316 replies to this topic

[Death Proof]

I've quietly mused about a similar solution as the OP's way back, in the long long ago.

I think the LBX spread should be tighter in the center "ring" of the burst pattern so that at least 50% of the damage goes to where it's aimed and then the remaining 50% is wider apart.

Furthermore, I think each pellet should cause 0.5 damage vs armored components and 1.5 damage vs. exposed (i.e. unarmored) internals.

So...yeah, an LB 10-X would do 15 damage vs. a completely exposed, unarmored component at point blank range.

I think that would make this weapon kind of terrifying....and a must-have weapon for "mop-up" duty.

Basically...it should be more effective at f*cking up exposed internals and less effective at penetrating armored targets.

[Wintersdark]

Just do more damage per pellet period.

Being better at exposed internals is stupid, as mechs have (ignoring quirks) half as much structure as armor. Thus, 2/3 of the damage to kill a mech is armor - being marginally better at breaking structure isn't that great a thing. Once a mech has its guts exposed, it takes very little to bring it down.

[Death Proof]

Wintersdark, on 29 May 2016 - 08:59 PM, said:

being marginally better at breaking structure isn't that great a thing. Once a mech has its guts exposed, it takes very little to bring it down.

I think you'd find that it is; because of the nature of the weapon, those pellets spread out, and hit multiple locations.

If it caused more damage vs. exposed internals, that would make it very effective in the end-game of the match.

But yeah...I wouldn't argue against an overall damage increase per pellet. Just trying to start small first and try to give it a role of some kind before hamfisting it...

[Wintersdark]

Death Proof, on 29 May 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

I think you'd find that it is; because of the nature of the weapon, those pellets spread out, and hit multiple locations.

If it caused more damage vs. exposed internals, that would make it very effective in the end-game of the match.

But yeah...I wouldn't argue against an overall damage increase per pellet. Just trying to start small first and try to give it a role of some kind before hamfisting it...

The underlying reason I argue for basic +damage per pellet is that it's a simple stat change, and requires nothing more. No new mechanics, nothing.

There are lots of great, more complex ideas, but let's be real: it took PGI that long to address flamers, and they still managed to do a messy job there. Basic damage stat change is essentially just a straight XML edit.

It's something that can be done quickly and easily without fear of breaking things or requiring extensive QA time.

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 29 May 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

The underlying reason I argue for basic +damage per pellet is that it's a simple stat change, and requires nothing more. No new mechanics, nothing.

There are lots of great, more complex ideas, but let's be real: it took PGI that long to address flamers, and they still managed to do a messy job there. Basic damage stat change is essentially just a straight XML edit.

It's something that can be done quickly and easily without fear of breaking things or requiring extensive QA time.

the premise behind virtually all my suggestions the last year or so.

And still pretty much ignored.

[jaxjace]

So has pgi seen this? Can we get a response? even if its
"weve looked into it and..."
"thats not the direction we are going..."
"We thought about it but lack the resources..."
"it wouldn't be well received..."
"We have other priorities..."

Edited by jaxjace, 30 May 2016 - 11:19 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

jaxjace, on 30 May 2016 - 11:18 AM, said:

So has pgi seen this? Can we get a response? even if its
"weve looked into it and..."
"thats not the direction we are going..."
"We thought about it but lack the resources..."
"it wouldn't be well received..."
"We have other priorities..."

Tina has passed it on to Paul.
Paul got confused by it and went back to playing candy crush.
Russ heard Paul looked at it and assumes that means it's fixed.
Tina BeepBoops.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 May 2016 - 12:10 PM.

[meteorol]

Wintersdark, on 28 May 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

It isn't good at what it's good at. People think it is, but people misunderstand how it works all the time. Fundamentally, it's pretty simple: Even in what people consider ideal circumstances, it takes as much or more ammo to kill someone than a non-LBX autocannon. Thus, it's not actually better at anything.

Russ probably watched this and thought... YEAH LBX SEEMS TO BE FINE. Did someone actually tweet him that video?

That being said, it seems like the majority of Spirit Bears are using the LBX 20 over the UAC for shorter facetime... But that really seems to be the only reason to use a LBX, ever.

[Pariah Devalis]

meteorol, on 30 May 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

Russ probably watched this and thought... YEAH LBX SEEMS TO BE FINE. Did someone actually tweet him that video?

That being said, it seems like the majority of Spirit Bears are using the LBX 20 over the UAC for shorter facetime... But that really seems to be the only reason to use a LBX, ever.

Pretty much. It synchs with the SRMs better, plus being at spitting range means the spread gets mitigated somewhat. Especially compared to the UAC20 which is four shells, anyways. There are no other scenarios where I see an LB being a better choice over a standard or ultra version.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 30 May 2016 - 12:12 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 May 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

the premise behind virtually all my suggestions the last year or so.

And still pretty much ignored.

Sadly.

