25 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

Would it be possible, cryengine wise, to make the LB-X shots a single slug with splash damage? As it stands now, even with the spread reduction buff, the LB-X still does less than 6-7 damage over 100 dmg on light and some medium mechs.

In other words, it's still bad.

I think older MW titles did something like that with the gun and it would honestly fix it once and for all.

edit: Repeated the same question twice, ha

Edited by Sybreed, 05 June 2013 - 08:07 AM.

[AnnoyingCat]

lol, want the lb-x to be a lighter ac 10?

[WolvesX]

LXB = Terrible Weapon. BUFF IT PLEASE.

[Sybreed]

AnnoyingCat, on 05 June 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

lol, want the lb-x to be a lighter ac 10?

if you don't even understand the post, don't comment on it.

[Odins Fist]

2 LBX-10s hitting a lIght Mech at 50 - 90 meters should knock a light squirrelly, if not on it's terribly balanced keyster.

By balanced I mean balance, they are all top heavy.

[AnnoyingCat]

Sybreed, on 05 June 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

if you don't even understand the post, don't comment on it.

what about your post?

[General Taskeen]

MW:LL actually kept the pellet concept. Each pellet does way more massive damage than it does in this game though, so the gun is a monster burst weapon (but fires slower than an regular AC for balance/variety). They ALSO made the entire spread of pellets hit a target at its max enhanced range, depending on the caliber (2 through 20), so its a sniper flak-autocannon like it's supposed to be. As I've said before for LB-X to be good in MWO -> Increase Pellet Damage, Increase Cool Down, Major reduction in spread for all pellets to hit a target at the effective range. So A, it doesn't supercede regular AC's, and B. There is a reason to take it as a massive burst weapon with enhanced range, so that's its extremely powerful at CLOSE and LONG range.

[Zyllos]

Sybreed, on 05 June 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

Would it be possible, cryengine wise, to make the LB-X shots a single slug with splash damage? As it stands now, even with the spread reduction buff, the LB-X still does less than 6-7 damage over 100 dmg on light and some medium mechs.

In other words, it's still bad.

I think older MW titles did something like that with the gun and it would honestly fix it once and for all.

edit: Repeated the same question twice, ha

Actually, no they did not.

The older MW and MW:LL had weapons which shot out a flak slug which exploded before impact, releasing many small bullets, which is how the LBX is suppose to work.

Right now, we have a shotgun, which is NOT what the LBX is suppose to be.

The LBX had extended range over the regular AC due to enhanced targeting components within the LBX weapon over a regular AC.

The only way to get that extra range without making the weapon better up close is to make the LBX shoot a flak slug which explodes like 25m or 50m away from a solid target.

This is an easy thing to do. Just ray trace the current path of the projectile and if that ray trace is <=50m (using the same logic they do now to determine the distance for the range finder), explode the flak slug releasing the flak pellets.

This lets PGI control the spread over all distances because they know the weapon will explode in roughly the same distance. It will also let LBX users to have the same spread at any distance, thus able to utilize the full optimal range of the weapon.

[vettie]

The LBX was and has been designed as a crit seeker/destroyer, not an armour destruction weapon. meaning simply that it was used to blow sections off mechs that already have had their armour stripped in MWO.

In prev MW titles, the big difference was the range. The AC10 had a range and did full damage with 1 shell up to its effective range. the LBX was given a shorter range due to the nature of its 'pellets'. AC10 = rifle, LBX10 = shotgun. This is the major difference, by design within MWO.

The spread of the pellets at its range, what 540m? makes it nearly impossible to land all the pellets on target, much less on a section. However, the AC10 at its range, 450ish? CAN put its damage all in one place as it is a single shell.

Both work up close. The LBX version is possibly better up close IF the target area is already damaged heavily assuming a hit is rendered. The AC10, will still fire 1 shell up close and still deal its full damage assuming a hit it achieved.

Edited by vettie, 05 June 2013 - 09:33 AM.

[armyof1]

Spread damage weapons should do more damage than focused damage weapons when they're really similar in tonnage/crit slots. It's really not a hard concept to grasp, but somehow the devs fail to do it over and over again. Don't get me started on the worthless crit seeking with a weapon that does spread damage.

Edited by armyof1, 05 June 2013 - 09:36 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Vettie, that's false. Because I have tested the LB-X in other games. The LB-X has enhanced range in other Mech games with the pellets. Examples: (MW3 LB10-X 520m, AC/10 450m; MW:LL LB10-X 700m, AC/10 550m) Also even in MW4 (LB10-x 450M 14 Damage, AC/10 400M 9 Damage). Its basically proof in the pudding. LB-X guns are sniper flak-autocannons in TT and previous Mech games. And to top it off with a cherry, LB-X guns have better damage and better range in previous Mech games.

Edited by General Taskeen, 05 June 2013 - 09:39 AM.

[Sephlock]

AnnoyingCat, on 05 June 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

what about your post?

Di- did you seriously just pull a "I know you are but what am I?"

[vettie]

General Taskeen, on 05 June 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Vettie, that's false. Because I have tested the LB-X in other games. The LB-X has enhanced range in other Mech games with the pellets. Examples: (MW3 LB10-X 520m, AC/10 450m; MW:LL LB10-X 700m, AC/10 550m) Also even in MW4 (LB10-x 450M 14 Damage, AC/10 400M 9 Damage). Its basically proof in the pudding. LB-X guns are sniper flak-autocannons in TT and previous Mech games. And to top it off with a cherry, LB-X guns have better damage and better range in previous Mech games.

