the Heavy PPC.

----------

Victor Morson, on 14 March 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

Basically, I've been attempting to think of a way to balance low-caliber Autocannon weapons - AC/2 and AC/5, as well as Machine Guns, including their upgraded brethren (UAC, LBX) and other than the ammunition concept from earlier, I'm drawing a blank.

I'm at a loss as to how these can be made useful and not just wasted weapons that sit unused as they have been in the past. Does anyone have any thoughts on the issue?

One thing that could help the lighter weapons (if the Devs might consider such a detail, if they haven't already) is having the weight of the weapons themselves affect the convergence speed, with the mass of the weapons acting as a modifier to the BattleMechs' base tracking speed.

Under this scheme, lightweight weapons (and lightweight clusters of weapons) could track faster and be brought to bear more quickly than heavier weapons (and heavier clusters of weapons).
This, combined with the generally longer ranges, would allow the lighter ACs (and lighter weapons in general) to be generally better for taking hastily-aimed pop-shots and for maintaining a higher hit-rate against faster targets and/or targets at range, while heavier, harder-hitting weapons (heavier ACs, Gauss Rifles) would need more time to be aimed optimally - a noticeable disadvantage against faster targets at greater distances, but generally negated when the targets are slower and/or closer.

Even in the case of weapons with similar ranges and different weights (say, Standard AC-5 vs LB-X AC-10), the former would still have the advantage of faster convergence and, as a result, this be better-able to deal with fast targets and far-away targets (in addition to carrying more ammo per ton and leaving additional weight for additional weapons/armor/ammo/equipment/heat sinks/engine upgrades/etc.).
The balancing disadvantage, of course, is still low damage-per-salvo and lower maximum-damage-output-per-unit-time (though, the potential for an increased hit rate may partially make up for that).

Thus, the lower-caliber ACs have additional worthwhile advantages (better tracking and lower convergence times) in addition to their traditional strengths (longer ranges, more ammo per ton, very low heat production, less bulk, and (ideally) higher muzzle velocities) and their traditional weaknesses (low damage per ton, low damage per second, and low damage per shot) versus the larger-bore ACs and the Gauss Rifles.

Your thoughts?

[Exilyth]

According to the TT rules, Ultra-ACs can fire either like normal ACs, or with twice the rof, but when 'firing double', there is a chance to jam until repaired. RACs can fire normal, or 2, or 4 up to 6 shots with increasing chances for jams.

I think if it was implemented similar in MWO, it would at least create some balance between the different ACs.
Afaik, in the other games, you could fire ULtra-ACs all day long without a jam...

Edited by Exilyth, 16 March 2012 - 02:40 PM.

[anglomanii]

I still hope the devs use relatively realistic ballistics when dealing with AC's, being able to penetrate cover(trees,brush, low integrity structures) and effect a target or to reduce an object(walls, buildings, bridges ect) of cover needs to be implemented, secondary effects also need to be looked at, ie: setting fire to structures or cover, and suppressive concussion (as well as the mechanised infantries worst nightmare internal ricochets) . might also be nice to cause sympathetic detonations as well (is it possible to LBX a LRM spread?)

[Cifu]

anglomanii, on 17 March 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

I still hope the devs use relatively realistic ballistics when dealing with AC's, being able to penetrate cover(trees,brush, low integrity structures) and effect a target or to reduce an object(walls, buildings, bridges ect) of cover needs to be implemented, secondary effects also need to be looked at, ie: setting fire to structures or cover, and suppressive concussion (as well as the mechanised infantries worst nightmare internal ricochets) . might also be nice to cause sympathetic detonations as well (is it possible to LBX a LRM spread?)

Well, realism isn't really happen in the BT world. Just think it over how an MG or Small Laser has 90m of effective range, when even a hundred year ago the Maxim machine-gun have around twenty times more. And the longest range AC/2 has only 720m...
Realism isn't can be catched in the laser's too, because the laser beam cannot be seen in normal circumstances (just think the laser pointers), and the laser energy can be easly negated with smoke (the current tanks have laser warning systems, which use smoke grenades to make smoke screens for this reason).