That's the thing, though... While any given idea has about a 1% chance of being listened to at all, and of those only 1% may actually make it into a design meeting, as soon as an idea is any more complex than a mere xml edit those percentages drop to zero =/

We've all had, discussed, and shared really great ideas over the years, but I can't think of a single complex idea that's ever been implemented. Ever.

Well... Except Ghost Heat. Ghost Heat was originally proposed on the forums. *twitch* Ah well. Whatever.

We're all masochists here =(

[Wintersdark]

meteorol, on 30 May 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

Russ probably watched this and thought... YEAH LBX SEEMS TO BE FINE. Did someone actually tweet him that video?

That being said, it seems like the majority of Spirit Bears are using the LBX 20 over the UAC for shorter facetime... But that really seems to be the only reason to use a LBX, ever.

And it's pretty weak, even there. I'll take a UAC SB against an LBX SB any day. You're talking about half a second of facetime, that's hardly an eternity. You've got to be within 50m for the LBX to kill as quickly as a UAC (that isn't doubletapping), and while the LBX is cooler, the Spirit Bear has plenty of room for cooling - heat management really isn't a concern. But being able to push +20 extra damage when you need it? That's tough to beat.



LBX's don't "sync better" with SRM's. Being spread as well isn't a good thing in any way - you don't want more spread just because you have some spread. All three have the same cooldown. But SRM's fly at 400m per second. Clan UAC20's fly at 650m per second. LBX20's fly at 1100m per second.

Thus, you're going to get better aim leading with UAC20 rounds + SRM's than LBX20 + SRM's.

And while the projectile speed is theoretically better with LBX's in that aiming is easier at longer ranges, as has been shown the LBX is utterly garbage at longer ranges.

Still!

Without a doubt, the LBX20 is a very cool weapon, it looks awesome, it sounds awesome, and it still does 20 damage. It can certainly kill things.

[Weeny Machine]

Didn't they mention something "huge" for the June (or was it July?) patch?

Something noteworthy would truly surprise me at this point. I mean it is nice to see that they go after bugs and glitches but something meaningful which impacts overall gameplay has happened about...ummm...yeah, when?

[meteorol]

Wintersdark, on 30 May 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:

And it's pretty weak, even there. I'll take a UAC SB against an LBX SB any day. You're talking about half a second of facetime, that's hardly an eternity. You've got to be within 50m for the LBX to kill as quickly as a UAC (that isn't doubletapping), and while the LBX is cooler, the Spirit Bear has plenty of room for cooling - heat management really isn't a concern. But being able to push +20 extra damage when you need it? That's tough to beat.



LBX's don't "sync better" with SRM's. Being spread as well isn't a good thing in any way - you don't want more spread just because you have some spread. All three have the same cooldown. But SRM's fly at 400m per second. Clan UAC20's fly at 650m per second. LBX20's fly at 1100m per second.

Thus, you're going to get better aim leading with UAC20 rounds + SRM's than LBX20 + SRM's.

And while the projectile speed is theoretically better with LBX's in that aiming is easier at longer ranges, as has been shown the LBX is utterly garbage at longer ranges.

Still!

Without a doubt, the LBX20 is a very cool weapon, it looks awesome, it sounds awesome, and it still does 20 damage. It can certainly kill things.

I still chose the LBX, after testing both for about 50 Matches on my SB. 0.5 sec "feels" more than it sounds, and it's almost the full duration of a quirked IS lpl.
Moreover the LBX allows "dragshots" (Shooting while dragging the Crosshair over your target without actually stoping the twisting) and quick snapshots, something the uac can't really do well. All in all, i'd say using the lbx notably increased the survability of my SB compared to the uac (while obviously lacking on the offensive end).

[wanderer]

Quote

It' supposed to be a switch ammo capable AC, with superior effective range than a standard version, less heat, and less weight. It utterly fails at that long range aspect. The LB-X was NEVER meant to be short ranged Mech Shotgun. That is a misconception fed by the previous MW titles.

Note that only the IS LB-10X manages to pull off the "better in every way" moniker- IS LB-2/5/20X are, at the least a bit bulkier and match up in weight to standards, but it's still generally worth it due to the ammo-swap capacity and better heat/range.

[Bishop Steiner]

wanderer, on 31 May 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

Note that only the IS LB-10X manages to pull off the "better in every way" moniker- IS LB-2/5/20X are, at the least a bit bulkier and match up in weight to standards, but it's still generally worth it due to the ammo-swap capacity and better heat/range.

and because they realized post LB-10X that they had completely obsoleted the AC10, hence needing to create Specialty Ammo, and the future IS LBXs being less "elegant".

[wanderer]

It's also worth noting that before they had the Clans worked out, the original concepts were more for a "returned Star League" with tech levels that would much more strongly resemble what the IS gets 3050+ instead of it's own unique and superior tech tree.

[jaxjace]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 May 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

Tina has passed it on to Paul.
Paul got confused by it and went back to playing candy crush.
Russ heard Paul looked at it and assumes that means it's fixed.
Tina BeepBoops.

Progress...

Edited by jaxjace, 31 May 2016 - 10:38 PM.