342 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

It's actually not bad. Not bad at all. Better than a standard AC10. Bishop Steiner proposed running a 2xLB10X, 4xMG and 2xML Jag DD for kicks as a troll build.

Shockingly, it kicks ass. Not a little; a lot. Performing better than AC40 on the same build.

2 kills is common, 4 to 6 not uncommong, damage in the 600-800 range pretty regular. It's a face-[blaster]. It's a sloppy, violent, 'walk up holding 3 firebuttons down and stay close until they explode' sort of mech. It reminds me of the old SRM builds.

So it got me re-evaluating lb10X. Having run it for about 40 matches now I'm seeing significant worth to LB10X. It's a bit clumsy getting the armor off but once you get through it's flat out stupidly destructive. I just finished a face-to-face hump-fest with a 3xAC5 Ilya, both of us undamaged. I not only won but won quickly; got out of it with yellow armor. Similar situation with a BM earlier, it seems to generate a constant amount of screen-shake and unless someone has me at 400m or so after 40 matches I've rarely been the effective subject of precision fire. This offsets, significantly, the drawbacks of the Jags fat side torsos.

So who else wants to run a good 30+ match LB10X test? A lot of weapons perform better in practice than in pure numbers. Anyone want to give some serious, hard-won results on weapon performance? I'm going to seriously re-evaluate it. I might swap my AC20 on my Atlas for 2xLB10X, it's a face-[blaster] anyway.

Edited by miSs, 30 April 2014 - 07:09 AM.

[Roland]

Run the tests and describe your methodology. If you are planning on using live game data to test, I'd recommend making videos of the test games.

The last time folks were making the claims that the LBX10 wasn't crap, I was open minded and did fairly extensive testing with them... and they were still total crap compared to other weapons. That's not to say I couldn't kill mechs with them.. merely that they were far less efficient at killing mechs than with other weapons.

I don't believe they've changed the LBX since I last tested them, so I'm not sure why they would suddenly be any better... but I encourage you to test them and present results.

[BLOOD WOLF]

was running dua Lbx 10's on my Cata-3D. I was never short of 500 damage a match and few good kills

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 29 April 2014 - 02:00 PM.

[TexAce]

I run my Jäger-S as a Dual LBX build since the Jag came out and it always kicked ass, after more than 400 games in it, I still have a 2.5+ K/D with it. Its my most-fun mech.

Edited by TexAss, 29 April 2014 - 02:01 PM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

BLOOD WOLF, on 29 April 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

was running dua Lbx 10's on my Cata-3D. Man I was never short of 500 damage a match and few good kills

500 damage is nothing to write home about.

And that part of having double LBX is the reason why you had elevated damage numbers. LBX spread their damage around significantly so you end up having to deal more damage out (which is far less effective/efficient) to get the same number of kills or component destructions.

Its placebo effect. If you enjoy 2xLBX10's you should really try double 10's instead.

[Roland]

BLOOD WOLF, on 29 April 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

was running dua Lbx 10's on my Cata-3D. Man I was never short of 500 damage a match and few good kills

For the record, this here is really NOT useful data from a measurement perspective.

As I mentioned, the best evidence would really be videos of entire matches (i.e. not just highlight reels) demonstrating the usage, as the details of the engagements could then be seen (for instance, who the targets are, etc.).

Beyond that, you'd at least want to record the specific statistics for the test set... Exactly the shots fired, kills, deaths, etc. Because a lot of folks have made claims that their mechs were really great. I have no doubt that in their minds, they really believed them to be great.. but then when they presented their actual statistics for those mechs, their K/D ratios in them were abysmal... While they perhaps remembered the highlights, the actual overall numbers indicated that their mechs were performing very poorly.

So, to combat such misconceptions, a good testing methodology would be (again, barring actual videos of the matches which would be the best data) to make note of a mech chassis' starting stats, run a bunch of games with a given loadout, and then note the new stats... which would allow you to calculate things like K/D, damage to kill, etc. for that specific build (and not have it polluted by other builds on that chassis you had played previously).

Then, take the same chassis but with a different build, and repeat the test.. and then compare the results.

That would be an example of a slightly more scientific test, beyond simply, "I usually do good with this!"

[t9nv3]

I'm not a competitive player by any means, but I've had good results in my dual LBX 10 Muromets. I keep them in the arms and have 2 LL's mounted high in the torsos. A single LBX doesn't do much for me, but its pretty brutal in pairs. If a mech has a lot of its armor stripped, it just drops them.