So even if i'm love the BT and Mechwarrior world, i do not expect realism. It's not exits in this league...

Edited by Cifu, 18 March 2012 - 11:48 PM.

[LordDeathStrike]

ac fire could have a spread similar to missiles, say at max effective range, they have a % deviation from the bullseye spot in any given direction of the crosshairs. very few weapons fire successive shots to hit the same spot at the first one, no automatic weapons do this.

ild say for an ac 2 at max range, a max spread of 2m from center of bullseye would be very acceptable. (first round within 1m, then widening as you auto fire and the weapon recoils)

this balances the repetitious hitting of a single location rapidly factor, smaller mechs will even evade some hits, atlas size mechs will have spread dmg.

anglomanii, on 17 March 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

I still hope the devs use relatively realistic ballistics when dealing with AC's, being able to penetrate cover(trees,brush, low integrity structures) and effect a target or to reduce an object(walls, buildings, bridges ect) of cover needs to be implemented, secondary effects also need to be looked at, ie: setting fire to structures or cover, and suppressive concussion (as well as the mechanised infantries worst nightmare internal ricochets) . might also be nice to cause sympathetic detonations as well (is it possible to LBX a LRM spread?)

if you wanna shoot down lrms, mount ams systems in your modules!

[Karl Streiger]

@Cifu
range on sheat <> range of the weapon. consider the range of a mech weapon as a range where the weapon is able to hit "AND" deal damage.
I don't think that you maxim is able to hurt even a light tank at ranges above 100m.


While bt armor is ablative you need still a minor penetration to deal damage to that armor - in case of machine guns you need a long concentrated burst to break through the armor.

In other games you have save rolls, or the MoF multiple the damage of the weapon--- battletech uses simple ranges

This image work well for intro tech - some newer toys make it hard to explain it in the same way.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 19 March 2012 - 12:13 AM.

[Cifu]

Karl Streiger, on 19 March 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

@Cifu
range on sheat <> range of the weapon. consider the range of a mech weapon as a range where the weapon is able to hit "AND" deal damage.
I don't think that you maxim is able to hurt even a light tank at ranges above 100m.

This image work well for intro tech - some newer toys make it hard to explain it in the same way.

While bt armor is ablative you need still a minor penetration to deal damage to that armor - in case of machine guns you need a long concentrated burst to break through the armor.

Well, then let's see, in the BT, the MG have 0,5 tons weight. For 0,5 tons, currently you even can have a 40mm Bofors autocannon, which have 30mm armor penetration at 2000 yards (1,829 m)...

Edited by Cifu, 19 March 2012 - 12:19 AM.

[LordDeathStrike]

Cifu, on 19 March 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

Well, then let's see, in the BT, the MG have 0,5 tons weight. For 0,5 tons, currently you even can have a 40mm Bofors autocannon, which have 30mm armor penetration at 2000 yards (1,829 m)...

and in battle tech you cant see more then 1200 meters (thats the most advanced sensors) 1000 meters normally, and if the enemy has good ecm, 300m. you can zoom fairly reliably to around 800m visual sight. the reason is they polute every battle field permanently with radiation that blocks all em bands effectively, you cant scan with radar or any other sensor tech, or visually see light wavelengths beyond those ranges, the only reason you can see that far is enhanced optics that filter out the visual static.

battle tech is based on our universe more or less, but this is the system that went into place that screwed up long range attacks. it turned long range warfare into junk and made everything into a knife fight withing 1 click. although with local spotting you can attempt to have artillery blindly fire at coordinates for you, but its expensive to saturate ammo like that without garenteeing any hits.

Edited by LordDeathStrike, 19 March 2012 - 12:30 AM.

