187 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Sephlock, on 07 October 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

That would make it inferior to the AC/20. Spread damage is poopy.
DAKKA!

It is supposed to be inferior, at least in total damage, because it is a "10" rated gauge. I think the range is fine, as it CAN hit at 1650 but does almost no damage at that range, but it should have a damage per pellet boost, maybe even after a certain range (arming time for the burst rounds). This would make it roughly equivalent to the AC10 at close range, but still effective as a sort of flak cannon as well.

[Jman5]

Mcchuggernaut, on 06 October 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

Forgot to mention the LB 10-Xs higher crit rate on unarmored targets. Problem is, it doesn't really matter enough to warrant a mention anyway. Crit rates are not a game-changer right now, imo.

Crits are absolutely game-changers. The problem is that the game has a terrible way of letting you know the impact your crit-hits had on the enemy. If you know the hardpoints of the various mechs, you can disarm them fairly early in a fight and then either switch targets or kill him at your leisure since he's neutered. As soon as an enemy loses a major weapon like a PPC or AC/20 the dynamic of the fight changes dramatically.

On top of that, crits got buffed to do 15% added damage to internals.

[Clit Beastwood]

I ran a dual lbx jager for the first time yesterday.

4ML dual LBX - 5 kills 5-- something damage. I don't know about you guys, but I find the LBX very satisfying to shoot. I use a shotgun at the shooting range for the same reason

I also tried an ac20 in one arm lbx and 2 mg's in the other (not quite so great)... I'm really enjoying it so far.

[Zyllos]

Jman5, on 07 October 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

Crits are absolutely game-changers. The problem is that the game has a terrible way of letting you know the impact your crit-hits had on the enemy. If you know the hardpoints of the various mechs, you can disarm them fairly early in a fight and then either switch targets or kill him at your leisure since he's neutered. As soon as an enemy loses a major weapon like a PPC or AC/20 the dynamic of the fight changes dramatically.

On top of that, crits got buffed to do 15% added damage to internals.

The time it takes to change the outcome of a fight through critical hits, you or someone on your team will have a hole drilled through a single section.

This is the #1 problem with MWO.

Edited by Zyllos, 07 October 2013 - 01:40 PM.

[Mr 144]

Zyllos, on 07 October 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

The time it takes to change the outcome of a fight through critical hits, you or someone on your team will have a hole drilled through a single section.

This is the #1 problem with MWO.

Totally depends on the size of the mech...higher HP internal structures show more gain by insta-crit than who-the-hell-cares light and medium points.

[Daekar]

I have run a 2x LB10X + 4 MedLas K2 before, and it was great fun, especially if the enemy was already a little torn up. If they weren't, it was much harder unless I was very close.

I haven't spent much time with 2x AC10s, but I haven't noticed them being much more effective except at range.

For some reason, any time I add an AC/20 to a mech, I get twice as many kills if I ever get remotely in-range. I will always choose an AC/20 over a pair of LB10X cannons unless there is a very good reason not to.

[Void Angel]

I'm using an LB-X Atlas brawler in 12-mans; a D-DC with two LB-Xs, 3 SRM6s, and two medium lasers. It works very well; the LB-X is accurate enough at close range to place most or all of its damage on a single location - and the increased rate of fire makes it a monster. Not to mention, you can still glom onto other people's work do your part to harass at longer ranges for kill assists, too.

What you have to realize with the LB-X is that it is a close-range weapon. Sure, it's got the fourth-longest effective range in the game; but that's because it's damage is limited more by its spread than it's range increment. I can typically put most of my shot group on a single location on any slow-moving target - and all of it on one location if I'm shooting at another large, slow 'mech. This means that the the superior rate of fire (and heat efficiency) allow me to not only compete well within my weight class, but to stomp lighter opponents flat.

