187 replies to this topic

[focuspark]

LB-X 10 AC is lighter and cooler than a standard AC/10. That's why people use them.

[Void Angel]

Mcchuggernaut, on 08 October 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

You make a good argument. I have no doubt that at point-blank range you are going to do more damage over time. Problem is, at higher elo levels most opponents aren't going to let you walk up to them with dual A/C 10-Xs and own them. they will back up to keep out of optimum range, and pop in and out of cover and waste you first. I have had it done to me. Also, an Atlas isn't exactly subtle or stealthy, so you will most likely not sneak up on anyone and surprise them. Also, as stated, an LB 10-X does more damage over TIME, and there are plenty of situations where you only get a few quick shots on people poptarting from cover. You need single big hits on people doing that, NOT dps. You also tend to get more actual kill shots than just spreading out damage with the AC/20, so it helps your K/D a bit, too.

Also, there is the extra weight and critical spaces saved running an AC/20. 8 extra tons and 2 crit spaces does an awful lot for you. I can mount more powerful SRMs and lasers as well as carry more ammo, have a bigger engine (a faster Atlas is very helpful), cary a bit more armor, and run an AMS much more comfortably. That's a lot of advantages when you start min-maxing a build for optimum performance.

I have run both builds extensively, and on an Atlas D-DC the AC/20 is just more viable, imo. I had more success and more kills with it, after hundreds of matches with both builds. It's cool if you just like your shotgunnery, and I agree it IS more fun to use them, but in strait-up is-it-better terms, I would have to say it loses out to the AC/20 in most situations.

Two LB-Xs at close range ARE doing big single hits. At higher ranges, the AC/20's damage fall-off hurts it, while the LB-X's falloff doesn't even begin until the AC/20 is down to half damage. Sure, the scatter damage hurts it a bit more at those ranges, but the falloff in AC/20 damage is more telling - because it increases the time needed till armor breach, lending more and more advantage to dps weapons. But since I'm using two LB-X's, it's not a comparison between dps and pinpoint damage. It's about how much pinpoint damage falloff from roundscatter it takes to be equivalent to the pure damage falloff of the AC/20. I can put my damage reliably on the same torso of any large-ish 'mech out to at least 270m. It's not terribly hard. So what it comes down to is that the combination of two Autocannons weighing 60% more than one AC/20 generally outperform the lighter option, especially at close range. This is not a radical proposition.

With taking recourse to Elo, you're in danger of a fallacious appeal to your own authority. You're assuming that your experience comes from a "higher Elo" than mine, but none of us know what our ranking is, much less our Elo. So what you actually have is your assumption that your Elo is higher. Thus, you refer me to your subjective opinion of your own Elo, in relation to your subjective opinion of my Elo, to claim that your subjective opinion about your experiences are more authoritative. This does not form a coherent, much less a persuasive, argument - your examples are no help. For one example (puns are fun!) there is no Assault chassis in the game that can back up faster than I can go forward. Most heavies can't move that fast, and nearly all of them don't. Go look at max speeds per chassis and do the math.

As for this nonsense, it doesn't even warrant a quote. To be honest, I stopped reading when he accused me of ignoring a fact he actually quoted me pointing out.

[Void Angel]

Mr 144, on 08 October 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

Or you could, ya know....use something other than the atlas to compare, as it has all it's ballistics in one location...that's always the primary target. Don't compare it to a AC/20...it's right between a UAC and an AC/10, so compare it to those, again NOT in an Atlas torso.

Cimarb, on 08 October 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

I don't know why everyone started comparing these two weapons, as the LB10X should be compared to the AC10, not AC20, but you can make the same comparison with lasers. Which is better, three LL or two PPCS? How about one LL or five medium lasers? One PPC or seven medium lasers? Blah blah blah.

You can't compare any of them without taking into account available hardpoints, heat capacity, and slot/tonnage restrictions. For instance, I don't care how good an AC20 is, I can't equip it on my Heavy Metal, so an LBX is immeasurably better in every respect simply because I CAN equip it. Using the same mech, just because five medium lasers do more damage than one large laser doesn't make a bit of difference because I can only equip three of them.

Getting back to the LBX, I really like it, as is, just because it has a much different use than the AC10. It can be used to provide covering fire to keep enemies off your approaching team, then be a brutal brawler when you catch up to your team that has ripped up the enemies' armor. The versatility is worth more to me than the raw punching power of an AC10, but that is just how I like to play.

