55 replies to this topic

[Thomas Hogarth]

Victor Morson, on 22 May 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

What we need to do with LBX is stop making them a shotgun. Just because they were a shotgun in MW4 and MW:LL doesn't mean they need to be a shotgun here.
What I'd like LBX to be, in fact, is an air burst weapon. When the shell nears the target, it explodes, and peppers them randomly with the damage.

That'd be far and away closer to how they operate in Battletech. If the air burst is a shaped charge (forward arc) instead of circular burst, this would effectively provide an AC/10 with superior range (from the extra burst distance, as shells could explode at max range), that's also better at doing damage all over it's victims.

This. I've always explained the behavior of the LB-X weapons as airbursters.

Zyllos, on 22 May 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

The problem with this is that PGI wants every weapon to be viable. So they enforce the flak rounds only part of the LBX/10 so that people will use the AC/10. But then if you tighten up the spray to be able to utilize the full optimal range, players will just go back to the LBX/10 due to the weight savings.

The problem is that there is no chance of through-armor criticals, and that critical hit chances are exceedingly low. So critseeking effect does nothing, and pinpoint damage reigns supreme. If they drastically increased the chance of critical hits and increased the variety of critical hits(engine hit producing more heat, gyro hit restricting you to walk speed or causing more fall-downs, leg crits doing extra bad things, and of course ammo booms) then there'd be a legitimate reason to use an airburst/shotgun weapon, and there'd be a legitimate reason to switch between ammo types - exactly as it was intended before most of us were born.

Svalfangr, on 22 May 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

LBX-2 is also a shotgun fyi

Yeah, with two pellets. two. In a game with doubled armor. What is that supposed to do? It was underpowered in TT(except for specific tasks such as taking out VTOLs and tracking tanks at extreme ranges), and it'll almost certainly be underpowered to a greater degree in MWO unless steps are taken to address the inherent LB-X issues.

[MasterErrant]

Lostdragon, on 22 May 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

I played a few of games in my dual LBX-10 CTF 4X. IMO it is still not very good. You still need to close to ~200m just to get all the pellets on target and you still need to be almost point blank to have them all hit on section. The damage per pellet needs a significant increase if they want to see this weapon used more. That or give the option to switch between pellets and slugs.

they are not supposed to get "asll the pellets on target" it's suppose to hit like an LRM 10 but faster and more direct hence the TT bonus to hit.

as for the lb2x...look at the rof of the ac2....

Edited by MasterErrant, 22 May 2013 - 10:16 PM.

[Sug]

MasterErrant, on 22 May 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:

they are not supposed to get "asll the pellets on target" it's suppose to hit like an LRM 10 but faster and more direct hence the TT bonus to hit.

It doesn't hit like an LRM in TT. Each missile does 1 damage but the damage is dealt in groups of 5 to reflect some of the homing ability of the missiles. LBX is a random spray of pellets so every pellet that hits the target hits a location that is rolled on.

LRM10 = 2 groups of 5 damage (if all hit)

LBX10 = 10 groups of 1 damage (if all hit)

The purpose of the LBX wasn't to do more damage than the AC10 it was for crit seeking once you breach your target's armor.

The way MWO crit system works it is better to (since we can aim) hit a damaged location with a 10 damage AC10 slug than to do random single damage hits with the LBX10 pellets.

You need to hit a single component with at least (if you're very, very lucky) 4 LBX pellets to destroy it. That's four pellets each hitting internals and getting a 3x damage multiplier AND you need to hit the SAME component with each hit as well.

Whereas with an AC10 you are guaranteed to destroy a component with every hit on internals.

Edited by Sug, 22 May 2013 - 11:46 PM.

[Lostdragon]

MasterErrant, on 22 May 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:

they are not supposed to get "asll the pellets on target" it's suppose to hit like an LRM 10 but faster and more direct hence the TT bonus to hit.

as for the lb2x...look at the rof of the ac2....

I don't really care what the weapon is "supposed" to do. The LBX is badly broken in MWO which is a shame because it was always one of my favorite weapons in other MW games. There are only three possible ways to make the weapon good: make all the pellets hit at significant range, increase the damage per pellet, or give it slugs. The devs realize this, hence the latest change tightening the spread. The issue is they were too conservative, they should have probably tried 50% instead of 20%.