Apologies sir. I should have been more clear. Never played MWLL, however i was deeply involved in the many MekTek changes to MW4Mercs. The AC10 had a range of 600m where as the LBX was 450. The LBX did full damage at 250m and reduced damage at the 450 meter range. However, the LBX did issue more damage than the Std AC10. The LBX verson was still more like a shotgun in that (the final version) of MW4Mercs.I am talking about Inner Sphere versions, as the Clan versions in MW4Mercs were different, albiet only slightly (more range and less tonnage and the Clan did NOT have an AC10 in that version, Ultra AC10 or CLBX10).

In MWO They issue the same damage in different ways. I dont always agree with the implementation in MWO, but I understand why they did what they did. MWO more or less, made it shotgun weapon with crit seeking ability to keep the std AC10 a viable weapon. I mean, if I could do a full 10 damage at 540 for 1 ton less and a faster recycle rate, why would I take a weapon dong the same damage at less range weighing more and cycling slower? It is my opinion why they made the LBX work as it does.

Edited by vettie, 05 June 2013 - 09:53 AM.

[shabowie]

AnnoyingCat, on 05 June 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

lol, want the lb-x to be a lighter ac 10?

Actually that's what all the Ultra and LB auto cannons kinda are. Straight up better versions of the older autocannon because FASA realized their mathematical inferiority and this was a way to "patch" a pen and paper game in existence for years.

Later they added special munition types to give the regular ACs some utility that weren't usable by the upgraded versions.

LBX fire solid or canister in battletech.

[Lootee]

shabowie, on 05 June 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

Actually that's what all the Ultra and LB auto cannons kinda are. Straight up better versions of the older autocannon because FASA realized their mathematical inferiority and this was a way to &quot;patch&quot; a pen and paper game in existence for years.

Later they added special munition types to give the regular ACs some utility that weren't usable by the upgraded versions.

LBX fire solid or canister in battletech.

This ^^.

In MWO the AC/10 is even worse off. The AC/20 only weighs 2 tons more, but does twice the dmg up close, 10pts out to 540m, which is longer than the AC/10s optimal range.

Really the only thing it can do that the 20 can't is peck at an enemy for 3-4 dmg at 900m. Not worth the 12 tons when you could spend a couple more for the 20.

[vettie]

PanchoTortilla, on 05 June 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

This ^^.

In MWO the AC/10 is even worse off. The AC/20 only weighs 2 tons more, but does twice the dmg up close, 10pts out to 540m, which is longer than the AC/10s optimal range.

Really the only thing it can do that the 20 can't is peck at an enemy for 3-4 dmg at 900m. Not worth the 12 tons when you could spend a couple more for the 20.

Altho i dont disagree with you, the AC20 can not be carried by some chassis where the AC10/LBX10 can be. Centurion (exception is the MC only YLW version) but the CN9a and CN9D can not carry ac20, which is sad (imo) because even the Treb 7K CAN carry ac20...

[General Taskeen]

vettie, on 05 June 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

In MWO They issue the same damage in different ways. I dont always agree with the implementation in MWO, but I understand why they did what they did. MWO more or less, made it shotgun weapon with crit seeking ability to keep the std AC10 a viable weapon. I mean, if I could do a full 10 damage at 540 for 1 ton less and a faster recycle rate, why would I take a weapon dong the same damage at less range weighing more and cycling slower? It is my opinion why they made the LBX work as it does.

I will explain how MW:LL did it. The Devs of MWO more or less did it because they thought it would be "cool" as a shotgun, but couldn't think of a way to make both an LB-X and AC useful, so they went with the "crit" pellet. However, most TT Mechs with LB-X only use cluster and in some cases use an LB-X as a primary weapon. In MW:LL, an LB-X does more damage per pellet, all pellets hit at their max "effective" range, BUT they fire slower. So they are a high burst damage weapon with low dps, while regular AC's fire much faster, do less but focused damage, with a high dps. Basically the MW:LL solved forever the LB-X/AC in a Mech Warrior game with 2 birds and 1 stone.

Edited by General Taskeen, 05 June 2013 - 10:32 AM.

[DaZur]

I know I'm an absolute outcaste and contrarian... But I actually "like" MW:O's "shotgun" iteration of the LBX... (Yeah, I know... lynch me)

While I would fully support some sort of buff to applied damage, I like using it like a scatter-gun to deter close-in lights and to crit-seek..

Since the last spread buff, I've become quite adept at stripping armor and sticking the LBX in their face for the finishing blow.

Ya'll know me... always bucking the trend!

[Sybreed]

General Taskeen, on 05 June 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

I will explain how MW:LL did it. The Devs of MWO more or less did it because they thought it would be "cool" as a shotgun, but couldn't think of a way to make both an LB-X and AC useful. In MW:LL, an LB-X does more damage per pellet, all pellets hit at their max "effective" range, BUT they fire slower. So they are a high burst damage weapon with low dps, while regular AC's fire much faster, do less but focused damage, with a high dps. Basically the MW:LL solved forever the LB-X/AC in a Mech Warrior game with 2 birds and 1 stone.

that would be kind of neat if PGI could do the same, which I'm sure they could...

[Sephlock]

If they want to make the LBX distinct from the ac/10 without making it outright superior, why not just make it like this:



That way, despite the weight and recycle time differences, the ac-10 should be better at dealing damage to a single location, whereas at close and long ranges alike the LBX would be hitting CT, LT, RT, LA, and RA....