Difference between revisions of "Talk:Autocannon/2"
Sarna News
(moved opinion to discussion page) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Regarding the in-game function of standard 2, 5, 10, and 20 ACs: compared to the alternatives, ACs are a poor alternative to missiles and lasers, even taking heat into account. Consider the Large Laser versus the AC/10. The AC/10 gives you a better heat to damage ratio, but at what cost? 12 tons plus at least one more ton of ammunition. If you invested a total of 12 tons into a Large Laser, you spend 5 for the laser, and 7 for heat sinks. That amounts to 8 damage and 1 heat at the same range, with fewer critical slots taken up. On top of that, the Large Laser costs half the C-Bills of an AC/10. Apply this same critique to all ACs and you will quickly find that you are much better off going with the alternative weapons. PLEASE NOTE: this may or may not apply to more up-to-date ACs. {{unsigned|Kendrick| on 29 August 2008}} | Regarding the in-game function of standard 2, 5, 10, and 20 ACs: compared to the alternatives, ACs are a poor alternative to missiles and lasers, even taking heat into account. Consider the Large Laser versus the AC/10. The AC/10 gives you a better heat to damage ratio, but at what cost? 12 tons plus at least one more ton of ammunition. If you invested a total of 12 tons into a Large Laser, you spend 5 for the laser, and 7 for heat sinks. That amounts to 8 damage and 1 heat at the same range, with fewer critical slots taken up. On top of that, the Large Laser costs half the C-Bills of an AC/10. Apply this same critique to all ACs and you will quickly find that you are much better off going with the alternative weapons. PLEASE NOTE: this may or may not apply to more up-to-date ACs. {{unsigned|Kendrick| on 29 August 2008}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Example== | ||
| + | Yeah, comparisons suck when they don't have anything to compare to... | ||
Revision as of 18:05, 7 May 2010
Regarding the in-game function of standard 2, 5, 10, and 20 ACs: compared to the alternatives, ACs are a poor alternative to missiles and lasers, even taking heat into account. Consider the Large Laser versus the AC/10. The AC/10 gives you a better heat to damage ratio, but at what cost? 12 tons plus at least one more ton of ammunition. If you invested a total of 12 tons into a Large Laser, you spend 5 for the laser, and 7 for heat sinks. That amounts to 8 damage and 1 heat at the same range, with fewer critical slots taken up. On top of that, the Large Laser costs half the C-Bills of an AC/10. Apply this same critique to all ACs and you will quickly find that you are much better off going with the alternative weapons. PLEASE NOTE: this may or may not apply to more up-to-date ACs. — The preceding unsigned comment was posted by Kendrick (talk • contribs) on 29 August 2008.
Example
Yeah, comparisons suck when they don't have anything to compare to...