MechaKitsune, on 01 November 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:
The balance between these weapons comes down to one requiring ammo and the other not.
Don't forget that a weapon that requires ammo not only carries the concern of running out of ammo mid-match, but also must allocate more tonnage on their mech just to make the weapon operable. 7 tons for a PPC with no ammo concerns, vs a 15 ton Gauss rifle with the requirement to dedicate even more tonnage to make the weapon operable.
When you look at it that way they start to even out. It's all a matter of what your play-style is.
Thing is, if you're adding a weapon (and not just an energy weapon) to a mech whose heat dissipation capacity is already dedicated, then you have to add heat sinks or you'll lower the damage output of the mech per unit time instead of increasing it.
Lets look at a mech with a medium laser installed. A mech with the default 10 HS in it's engine has a heat dissipation rate of 1.0. That is, 1 heat per second.
A Medium laser generates 4 heat per shot, and has a max RoF of once every four seconds. This means, with a heat dissipation rate of 1.0, that the mech is heat neutral when standing still.
If you add an AC/10 to the mech, without adding heat sinks, and manually pegging the firing cycle to that of the Medium laser, you're now generating 7 heat every 4 seconds, and dissipating 4 of them. This leaves you adding 3 heat every 4 seconds to your heat gauge...and leads to overheating in about a minute (53.33 seconds).
If you add ten heat sinks along with the AC/10 (and associated ammo) you can fire the pair of weapons every four seconds without worrying about heat build up.
If you add
eight heat sinks along with the AC/10 (and associated ammo) you can fire the pair of weapons every four seconds without worrying about heat build up.
If you add a high heat weapon (like a Large Pulse Laser or PPC) and expect to use it at the same RoF as the medium laser (which requires 10 sinks to hold it neutral at max RoF) you're looking at huge numbers of heat sinks.
The LPL has the same max RoF as the Medium Laser. But it requires 9 heat to be dissipated in 4 seconds instead of 4. This requires a heat dissipation rate of 9/4 or 2.25.
If you add this to the mech with the Medium laser, you have to add 23 heat sinks along with the weapon if you expect to fire it at the same rate with the same heat buildup. (ie, heat neutral).
If you
replace the Medium Laser, you only need add 13 heat sinks.
If you replace the Medium, and don't add heat sinks, you are going to have to fire at a much slower rate (9 heat / 1 heat per second = 9 seconds ==> fire once every 9 seconds) than your maximum RoF or you will build up heat. Build up heat long enough by firing at Max RoF and you will shut down.
Compare the AC/10 and the LPL.
AC/10 requires 10 heat sinks and some (small) amount of ammo to be able to fire at the same rate as the Med Laser it's supporting.
LPL requires 23 heat sinks.
This means the AC/10 can carry 13 tons of ammo.
Each ton is the equivalent of a minute of fire at 1 shot every 4 seconds. (15 shots per ton * 4 seconds per shot = 60 seconds per ton).
This means, for the same mass investment, you can add an AC10 that you can fire continuously at the same rate as the medium laser for 86.67% of the match.
13 minutes of continuous fire. But who needs that much? Take three or four tons and you're probably good. Take 5 and you're almost certainly good.
LPL system requires 30 tons (7 tons weapon, 23 tons heat sinks)
AC/10 system requires 20 tons + ammo.
Thus you could take 10 tons of ammo for the same mass investment as an LPL.
10 tons of ammo at 1 shot every 4 seconds is ten minutes of fire, or 66% of a max match length. Four to six tons should be plenty.
End conclusion:
Ammo dependence is NOT a handicap.
[Edits] Screwed up my math... did this in a hurry and didn't check along the way. Fixed.
Edited by Vapor Trail, 01 November 2012 - 06:08 AM.
1
to discuss how big the gulf really is.. or is it? Should I keep using PPC's?