Edited by t9nv3, 29 April 2014 - 02:07 PM.

[Roland]

t9nv3, on 29 April 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

I'm not a competitive player by any means, but I've had pretty amazing results in my dual LBX 10 Muromets. I keep them in the arms and have 2 LL's mounted high in the torsos. A single LBX doesn't do much for me, but its pretty brutal in pairs. If a mech has a lot of its armor stripped, it just drops them.

Again, this isn't really a scientific measurement of the weapon... But I'll point out something here, since lots of folks say this.

Two LBX10 is 22 tons of weaponry, not including ammo.

22 tons of weapons is supposed to pretty much wreck faces. That's a massive investment of tonnage.

What you need to do is compare that to other things you can do with 22 tons, and see if it's actually better.

[Odins Fist]

MischiefSC, on 29 April 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

It's actually not bad. Not bad at all. Better than a standard AC10

Better then the standard AC-10..

I'm going to go ahead and have to disagree with you on that. Not better at everything.
You know, the whole damage concentration in one spot thing...

I used (2) LBX-10s on an Atlas D-DC before in closed Beta, and tried it many other times during development, and I can tell you this, I watched other mechs that could run (2) AC-10s, and they did really well at killing as well.

The LBX-10 is a good finisher weapon, I will give it that, and effective at scaring the heck out of light mechs, so it is half of daozen of one and 6 of another I guess. It has it's plus and minus, but I would not call it useless by any means.

[MischiefSC]

Hit detection I think is the change? HSR improvements for ballistics that came in a bit ago?

Absolutely, please test, but I'm suddenly finding that two LB10Xs, which before were a waste of time against armored targets, will absolutely strip armor in about 3 or 4 salvos - normally from 2 locations. It's doing what I would expect 60-80 damage to do. Against internals it's almost instant - if I seem to get even 4 or 5 pellets on an unarmored location it's gone. Even if it was just yellow.

What I don't know is how much or little the MGs are involved in that; admittedly they're like l4 little firehoses going the moment someone gets to 240m from me.

I would say that I'm stripping more armor more quickly, consistently and reliably destroying exposed locations and fighting very effectively at ~200 or 300m. I'm at 40 matches of this and so am moving a bit beyond anecdotal experience.

What I'd like would be some other results from other people, other mechs and builds? The theoretical perk of the LB10X over the AC10 is less weight and less crits, which it has. Also the shotgun approach trades pinpoint for accuracy. Before though the damage seemed so incredibly weak that it wasn't viable. I'm not seeing that as the case anymore. If I get reasonably close, like 200m or less, armor is no serious objection. I'm removing theirs before they remove mine.

I guess I would say... I feel like I'm getting 8 DPS out of 2xLB10X now and was certainly not before.

[Koniving]

MischiefSC, on 29 April 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

So who else wants to run a good 30+ match LB10X test? A lot of weapons perform better in practice than in pure numbers. Anyone want to give some serious, hard-won results on weapon performance? I'm going to seriously re-evaluate it. I might swap my AC20 on my Atlas for 2xLB10X, it's a face-humper anyway.

I actually have an LBx + AC/2 or LBx + AC/5 combination. Works superbly.

This match was LB-10x, AC/5, AC/2, 1 MG, and 4 ML (rarely used).

Screenshots from that match thanks to Lordred.

Lordred, on 29 April 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

So....

2560x1600

Spoiler

That poor Atlas was the second victim. He died in less than 7 seconds according to the video I recorded.

Full on brawler. SRM-6s. AC/20. Etc. Didn't stand a chance. Cowarded when I shot at him.


My Atlas uses AC/5 and LB or UAC/5 and LB combinations as demonstrated here in two matches.

Tears stalkers apart in seconds.

Edited by Koniving, 29 April 2014 - 02:33 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Roland, on 29 April 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

Again, this isn't really a scientific measurement of the weapon... But I'll point out something here, since lots of folks say this.

Two LBX10 is 22 tons of weaponry, not including ammo.

22 tons of weapons is supposed to pretty much wreck faces. That's a massive investment of tonnage.

What you need to do is compare that to other things you can do with 22 tons, and see if it's actually better.

I would say that for 40 matches I've got more consistent damage, kills and assists than I did with AC40, on the same chassis essentially trading 2xAC20 and ammo for 2xLB10X and 4xMGs. Significant improvement - not a bit, not subjective, but significant. Just shy of 0.5 KDR jump relative to the 40 matches prior. It's got this glass-cannon of a jag pulling in KDR/Win/loss almost on par with my Banshee 3E, which is phenomenal.