[That Guy]

because BT was created as a game, and by people who were not:

A: engineers, scientists

B: Military/Mil experts

because of that we have all the associated oddities that it brings (especially when all of it is presented in a way that is realistic, and is suppose to be "real"). a 18m high walking robot that somehow ONLY weighs in at 100 metric tons, and 25-30 mm auto cannons that wiegh in at a back breaking 8 tons. not to mention weapon ranges that are somehow shorter than that of a modern (or even NOT modern) infantry rifle squad.

if BT were truly "rebooted", I would try to give those two areas some more justice. and mech scale. but unless PGI are TOTALLY redoing weapon and armor/damage stats, we are going to have to live with cannon untill we are given more information otherwise

LordDeathStrike, on 19 March 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

and in battle tech you cant see more then 1200 meters (thats the most advanced sensors) 1000 meters normally, and if the enemy has good ecm, 300m. you can zoom fairly reliably to around 800m visual sight. the reason is they polute every battle field permanently with radiation that blocks all em bands effectively, you cant scan with radar or any other sensor tech, or visually see light wavelengths beyond those ranges, the only reason you can see that far is enhanced optics that filter out the visual static.

battle tech is based on our universe more or less, but this is the system that went into place that screwed up long range attacks. it turned long range warfare into junk and made everything into a knife fight withing 1 click. although with local spotting you can attempt to have artillery blindly fire at coordinates for you, but its expensive to saturate ammo like that without garenteeing any hits.

whoa, wait, what? is that true? is that the explanation they give? link?

Edited by That Guy, 19 March 2012 - 12:36 AM.

[Siilk]

Strum Wealh, on 16 March 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

One thing that could help the lighter weapons (if the Devs might consider such a detail, if they haven't already) is having the weight of the weapons themselves affect the convergence speed, with the mass of the weapons acting as a modifier to the BattleMechs' base tracking speed.

Under this scheme, lightweight weapons (and lightweight clusters of weapons) could track faster and be brought to bear more quickly than heavier weapons (and heavier clusters of weapons).
This, combined with the generally longer ranges, would allow the lighter ACs (and lighter weapons in general) to be generally better for taking hastily-aimed pop-shots and for maintaining a higher hit-rate against faster targets and/or targets at range, while heavier, harder-hitting weapons (heavier ACs, Gauss Rifles) would need more time to be aimed optimally - a noticeable disadvantage against faster targets at greater distances, but generally negated when the targets are slower and/or closer.

Even in the case of weapons with similar ranges and different weights (say, Standard AC-5 vs LB-X AC-10), the former would still have the advantage of faster convergence and, as a result, this be better-able to deal with fast targets and far-away targets (in addition to carrying more ammo per ton and leaving additional weight for additional weapons/armor/ammo/equipment/heat sinks/engine upgrades/etc.).
The balancing disadvantage, of course, is still low damage-per-salvo and lower maximum-damage-output-per-unit-time (though, the potential for an increased hit rate may partially make up for that).

Thus, the lower-caliber ACs have additional worthwhile advantages (better tracking and lower convergence times) in addition to their traditional strengths (longer ranges, more ammo per ton, very low heat production, less bulk, and (ideally) higher muzzle velocities) and their traditional weaknesses (low damage per ton, low damage per second, and low damage per shot) versus the larger-bore ACs and the Gauss Rifles.

Your thoughts?

Really like your idea. It makes sense and would add low-cal ACs a good boost in usefulness.

[Karl Streiger]

Cifu, on 19 March 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

Well, then let's see, in the BT, the MG have 0,5 tons weight. For 0,5 tons, currently you even can have a 40mm Bofors autocannon, which have 30mm armor penetration at 2000 yards (1,829 m)...

Great...the weight of the AC 5 made it similar to the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore

M256)- but that doesn't mean that a group of modern day MBT would have a chance against battlemechs?

I duno - as it was said don't mix modern day weapons with battletech.

We can talk about a crossover - where the SRM 6 is able to fire 6 Hellfire class missiles - but thats it

Edited by Karl Streiger, 19 March 2012 - 04:52 AM.

