10 replies to this topic

[Draecos]

TL;DR Summary:

Make LBX weapons do 1.5 (+/- 0.1) damage per pellet. It will make them more like a shotgun and do more damage at close range, make them at least so-so at longer ranges. This will make them more competitive with their AC/UAC counterparts.


Long version:

First, going to toss up this older post I found. I agree with most of the OP discussion in the opening:

http://mwomercs.com/...-the-long-game/

Main idea though is, since we've made LBX function somewhat like a shotgun, we need to tweak the damage per pellet to make it a worthwhile weapon compared to it's AC and UAC counterparts. In particular, for Clan LBX/UAC, the LBX is simply not worth the extra space and the weight compared to the output of the UAC, which because it fires in a burst, still allows for some "spray-n-pray".

By increasing the damage to 1.5 per pellet, you now have made a compelling argument for the LBX10 and AC10 on the IS side. The AC10 will still do nice, concentrated punch at all ranges in its range spectrum, with the plus side that, at longer ranges, it's more effective and almost a ballistic PPC (they have similar ranges). For the LBX10, the weapon would trump its brother at close range, doing up to 15 damage, with the potential to concentrate that damage in brawling/CQB (which is what the shotgun is used for in military/SWAT applications). At short to medium range, it still is a weapon to be reckoned with, while losing much of its effectiveness at long range. Another plus.... since hit registration still tends to be an issue, is that even IF you have a lack of hit registration with all of the pellets, at least the ones that do "count", count!

On the Clan side of the house, the functional benefits remain the same, however, this makes it at least competitive with the UAC class of weapons. An LBX10 and UAC10 on the Clan side, for example.... there's almost no argument for the LBX as it is currently. I can still double-tap that UAC10 and do up to 20 points of damage (assuming all rounds hit... not always the case). If the LBX10 did 1.5 points per pellet.... NOW you have a much tougher choice on your hands, and the damage potential for both weapons is about equal.

This would give a much maligned weapon a much needed boost in performance. Additionally, the coding for this should not be an onerous task for the dev team. I'd recommend doing this with a patch, making it widely known (post it up on the intro slideshows), and then, before the next patch, make a poll here with a well-advertised request for feedback (again, post it in the slideshows at entrance to homescreen).

(Credit due to the Google+ MWO fanbase, whose discussion prompted me to post this.)

Edit: Fixed grammar and a typo.

Edited by Draecos, 02 April 2016 - 05:31 PM.

[Cold Darkness]

Draecos, on 02 April 2016 - 01:54 PM, said:

there's almost no argument for the LBX as it is currently.

it sounds better.




what? im serious.

[Draecos]

I think it's worth trying at least. I vote for giving it a whirl. If it turns out seriously flawed, it can be reversed. Or adjusted.

One other thought... because of the 0.5 (+/-) damage.... it makes more sense at close range as that extra damage would be felt more at ranges where multiple pellets might hit the same body part. At long ranges, clipping a guy with 1 pellet, the difference between 1 and 1.5 damage is pretty negligible. It's at closer ranges, when you may have 4 or more pellets hit a part, where it starts to see a return on investment.

So... if 1.5 turns out to be overkill, bump it down to 1.34 per pellet. So 3 pellets (i.e. close range clusters) start to pay off better. In any case, an increase in damage per pellet is a simple coding fix, and improves the weapon, giving players more viable/compelling choices.

[Dee Eight]

The LBX currently (for IS version anyway) is lighter, generates less heat and is more compact. It also has critical hit chances for each cluster fragment that strikes and it shares the triple-optimal range maximum as Gauss Rifles (so the I.S. version is 1650m max). The only "fix" the thing needs is the dual ammo selection so it can fire solid slugs also if desired. Except for the few mechs that have AC10 quirks, I will always use it over an AC10 as it is.

Also it could use a module for spread reduction (which SRMs and LRMs could use also, some mechs have that inherently, and the mechs with missile spread reductions its any size launcher... to do that with modules would probably end up being implemented as seperate modules for each launcher size). But I'd rather see dual-ammo types as tabletop rules when the things were "invented" allowed. Cluster rounds are better for hitting things in the air, or at a distance (I like to s k e e t shoot jumping arctic cheetahs for example) and the aforementioned criticals. The spread can be used to hit multiple mechs also, which makes it unique, however this can be a problem if you have friendlies nearby as well (its not exactly the safest support weapon for aiding someone across the battlefield).