The problem is that personal experience is subjective. While I've heard Bishop say the same thing what I'm curious about is, is it the build or the weapon?

I can say however that from *impressions*, I'm not having the same issue against armor it used to. I'm pulling it off almost on par with 2xAC10 and wiping internals immediately. I literally mean I haven't noticed a single time that I've gotten a clean hit on an exposed location without destroying it. I can't say the same for AC10s.

[Roland]

Like I said, do some real tests and measure it. That's the only way to know what's really going on. I actually offered you a methodology above, and would encourage you to test it rigorously.

[Bobzilla]

I use the lbx a lot. It seems to freak people out. I don't know why, maybe they think it's multiple ac5/2 shells?
It isn't the most effective, but its fun and sometimes gets lucky crits.

[MischiefSC]

Roland, on 29 April 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

Like I said, do some real tests and measure it. That's the only way to know what's really going on. I actually offered you a methodology above, and would encourage you to test it rigorously.

Agreed, and I'm tracking stats specifically. However my own performance is inherently a anecdotal study. I'd like to hear from more people. Especially recent changes; I agree that LB10X used to suck. However currently? I dunno. I'm averaging 7.9 damage/hit - close to PPC performance. 14% higher hit rate and a higher overall damage/match I take it on.

That's for me anyway. How about others?

[Scrawny Cowboy]

mwhighlander, on 29 April 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

500 damage is nothing to write home about.

And that part of having double LBX is the reason why you had elevated damage numbers. LBX spread their damage around significantly so you end up having to deal more damage out (which is far less effective/efficient) to get the same number of kills or component destructions.

Its placebo effect. If you enjoy 2xLBX10's you should really try double 10's instead.

Effective or not, they're great money makers when you're grinding. Especially when you're boasting three of em with hero mech bonus. Just hang back and be conservative for the first half of match, then chime in when you see torsos with open internals

[t9nv3]

Don't know if this helps, but these are my solo pug drop results using the 2x LBX Muromets. Again, I'm not a competitive player, but this build does "better than average" for me in terms of K/D.

edit...cant get the pic to load. but 80g ames K/D of 2.84. W/L of 1.11.

Edited by t9nv3, 29 April 2014 - 02:38 PM.

[Lightfoot]

It's the 4xMGs adding their super crit seeking to the LBX's. I would imagine you could one-shot most armorless mech sections. Should be good vs any damaged mech, but I bet not so good vs a full armor Atlas, but that's the trade-off for LBX canister rounds.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Just run twin AC/10's instead. They have much more effective range. When you get close the MG's will eat anything alive.

[MischiefSC]

mwhighlander, on 29 April 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

500 damage is nothing to write home about.

And that part of having double LBX is the reason why you had elevated damage numbers. LBX spread their damage around significantly so you end up having to deal more damage out (which is far less effective/efficient) to get the same number of kills or component destructions.

Its placebo effect. If you enjoy 2xLBX10's you should really try double 10's instead.

I've used 2xAC10s plenty of times. I always tried 10Xs and found them to be crap. Entertaining in some situations, but largely crap.

Now, while expecting them to be crap and playing around, they're performing better.

Noticed on smurfy - LB10X didn't get the speed nerf. They also don't suffer from projectile drop, which 10s took pretty hard. Where I'm noticing a big improvement is over AC20s.

Not that LB10Xs are OPed.... they just don't suck anymore. They're not phenomenal, they're not the new PPC - but they work. They're viable for the lower weight and crit space and having them isn't a waste of tonnage, which it used to be.

At least, that's what I'm seeing. Average of 74.6% accuracy but with 7.9 damage/shot, giving them my highest damage/total round expended (accounting for accuracy) out of all the ACs I use.

What I don't know if that's something specific to how I'm playing lately or indicative of improvements to the weapons hit detection and damage registration making it more viable. Given the huge value of crits on internals with the 10X, more accurate hit registration is suddenly very significant.

WhoDidTheElf, on 29 April 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

Just run twin AC/10's instead. They have much more effective range. When you get close the MG's will eat anything alive.

I used to. I've still got a good 274 matches with AC10s for telemetry to compare it with.

Which is why I made a thread. The range is better on the 10s; absolutely. But that doesn't synergize with the MGs much. The range is good for a lot of things. Face-humping not among them.