We're comparing two LB-X's to a single AC/20 because of the Atlas - it is the only Assault chassis that can mount two LB-X's. It also has enough tonnage to play with that it can afford to spend the extra tons and slots without being critically short on ammunition while fulfilling a heavy combat role. So, while you're correct that the individual weapon systems are not comparable, the two options can be usefully compared because they do the same damage per shot.

[SirLANsalot]

ILYA MUROMETS

This is why you use the LBX-30.

Sneak up on people or just dont be the first ****** to walk over a hill and you will walk out with many kills and alot of damage dealt. Many times I have come around behind the enemy team and taken out 2-3 mechs before they realize I am there, them LBX's fire fast, and deal damage.

[Void Angel]

Void Angel, on 08 October 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

Two LB-Xs at close range ARE doing big single hits. At higher ranges, the AC/20's damage fall-off hurts it, while the LB-X's falloff doesn't even begin until the AC/20 is down to half damage. Sure, the scatter damage hurts it a bit more at those ranges, but the falloff in AC/20 damage is more telling - because it increases the time needed till armor breach, lending more and more advantage to dps weapons. But since I'm using two LB-X's, it's not a comparison between dps and pinpoint damage. It's about how much pinpoint damage falloff from roundscatter it takes to be equivalent to the pure damage falloff of the AC/20. I can put my damage reliably on the same torso of any large-ish 'mech out to at least 270m. It's not terribly hard. So what it comes down to is that the combination of two Autocannons weighing 60% more than one AC/20 generally outperform the lighter option, especially at close range. This is not a radical proposition.

With taking recourse to Elo, you're in danger of a fallacious appeal to your own authority. You're assuming that your experience comes from a "higher Elo" than mine, but none of us know what our ranking is, much less our Elo. So what you actually have is your assumption that your Elo is higher. Thus, you refer me to your subjective opinion of your own Elo, in relation to your subjective opinion of my Elo, to claim that your subjective opinion about your experiences are more authoritative. This does not form a coherent, much less a persuasive, argument - your examples are no help. For one example (puns are fun!) there is no Assault chassis in the game that can back up faster than I can go forward. Most Heavies can't move that fast, and nearly all of them don't.

As for this nonsense, it doesn't even warrant a quote. To be honest, I stopped reading when he accused me of ignoring a fact he actually quoted me pointing out.

PS: I have 18 SRMs and AMS, plus maxxed ammo in all sections but my legs (and still more than my front side torsos. I'm not really sacrificing a lot to get that extra firepower, and since I'm getting commensurate value for the extra tonnage, it's not a bad buy.

[Roland]

Void Angel, on 08 October 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

As for this nonsense, it doesn't even warrant a quote. To be honest, I stopped reading when he accused me of ignoring a fact he actually quoted me pointing out.

I didn't say you ignored it. I said that your pointing it out and then pretending like it wasn't a super huge, massive issue, was nonsensical.

I mean, you admit that you are taking 22 tons of weapons rather than 14, but then proceed to make the comparison between those two loadouts anyway. It was absurd.

[Mr 144]

Roland, on 08 October 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

I didn't say you ignored it. I said that your pointing it out and then pretending like it wasn't a super huge, massive issue, was nonsensical.

I mean, you admit that you are taking 22 tons of weapons rather than 14, but then proceed to make the comparison between those two loadouts anyway. It was absurd.

That's because it's not a 'super huge massive issue' on the atlas....for the exact same reason AC/20 or UACs are compared on the Atlas as well. The entire builds taken as a whole do not vary to a meaningful degree other than playstyle, a couple kph, and main ballistics used.

Personaly I don't care for LBXs on my Atlas, but it most certainly fits just fine without absurd sacrifice.

@Void....my comment was directed mainly at Chuggles, who seems to think by running it on his atlas, he now knows everything

Edited by Mr 144, 08 October 2013 - 06:20 PM.

[Roland]

Quote

That's because it's not a 'super huge massive issue' on the atlas....for the exact same reason AC/20 or UACs are compared on the Atlas as well. The entire builds taken as a whole do not vary to a meaningful degree other than playstyle, a couple kph, and main ballistics used.