To put it another way: in order to truly compare the two weapons loadouts, you have to compare how much overall damage (dps) is being done to the amount of focus damage being done (pinpoint.) The dual LB-X setup wins the dps contest - the combined damage exceeds a single AC/20 by a whopping 60% - which is good, because you're using just under 60% more tonnage, too. The AC/20 is the winner in pinpoint damge per shot - so to figure out which is really doing more good, you have to figure out how much of the LB-X's superior dps is actually making it to the location you want to kill. This is, strictly speaking, impossible to do scientifically on the forums: too much depends on your opponent's speed, the engagement distance, the size of his hitboxes, etc. What you can do scientifically however, is determine how much of your close-range damage needs to be pinpointed with the LB-X in order to compare - that's easy: 62.5% That's the point at which your superior dps no longer punches through the enemy's armor faster than the AC/20. At middle ranges or longer, you're not going to get that. But at close range (say 270 meters or less) on a large target, you absolutely can. It becomes more difficult to model at longer ranges, since the AC/20 is losing damage, but at 540 meters (where the AC/20 is doing half damage) you would have to place only 31.25% of your dps on the desired location to break even - again, not likely to happen, but it gives you some basis for comparison.

Now, I know that someone is going to pull out the tired old chestnut about how "torso twisting" magically negates any amount of superior dps. Every time I have encountered this argument, it hasrelied on exaggeration and oversimplification - I do not find it convincing. While the superior pinpoint damage of the AC/20 is important, In practice two LB10/X ACs will often outperform it on a 100-ton BattleMech. In short, even if I just sit there and wait for him to twist back before shooting again, I'm still getting the same pinpoint as he is, close-in - and I can twist away before he can fully come to bear, forcing him to make a more difficult shot through my superior screen shake. Add in the bonus damage from two crit-seeking weapons once armor has been breached, and the LB-X combo is a clear winner - the AC/20 comes close, but no cigar.

In the end, dual LB-Xs are superior as a close-range weapon to the AC/20 - and they should be! Not only are they a shotgun, with all that implies, but the combination of two autocannons weighs 60% more! To be sure, the Ac/20 is good, too; in fact, I'm certain it's a superior skirmishing weapon - but for going toe to toe and duking it out, the dual LB-X is a stronger contender.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Daekar, on 07 October 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

For some reason, any time I add an AC/20 to a mech, I get twice as many kills if I ever get remotely in-range. I will always choose an AC/20 over a pair of LB10X cannons unless there is a very good reason not to.

It's because the AC/20 always causes pinpoint damage, as opposed to dual LB 10-Xs tendency to spread the damage out over the rest of the mech, even at very close range. You are doing as much damage per shot, for the most part, but you are not concentrating all of it on, say, the CT. You are therefore more likely to get a kill shot on an enemy and actually finish them with an A/C 20.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Void Angel, on 07 October 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

In the end, dual LB-Xs are superior as a close-range weapon to the AC/20 - and they should be! Not only are they a shotgun, with all that implies, but the combination of two autocannons weighs 60% more! To be sure, the Ac/20 is good, too; in fact, I'm certain it's a superior skirmishing weapon - but for going toe to toe and duking it out, the dual LB-X is a stronger contender.

You make a good argument. I have no doubt that at point-blank range you are going to do more damage over time. Problem is, at higher elo levels most opponents aren't going to let you walk up to them with dual A/C 10-Xs and own them. they will back up to keep out of optimum range, and pop in and out of cover and waste you first. I have had it done to me. Also, an Atlas isn't exactly subtle or stealthy, so you will most likely not sneak up on anyone and surprise them. Also, as stated, an LB 10-X does more damage over TIME, and there are plenty of situations where you only get a few quick shots on people poptarting from cover. You need single big hits on people doing that, NOT dps. You also tend to get more actual kill shots than just spreading out damage with the AC/20, so it helps your K/D a bit, too.

Also, there is the extra weight and critical spaces saved running an AC/20. 8 extra tons and 2 crit spaces does an awful lot for you. I can mount more powerful SRMs and lasers as well as carry more ammo, have a bigger engine (a faster Atlas is very helpful), cary a bit more armor, and run an AMS much more comfortably. That's a lot of advantages when you start min-maxing a build for optimum performance.

