I would also add ERML more reach plus you still have two. If your rolls are bad nice to have another shot.
With the ERML, you're back to six-of-one-half-a-dozen-of-the-other. The difference is heat burden.
ERML: 5 heat,
MPL:4 Heat,
ML: 3 Heat.
The range differences in order:
ERML:
ML
MPL
The ER outperforms on range, but is worse on heat than either the ML or MPL, the Standard ML outperforms the MPL on heat (one point less) AND Range, and weighs less than the MPL, but only exactly the same amount, as the heatier and longer-ranged ERML.
Now, in this era of DHS, most of the time if you can fit a standard medium, you're just as good taking an ERML, except on vees, but in either case you're paying twice the mass if you want the shorter-ranged MPL, which, if you ARE constrained by heat capacity, you're going to pay more heat to use, than if you use a Stanard Medium in its place.
Really, the only general-purposes advantage the Pulser has over the Standard comes about against infantry-and it's not like you can't mount a MG that will kill more of the little bastards for the saved tonnage, is it (assuming crit spaces), or a Flamer, which does infantry barbecue AND doesn't have that irritating explosive ammunition issue.
Really, the MPL is one of those weapons where you're trying to soak up the extra tonnes because you ran out of crit spaces by loading down on the Endo, Ferro, and DHS until you're short spaces for weapons.