Dude, even on an atlas, 8 tons is 8 percent of the mech's entire weight.

That is in fact a big deal.

[Void Angel]

Roland, on 08 October 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

I didn't say you ignored it. I said that your pointing it out and then pretending like it wasn't a super huge, massive issue, was nonsensical.

I mean, you admit that you are taking 22 tons of weapons rather than 14, but then proceed to make the comparison between those two loadouts anyway. It was absurd.

Roland, on 08 October 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

The fact that it's 60% more tonnage is not something that you can just ignore.

No, actually that was exactly what you said. If that is not what you meant, you might benefit from a bit more thought and self-editing before you post something. Still, I'll accept your retraction; moving on...

Roland, on 08 October 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

It's much more reasonable to compare a SINGLE LBX10 against an AC20, because there the tonnage difference is only 3 tons... and I don't know anyone who would say a single LBX10 is even close to as effective as a single AC20.

The huge, absurd, ridiculous extra tonnage investment you're referring to here is exactly 8% of my total tonnage. Eight. Percent. It rises to ten percent-ish if you consider available weight after maxing armor with endo-steel, but the real problem with your argument isn't the hysterical attention to relative tonnages but rather that your entire argument misses the points - all of them.

Tonnage isn't a huge issue. I'm an Atlas. I have the tonnage. The question is what to do with all that tonnage given my restrictive hardpoints. I could use an AC/20 to spend the tonnage on large lasers instead of mediums - and have lower dps and far less heat efficiency. It's still a viable build, and I did that for a while; this is a better close-range brawler with superior dps and heat efficiency. In Atlas builds, heat and hardpoints are always more important constraints than weight.

As for comparisons, your explanation of your objection actually contains its own rebuttal - I'm comparing builds, not weapon systems per se. Since I am building a close-range brawler, it is useful to compare the possible builds for that role. Since the Gauss changes made it more difficult to use in a brawl, I'm basically choosing between dual UAC/5s, dual LB-10Xs, or the AC/20. It's hardly ridiculous to compare obvious alternatives for a given build.

But even without all of that, your objection to comparing weapon loadouts actually is absurd. I can't compare two viable alternatives because the tonnages are different? Really? Are we only to compare ER Large lasers to Large Lasers, then? PPCs to Large Pulses; Small Pulses to Medium lasers? Oh, you can't compare Medium Lasers to Medium PULSE lasers! They're twice the tonnage! That's absurd! In point of fact, since in general weight is a major design constraint (even on an Atlas, it's important; just not supreme,) one very easy way to compare alternative weapon systems is their effectiveness by tonnage. Which is precisely what I did when I pointed out that the difference in weights is actually more than offset by the difference in damage outputs.

In short, every objection you've raised was nonsensical, which is why I called it nonsense - I did not pull my own reasoning out of a hat.

[Void Angel]

Also, eight percent is eight cents on the dollar. It is not "a big deal" by any sane definition.

[Roland]

Quote

The huge, absurd, ridiculous extra tonnage investment you're referring to here is exactly 8% of my total tonnage. Eight. Percent.

Dude, you realize that 8 percent of your mech is actually a huge amount, right? That's almost as much as the internal structure of your mech weighs. I mean, do you ever take endosteel? That only saves 5%.

If you fill up the armor, then you're only left with 70 tons. Add in a reasonable engine, say a 325, and your'e down to 51 tons.

So now that 8 tons constitutes 15 percent of all of the weapons, ammo, and equipment tonnage you have on the mech. Is that starting to seem important to you?

UItimately, the point is moot. If you like using LBX, that's totally your thing. You pay for your mechs, not me. But your rationale for their usage does not appear to be sound.

Quote

Tonnage isn't a huge issue. I'm an Atlas.

Tonnage isn't the reason the LBX is bad. It's lack of precision is what makes it bad.

The tonnage is merely what makes your comparison of TWO lbx10, at 22 tons, to a single AC20, poorly conceived.

[Void Angel]

Seventy-six tons with Endo-steel, actually, if you round down three points in both legs to the nearest ton of armor. And wait, wait, when did "a huge deal" devolve down to "sounding important?" You're not going to be able to pull that switch on me: I didn't say that it was unimportant; I objected to the hysterical importance which your objection attached to a relatively small tonnage, and insisted that the amount be kept in perspective.