In order to compete with all the weapons that deal pin point damage there has to be a significant change to the LBX.

[General Taskeen]

That is the really funny part ain't it? The LB-X was/is 100x better in other Mech games and people ignore that or argue that it should stay useless because they prefer "Lol AC/10 with 12 damage, that means AC/12 bro." My mind is perplexed, can we please move forward with this game? Sad that older games got it right.

[Sheraf]

People still use LBx10 as long range weapon on me

[Kyrs]

The way I see it there's only one way they can achieve a balance with this gun is to HAVE A SPREAD ADJUST TO THE RANGE of the target reticule.

With this; there 2 options:
1) Make spread adjust to any range scenario.
2) Give the spread adjust a cap to which it can't compensate anymore ex: 450meter (like ac10 optimal range), cuz right now this high tech weapons feel like pre-space jump technology.

OPTION 2 seems more fun for game mechanic but pretty sure it can take much long to program.

Edited by Kyrs, 23 May 2013 - 06:43 AM.

[Khobai]

PGI is still ignoring the problem. LB10X needs to fire a cylinder pattern so accuracy doesnt degrade with range. The cone pattern will never work.

[Lostdragon]

Kyrs, on 23 May 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

The way I see it there's only one way they can achieve a balance with this gun is to HAVE A SPREAD ADJUST TO THE RANGE of the target reticule.

With this; there 2 options:
1) Make spread adjust to any range scenario.
2) Give the spread adjust a cap to which it can't compensate anymore ex: 450meter (like ac10 optimal range), cuz right now this high tech weapons feel like pre-space jump technology.

OPTION 2 seems more fun for game mechanic but pretty sure it can take much long to program.

I like this idea, it would be a pretty good representation of the round air bursting before it hit the target and peppering it.

[Karr285]

What I find funny is that Pgi just now made it so Missiles leave the tubs spread out and then fly perfectly straight for their whole flight. Now since they can make the LBX shoot a Cluster that flies out detonates and peppers the mech the same regardless of range. Why not just do what the SRM's are doing now?? Shoot LBX, pellets spread to a predetermined patern and just fly the 1000+ meters, honestly i would rather that then a LBX that is useless >200m

[Wreknar Temper]

I supposed an alternative route here is to make the LBX's fire slugs with splash damage instead. For the 10 variant, do something like 5 points of damage in a 4.0m radius ( I don't know about the numbers, just thinking in terms of low-ish damage and high splash).

That would at least let it deliver on it's long range abilities and be in the spirit of its TT incarnation. No need to mess with clunky, hard to code cylindrical fire patterns or "airburst" modes. We're not getting slugs either folks, that would invalidate AC10s entirely.

[Karr285]

K i like Wreknar Tempers Idea, Just worry about PGI's attempt at trying to ge that to work right, lol Look at Missiles splash atm but that probably would function the closest to how an LBX should work.

and you could get slugs without invalidating the AC/10, a 2 ton 2 crit Ammo "box" with 1 ton of each in it, put more than 2 on a mech and now your LBX weighs more than an AC10 with 1 ton of ammo just to get the slugs.

Edited by Karr285, 23 May 2013 - 09:20 AM.

[Maxx Blue]

What about just lowering the reload time? That could give the weapon an advantage (albeit one without any sort of canon or rational basis) without requiring new mechanics or lots of coding. How fast would it need to fire before you said to yourself, "Self, this gun sucks at range and can't focus damage, but look how friggin' fast it shoots!" If it fired as fast as an AC/2 (which I am NOT suggesting it should) everyone and their mother would be cramming them into their mechs, no questions asked. At the current rate of fire, almost no one wants to use them. Logically, there ought to be a rate of fire somewhere between those two fire rates that makes it appealing without being game-breaking-OP. I'm betting there is a recycle time around 1.5 to 2 seconds that would make taking an LBX an agonizing choice (DPS for LBX versus range for an AC/10) instead of something you mount when you are bored and playing with wierd builds.

Edited by Maxx Blue, 23 May 2013 - 09:54 AM.

[DaZur]

Now I'm completely confused...