Edited by Dee Eight, 03 April 2016 - 11:55 AM.

[Draecos]

Dee Eight, on 03 April 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:

The LBX currently (for IS version anyway) is lighter, generates less heat and is more compact. It also has critical hit chances for each cluster fragment that strikes and it shares the triple-optimal range maximum as Gauss Rifles (so the I.S. version is 1650m max). The only "fix" the thing needs is the dual ammo selection so it can fire solid slugs also if desired. Except for the few mechs that have AC10 quirks, I will always use it over an AC10 as it is.

Also it could use a module for spread reduction (which SRMs and LRMs could use also, some mechs have that inherently, and the mechs with missile spread reductions its any size launcher... to do that with modules would probably end up being implemented as seperate modules for each launcher size). But I'd rather see dual-ammo types as tabletop rules when the things were "invented" allowed. Cluster rounds are better for hitting things in the air, or at a distance (I like to s k e e t shoot jumping arctic cheetahs for example) and the aforementioned criticals. The spread can be used to hit multiple mechs also, which makes it unique, however this can be a problem if you have friendlies nearby as well (its not exactly the safest support weapon for aiding someone across the battlefield).

Yeah, but you still have what is likely a bigger coding problem with the ammo switch idea.
Add to that, it defeats the purpose of the AC10 (IS side). You'll never see another AC10 in a mech ever again just because of the simple weight savings.

[Dee Eight]

Yes but THAT was the point to the introduction of the LBX in the original star league...it was a new design/construction of autocannons... the clan's still have standard autocannons available themselves but never use them except for second line mechs because they have better options.

[Ooorky]

Draecos, on 03 April 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

Yeah, but you still have what is likely a bigger coding problem with the ammo switch idea.
Add to that, it defeats the purpose of the AC10 (IS side). You'll never see another AC10 in a mech ever again just because of the simple weight savings.

With ammo selection implemented I would never use anything but common IS ACs with their nasty Precision and Armor-Piercing ammunition.

[Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky]

1.5 dmg... No! Just no...

If i was in charge of balance (which I am not).
I personally would keep dmg at 1 per bullet.

Any change that i would personally make, is faster recycle time and maybe bullet velocity at the exchange for lower max range.

[Dee Eight]

Ooorky, on 04 April 2016 - 01:04 AM, said:

With ammo selection implemented I would never use anything but common IS ACs with their nasty Precision and Armor-Piercing ammunition.

Except...specialized autocannon ammo doesn't fit the current timeline. Those were invented to keep standard autocannons viable in some way, because LBX manufacturing/design technology IS so superior.

[Banse]

If they were going to up the damage per pellet then they should drop the crit chance.

Personally I like the idea of crit chance but I think internal structure could have had more upping so as to actual survive hits and have components crit out instead of just being vaporized. Instead internal structure is getting all sorts of quirks to help with its survival.

[Draecos]

Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky, on 04 April 2016 - 01:21 AM, said:

1.5 dmg... No! Just no...

If i was in charge of balance (which I am not).
I personally would keep dmg at 1 per bullet.

Any change that i would personally make, is faster recycle time and maybe bullet velocity at the exchange for lower max range.

Projectile velocity is already higher. Doesn't make a ton of difference. Especially if you peg a light mech with a scattershot. RNG-sus and hit detection may render those multiple pellets to one spot near worthless. And I don't see that being fixed anytime soon (unless they adopt a new engine?).

As for the 1.5..... I'm open to varying amounts. 1.2 per pellet? That way, at extremely close ranges, you get the real impact of a shotgun up close. 5 pellets will bump your damage by 1 point. So, your up close max become 12 damage vice 10. And remember.... it still isn't likely to hit one component.

Banse, on 04 April 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

If they were going to up the damage per pellet then they should drop the crit chance.

Personally I like the idea of crit chance but I think internal structure could have had more upping so as to actual survive hits and have components crit out instead of just being vaporized. Instead internal structure is getting all sorts of quirks to help with its survival.

The crit chance really seems to do jack all at this point. I wouldn't improve internal structure strength. As it is, that already favors light mechs pretty heavily.

If we changed it so, once armor is gone, a hit definitely has impact beyond reducing internal structure.... ok. As it is... I see lights stripped of armor still charging around and taking hits like it's cool. Again, it just seems like crits do very little as it is.

Edited by Draecos, 04 April 2016 - 05:03 PM.