You've also repeatedly ignored my reasoning, and have yet to field one single rational objection to any point I've made. Now you tell me that my rationale is unsound? I shifted tonnage away from large lasers and into an AC loadout which increases dps slightly greater than the proportionate weight increase - while still preserving my alpha damage, which is still pinpoint at close range. This is a rational, logical choice which has been supported by hard numbers. It's going to take more than nonsensical attacks on cherry-picked points to disprove factual argument.

You can indeed try to retreat by resorting to post-modernism, but the fact of the matter is that truth is never "moot" when it has a practical application. And despite your attacks, I cannot simply allow your bad advice and virulent hostility to go unopposed.

[MischiefSC]

I do love me some D-DC and have played around with the LB10Xs plenty of times. They are terribly satisfying to shoot and when you scatter damage across an unarmored torso it makes some awesome visuals. Performance wise though I just can't get the same quick destruction out of them that the LLs and AC20 do. The ability to put ~40pts in a single location consistently at ~200 meters and then drop another 36 points in and around that location at ~120 meters can't be over-stated. If I stagger my LBs and SRMs to maximize shake I can generally keep someone from even telling what type of mech I am but it's going to take me way longer to kill him and that's time under someone elses guns more often than not.

I see a few people using LB10Xs, I play around with them on my Cataphract to better effect (when farming XP/cbills they wrack up an absolutely wacky score because of just how much damage you do) but in terms of consistent killing power I personally wouldn't put them on par with AC10s or 20s coupled with a heavier laser loadout. They are crazy fun though, I wish you could triple them up on something other than the Ilya.

[Xendojo]

Lostdragon, on 27 September 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

They do have a higher crit rate. The problem is critting is pretty pointless. Once armor is gone that section is seconds away from being blown off completely, which any of the other ACs are better at since they do pinpoint damage.

In the lore the LBX could fire the scatter ammunition we have or it could use a slug similar to an AC10. Considering the weight, cost, and situational utility most any other AC is a better choice. The LBX can be fun, especially on a CTF with two, but it needs a buff of some sort to make it really competitive with other weapons. Giving it slugs that require a separate ammo type would make it a viable choice.

My Muromets has 2 LBX10 and 3 Mlas right now.


EDIT: I think LBX is fun. BOOSH!!! Bigass shotgun blast!

Edited by Xendojo, 08 October 2013 - 08:28 PM.

[Void Angel]

I've found good results with my RS AC/20 brawler and my D-DC LB-X build. My problem with the AC20/LLaser D-DC is that I often don't get optimal effects on target, especially in 12-mans where people will cover each other and focus fire. Sure, I can pound his torso, but he'll immediately twist and retreat if I've got him hard enough. Plus, the laser has a slower cycle time than my AC, and I ended up overheating a lot in heavy combat. The LB-X build I listed gives me actually higher damage, with the same punch close-in that you get from an AC/20. Your alpha goes down, but if you get all your laser damage on one torso, your target's just taking it anyway...

Again, that's not to say it's a bad build; I've used it and liked it, as well as Gauss Rifle (not so much now) and UAC builds. Those aren't the reasons that the build "sucks," but simply reasons why I switched over. Prior to the recent spread buff, I didn't find the LB-X to be good enough to justify the tonnage, either.

Edited by Void Angel, 08 October 2013 - 08:38 PM.

[Lord Perversor]

Void Angel, on 08 October 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

Seventy-six tons with Endo-steel, actually, if you round down three points in both legs to the nearest ton of armor. And wait, wait, when did "a huge deal" devolve down to "sounding important?" You're not going to be able to pull that switch on me: I didn't say that it was unimportant; I objected to the hysterical importance which your objection attached to a relatively small tonnage, and insisted that the amount be kept in perspective.

You've also repeatedly ignored my reasoning, and have yet to field one single rational objection to any point I've made. Now you tell me that my rationale is unsound? I shifted tonnage away from large lasers and into an AC loadout which increases dps slightly greater than the proportionate weight increase - while still preserving my alpha damage, which is still pinpoint at close range. This is a rational, logical choice which has been supported by hard numbers. It's going to take more than nonsensical attacks on cherry-picked points to disprove factual argument.

You can indeed try to retreat by resorting to post-modernism, but the fact of the matter is that truth is never "moot" when it has a practical application. And despite your attacks, I cannot simply allow your bad advice and virulent hostility to go unopposed.