Sarna: LINK

By all counts this sounds like the above mentioned "burst munition". Which would in theory explain the pretense of effective range for the weapon because like all ballistic munitions is has travel time and drop-off over distance. As this would be a proximity burst it jives with the assertion that the pattern efficiency (spread) should be the same be it sub 100m or out to 300m

My problem is that it would not do anything that truly differentiates itself from a standard AC/10 or a LBX slug? Yes, sure it spread is wider and ups the potential of hitting something but then again, because of the spread... damage is diffused.

I have to agree with a previous poster in that while not 100% in line with canon, PGIs implementation is vastly different than a standard AC/10 and in doing so... becomes a niche weapon with a singular purpose of crit-seeking and substantial spread damage. (Like a sawed-off shotgun for close-quarters combat) If kept in this iteration and not revised to be closer to canon, I am fully behind buffing per-pellet damage as well as buffing crit damage potential.... particularly sub 100m.

Sans melee, we need "something" to fill that close quarters weapon that sLas and mLas are impractical for...

Edited by DaZur, 23 May 2013 - 10:22 AM.

[Wreknar Temper]

DaZur, on 23 May 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

My problem is that it would not do anything that truly differentiates itself from a standard AC/10 or a LBX slug? Yes, sure it spread is wider and ups the potential of hitting something but then again, because of the spread... damage is diffused.

I have to agree with a previous poster in that while not 100% in line with canon, PGIs implementation is vastly different than a standard AC/10 and in doing so... becomes a niche weapon with a singular purpose of crit-seeking and substantial spread damage. (Like a sawed-off shotgun for close-quarters combat) If kept in this iteration and not revised to be closer to canon, I am fully behind buffing per-pellet damage as well as buffing crit damage potential.... particularly sub 100m.

Sans melee, we need "something" to fill that close quarters weapon that sLas and mLas are impractical for...

I would be inclined to agree that a projectile based brawler weapon is needed, but the problem is more on the side of options. An LB-10X as a brawling weapon is definitely a possibility, and in that regard, treating it as a shotgun would necessitate a substantial damage buff. But what does that leave us? It would be the only "true" brawler ballistic weapon (AC20 is more of a medium range weapon now and LOL at MGs) right now which leaves small and most medium mechs with ballistic slots SoL.

There's another aspect to consider here as well. LBX and SRMs roughly have an identical function, point blank spread fire weapons. Energy weapons have no such function, but their brawling weapons (SLAS and depending on your PoV MLAS) deliver solid point damage. The question now is, "should LBX try to emulate SRMs in functional regard, or do something different, like lasers?" Looking at that comparison, I'm inclined to think that LBX should do something different. Considering the function it serves in canon, I'm starting to be a firm believer that the LBX should be closer to an explosive round weapon.

Of course, now I'm thinking something different.....what if LBX had the option of loading high damage fragmentation rounds (i.e. 2x the damage now, but keep the horrible spread) or explosive flak rounds (i.e. explodes on contact for splash damage)? Add in the restriction of loading only one type of ammo into the gun before launch (for balance purposes), and all of a sudden, the most expensive weapon in the game becomes the most versatile.

[Lostdragon]

Maxx Blue, on 23 May 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

What about just lowering the reload time? That could give the weapon an advantage (albeit one without any sort of canon or rational basis) without requiring new mechanics or lots of coding. How fast would it need to fire before you said to yourself, "Self, this gun sucks at range and can't focus damage, but look how friggin' fast it shoots!" If it fired as fast as an AC/2 (which I am NOT suggesting it should) everyone and their mother would be cramming them into their mechs, no questions asked. At the current rate of fire, almost no one wants to use them. Logically, there ought to be a rate of fire somewhere between those two fire rates that makes it appealing without being game-breaking-OP. I'm betting there is a recycle time around 1.5 to 2 seconds that would make taking an LBX an agonizing choice (DPS for LBX versus range for an AC/10) instead of something you mount when you are bored and playing with wierd builds.

Two issues with that: you would burn through ammo very quickly and you may make the weapon OP in close. The second one may not be true, but unless ammo/ton was increased you would still be better off to wait and fire up close instead of taking long range shots so the weapon doesn't run dry.