I have run both builds extensively, and on an Atlas D-DC the AC/20 is just more viable, imo. I had more success and more kills with it, after hundreds of matches with both builds. It's cool if you just like your shotgunnery, and I agree it IS more fun to use them, but in strait-up is-it-better terms, I would have to say it loses out to the AC/20 in most situations.

[Krumenool]

I am a pugger and two of these are fun on my Atlas D, and I don't know if I got consistently because I had a good team with me.

I don't get a lot of kills and I do get a lot of assists, but I try to disable (not kill) unarmored parts of enemies. I do think I did contribute because my teammates had to survive against severely weakened mechs. When I blew of half of an enemy I did not try to finish him off however, but shot at my next victim.

So yes, I do have to rely on my team to peel of some armour, but I also make it easier to for others to get kills and survive.
Add to that being an Atlas and having a lot of hitpoints.

Also I think that lasers do draw more attention, while many enemies seem to ignore me more, when I have LBX equipped.
Of course, one appeal is, to try something different everyone else is using.

Edited by Krumenool, 08 October 2013 - 10:55 AM.

[Roland]

Void Angel, on 07 October 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

In the end, dual LB-Xs are superior as a close-range weapon to the AC/20 - and they should be! Not only are they a shotgun, with all that implies, but the combination of two autocannons weighs 60% more! To be sure, the Ac/20 is good, too; in fact, I'm certain it's a superior skirmishing weapon - but for going toe to toe and duking it out, the dual LB-X is a stronger contender.

But this is a totally ridiculous statement.

Saying "22 tons of weapons is better than 14 tons of weapons" is like saying "the sky is blue."

No {Scrap}. The fact that you even have to bother making the statement that 22 tons of LBX 10 is better than 14 tons of AC20 clearly demonstrates how terrible the LBX10 is.... Because despite spending an extra 8 tons, you have a loadout which is merely comparable to the extent that you feel the need to argue that it's better.

The fact that it's 60% more tonnage is not something that you can just ignore. That's a critical aspect which plays into the LBX10 being a bad weapon. You don't have infinite tonnage. Thus, you are actually trading something (in this case, a huge amount of tonnage) for that.

It's much more reasonable to compare a SINGLE LBX10 against an AC20, because there the tonnage difference is only 3 tons... and I don't know anyone who would say a single LBX10 is even close to as effective as a single AC20.

And honestly, even if the two LBX10's weighed the same as the AC20, I think I might STILL take the AC20, because it'll kill mechs better in most cases, and doesn't require me to be at point blank range in a 100 ton mech which is inherently difficult to close range in.

[Krumenool]

You could also suggest that a weapon's effectiveness is determined by teamplay too, not just damage, range, etc.

[Mr 144]

Or you could, ya know....use something other than the atlas to compare, as it has all it's ballistics in one location...that's always the primary target. Don't compare it to a AC/20...it's right between a UAC and an AC/10, so compare it to those, again NOT in an Atlas torso.

[Cimarb]

Roland, on 08 October 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

But this is a totally ridiculous statement.

Saying "22 tons of weapons is better than 14 tons of weapons" is like saying "the sky is blue."

No {Scrap}. The fact that you even have to bother making the statement that 22 tons of LBX 10 is better than 14 tons of AC20 clearly demonstrates how terrible the LBX10 is.... Because despite spending an extra 8 tons, you have a loadout which is merely comparable to the extent that you feel the need to argue that it's better.

The fact that it's 60% more tonnage is not something that you can just ignore. That's a critical aspect which plays into the LBX10 being a bad weapon. You don't have infinite tonnage. Thus, you are actually trading something (in this case, a huge amount of tonnage) for that.

It's much more reasonable to compare a SINGLE LBX10 against an AC20, because there the tonnage difference is only 3 tons... and I don't know anyone who would say a single LBX10 is even close to as effective as a single AC20.