[Gabriel Amarell]

Like a lot of you I have been thinking about which Mech’s I’ll pilot, and what kind of gear ill give it, because I’m a numbers guy that I started crunching the numbers to help me make my decision and I had to put this up when I ran the numbers because they are so… well look for yourselves if you’ve any interest. For reference I am using the numbers from http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Weapons

Yes, I am aware that these are not Piranha’s MWO numbers, as I understand it the numbers on Sarna are tabletop numbers from cannon Battletech. Even if Piranha does not use some derivation of the tabletop critical slot system they have been saying all along that they intend to keep the game as canonically faithful as possible, and these numbers are canonical, so without further adeu, the numbers. (Inner Sphere model AC’s available circa 3050)

Standard AC-2: 6 tons, 1 critical slot, 2 damage, 1 heat.
6 TONS for a weapon that deals less damage than a Small Laser? It’s a long range weapon ballistic weapon so missing is a major problem as is running out of ammo, couple that with pathetic damage and you have a really useless weapon here, why would anyone field one of these

LBX AC-2: 6 tons, 4 critical slots, 2 damage, 1 heat. (Inner Sphere model introduced 3058)
How exactly is this an upgrade, its 4 critical instead of 1 and the only difference is that it’s able to utilize cluster ammunition…

Standard AC-5: 8 tons, 4 critical slots, 5 damage, 1 heat.
8 tons and 4 critical slots for a weapon that does the same damage as a medium laser at, it has twice the range but it weighs 8 times as much and it uses ammo…

Standard AC-10: 12 tons, 7 critical slots, 10 damage, 3 heat.
OK, so we’re starting to get a little better, but really 12 tons for 10 damage? I’ll grant that it’s concentrated on a single area of the target, but this weapon is exceedingly heavy and 7 critical slots, its bulky as hell too, add to that the weight of ammo and the danger of ammo explosions…

Standard AC-20: 14 tons, 10 critical slots, 20 damage, 7 heat.
As expected, this is the best of the group, but wow, what a price you pay. 20 damage to a single section of the target, and according to Sarna the same range as a medium laser so the damage potential is definitely there, but 14 tons + ammo and the potential for ammo explosions + 10 critical slots.

Let me put it in perspective
Standard Medium Laser: 1 ton, 1 critical slot, 5 damage, 3 heat.
Now, we have already seen that lasers do their damage over time, so concentrating their damage the way an AC concentrates its damage will be almost impossible, but with the 14 tons and 10 critical slots an AC 20 takes up you can mount 5 medium lasers and 5 standard heatsinks (10 tons, 10 critical slots)

The AC-20 and even the AC-10 might hold their own, but look at the AC-2/AC-5, the AC-2 has a pathetic damage profile for a 6 ton weapon, and the AC-5 isn’t much better. Why would anyone possibly want to equip either of them when they could have a Large Laser: 5 tons, 2 critical slots, 8 heat, 8 damage. It has no ammo, less weight than an AC-2, more firepower than an AC-5, why would you want either of them. The Ultra series AC’s are a big improvement, but the inner sphere versions aren’t even available until 3057, and even doubling the damage of the AC-2 isn’t enough, especially when the price is exacerbating its ammo problems.

I see no use at all for either the AC-2 or AC-5, this is a case where I would like to see a departure from cannon, maybe make their ammunition smaller and lighter (more ammo per ton?) and increase their firing rate significantly. I do not want to make them OP, just increase them to the point where they are say, competitive with the Large Pulse Lasers? Am I the only one who would like to see all the weapons be good for something?

[Soviet Alex]

The AC2 & AC5 in MW3 were very different to the AC2 & AC5 in Battletech. Players of other Mechwarior titles have said the same. The long range & near-continuous rate of fire meant that massed AC2s could bring down opponents long before they were close enough to shoot back. With neglible heat build-up, you could keep your finger on the trigger & strafe moving targets. The PPC either hits or it misses, whereas ACs can walk the shots onto a target.

Also, when comparing the AC2 to a Large Laser and the AC5 to a PPC, remember that in MW-O you get all of that heat at once when you fire energy weapons and dissipate it slowly over time, unlike Battletech's 10 second heat averaged turns. And both the laser and the PPC have long recharge cycles.