@Fury: If it were only lower damage I wouldn't mention it, but when it's combined with a shorter range and higher power consumption, I don't see ROF being enough to give the Balor a niche beside the Prometheus. I'm not sure how to say this, but I'm not pushing for you to change the stats. I'm just saying that I get uneasy when one weapon is totally eclipsed by another (as the Prometheus R was).
I only peeked at the new table briefly, but I don't think the power usage changed since BP 3.6.10; IIRC, 0.1 power usage per shot, for 17 base power, .7 hull multiplier, and 1.0 shield multiplier, where as the Subach is .2 energy usage per shot, 15 base power, .9 hull multiplier, and .7 shield multiplier.
The Prom-S actually uses 1 whole energy point per shot, with 30 base power, .9 hull multiplier and 1.0 shield multiplier. The Balor is in fact wonderfully energy efficient, and could arguably replace the Subach entirely; it just doesn't seem to be in the same league of an offensive weapon as the Prom-S and Kayser, which The Balance of Power Part 2 suggests it is:
...Ironically, the Erinyes heavy fighter – popular among SOC units and heavy fighter squadrons – was not agile enough to stand up to the firepower of UEF gunships, and more than one GTVA ace lost her life in the cockpit of these formerly superior ships.
The GTVA's major advantage was the Balor cannon. Modular, powerful, and intimidating, the Balor became the bread-and-butter weapon of GTVA pilots. The UEF fighter corps grew to fear the Balor intensely. Novice pilots generally lost their life when attacked by Myrmidons or Persei wielding Balors: the oncoming arcs of silver light triggered an instinctive reaction to break and turn away, and the Balor chewed through both shields and UEF armor with ease.
Aces in Erinyes, likely wielding top-tier cannons like the Prom-S/Kayser and Maxim were outmatched by UEF fighters, but Persei and Myrmidons with Balors made the UEF wet their collective pants in fear? Admittedly, I don't know exactly what UEF fighters are like, but as it is, I'm not seeing it.
A 'machine gun' should do
more damage per second than a 'sniper rifle', as there's a strong chance that all of the fire is not going to hit, especially when the machine gun's shots travel slower.
And yes, as the above poster mentioned(yay, slow typing), damage-over-time weapons also leave the user vulnerable to others' fire. A slow firing, high-power gun lets you snap off a shot, jink while it recycles, and line up again to fire the next round, whereas a rapid-fire, low-power gun forces you to fly a far more predictable pattern to stay lined up on target.