And honestly, even if the two LBX10's weighed the same as the AC20, I think I might STILL take the AC20, because it'll kill mechs better in most cases, and doesn't require me to be at point blank range in a 100 ton mech which is inherently difficult to close range in.

I don't know why everyone started comparing these two weapons, as the LB10X should be compared to the AC10, not AC20, but you can make the same comparison with lasers. Which is better, three LL or two PPCS? How about one LL or five medium lasers? One PPC or seven medium lasers? Blah blah blah.

You can't compare any of them without taking into account available hardpoints, heat capacity, and slot/tonnage restrictions. For instance, I don't care how good an AC20 is, I can't equip it on my Heavy Metal, so an LBX is immeasurably better in every respect simply because I CAN equip it. Using the same mech, just because five medium lasers do more damage than one large laser doesn't make a bit of difference because I can only equip three of them.

Getting back to the LBX, I really like it, as is, just because it has a much different use than the AC10. It can be used to provide covering fire to keep enemies off your approaching team, then be a brutal brawler when you catch up to your team that has ripped up the enemies' armor. The versatility is worth more to me than the raw punching power of an AC10, but that is just how I like to play.

[Duncan Longwood]

I have to agree that the CTF-IM with 2PPC + 2LBX10 is a very fun build. This thing's alpha just rips components off of mechs. The high mounted PPCs allow for ridge humping and sniping and the LBX10s allow you to cool off and deal with harassers that have closed to <90m. I run mine with only 10DHS so I can take more ammo and I haven't used coolshot on a drop yet.

I also like running a Jager with 2mlas, 4MGs, 1LBX10, and 1AC10. I find that the additional punch of the single AC10 is better than taking 2LBX10s.

The thing about an LBX that I love over the AC10 is the ability to destroy multiple components with a single shot. I have taken both exposed legs out from under many mechs with a single shot, including targets at ranges over 500m where no more than a single pellet hit each leg.

As with anything, try it out and see if it works for your play-style. You may love it, you may hate it, but at least you are listening to yourself.


Side note: While I love the Ilya, my money-maker is currently a Golden-boy Streak-taro. With Premium-time active I have gotten 250k+ cbills for a LOSE with 3kills and 7 assists and 600+dmg. (sensor range+target decay+seismic) For a win I have gotten 280k+, but it's the average cbills that this thing earns that makes it my breadwinner.

[Ngamok]

Fierostetz, on 07 October 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

I ran a dual lbx jager for the first time yesterday.

4ML dual LBX - 5 kills 5-- something damage. I don't know about you guys, but I find the LBX very satisfying to shoot. I use a shotgun at the shooting range for the same reason

I also tried an ac20 in one arm lbx and 2 mg's in the other (not quite so great)... I'm really enjoying it so far.

Light Killer

I should drop the AMS and put in BAP or do something else.

[theta123]

I am an user on my Jagermech JM6-S

Dual LB10X, STD 240. 4ML

Now why take these cannons? Yes they have better crit damage...
But

They also shoot faster then an AC10. And produce less heat. They are also lighter.

[Charons Little Helper]

Ngamok, on 08 October 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

Light Killer

I should drop the AMS and put in BAP or do something else.

Plus drop the leg armor a bit and put in a couple of small or med lasers. Increase your alpha and your firepower won't suck as much if you lose an arm.

[Razuko]

LBX is perfect where it is atm. I'd say every other ballistic should be balanced around it but all of them are in a pretty good place atm. Exception being the uac5 jamming could be reworked to be skill based instead of random chance and gauss charge timers need decreased\increased. That said, dual LBX 4ML can be pretty devastating if played right.

[Clit Beastwood]

Ngamok, on 08 October 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

Light Killer

I should drop the AMS and put in BAP or do something else.

I don't bother with streaks, but thats just me. I run an xl280 or 295 (whichever I had sitting around) which makes me fast enough to chase around after lights (not run them down, but at least stay within engagement range longer and maneuver well enough to track them.