But but but your Atlas can't fire with pinpoint accuracy several bajillion ALPHA!!! thus your build is invalid!!

Same reason cuz Quad Ac/2 are {Scrap} (even more with ghost heat!!)
Same reason 2x PPC + Gauss are {Scrap} now!!
Same reason Dragons/Qkd or meds are {Scrap}!!

Yet there is still ppl who can perform admirably well with those, but you know they are just luckers who just stomp noobs all day...

P.S: i been in quite several battles with 2x LBX 10 Atlas.. i can just testify those builds deal a wrecking ammount of dmg and that's a FACT!!

you can argue if it's more or less efficient than the Ac/20 pinpoint fire, but ppl can't negate the evidence...

Edited by Lord Perversor, 08 October 2013 - 08:41 PM.

[Roland]

Void Angel, on 08 October 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

Seventy-six tons with Endo-steel, actually, if you round down three points in both legs to the nearest ton of armor. And wait, wait, when did "a huge deal" devolve down to "sounding important?" You're not going to be able to pull that switch on me: I didn't say that it was unimportant; I objected to the hysterical importance which your objection attached to a relatively small tonnage, and insisted that the amount be kept in perspective.

No, 8 tons is still a huge deal.
I was making fun of you when I asked you if it was starting to sound important after I pointed out how it actually related to different factors of the mech's construction.

You sacrifice 14 critical slots for only 5 tons. So on some level, I would have to assume that you do in fact find that tonnage important.

Quote

You've also repeatedly ignored my reasoning, and have yet to field one single rational objection to any point I've made.

I'm not really seeing clear points that you are making here. You're making claims, but I don't think you are justifying them well.

For instance, you are suggesting that the build of 2 LBX vs the AC2, plus other stuff, is better.... that the benefits of the LBX's outweigh the sacrifices. However, I don't think that's actually the case. You are paying a large tonnage premium, and I don't think you are actually getting a benefit that makes it worth it. Indeed, I think that the two LBX are generally worse. The pure raw DPS may be higher, but that's really not the key element in mechwarrior. Without precision, that damage is going to be much less effective. Sure, it may look pretty on the scoreboard, but it's going to be less effective at killing mechs in practice.

Given that your mech is slow, surely you recognize that you are not going to be able to consistently put yourself at your ideal, point blank range, right? The mech simply lacks the agility to dictate range to that degree. So in practice, that lack of precision will amplify itself. And if you recognize that lack of precision is a problem, then this detracts from the weapon's utility. There may be specific situations where it is reasonably precise, but that's not really the same as it being a precise weapon.

Quote

I shifted tonnage away from large lasers and into an AC loadout which increases dps slightly greater than the proportionate weight increase - while still preserving my alpha damage, which is still pinpoint at close range.

But it's not pinpoint at close range.

Your claim is that you can put all of your LBX damage on one panel on, and I quote, "largish" mechs at 270m. That's not pinpoint damage at all.

Against a light mech, at what range do you think all 20 pellets from those 2 LBX will all land on a single panel? Do you think that happens at any range?

See, I think where the disconnect here is that you are choosing to see things in such a light that it fits your preconceptions. You are choosing to focus your attention on what you feel is good about the LBX, and then ignoring the critical flaws in the weapon.

You are using a loadout which weighs 8 tons more than a comparable loadout, but that's ok because tonnage doesn't matter... you can do pinpoint damage, as long as the targets are large and very close.

That level of analysis just doesn't cut it for me. Pinpoint damage, to me, means that I can put my damage on a single location. That's the chief reason why I use non-laser weapons... because in exchange for dealing with the travel time, I get to dump all of the damage on a single location. If I want to spread damage, I can take lighter energy weapons and have instant hit damage which will spread a bit.

Quote

This is a rational, logical choice which has been supported by hard numbers. It's going to take more than nonsensical attacks on cherry-picked points to disprove factual argument.

I don't think your case here is supported by hard numbers. I think perhaps it is supported, in your head, by your anecdotal experience.

You are perhaps reading more hostility into my post than I intend. I do not think you are a bad person, nor do I personally dislike you. I do not even know who you are. I'm merely pointing out that your analysis here has some flaws.

But honestly, I don't think I'll be able to convince you. You apparently like using the LBX, and feel that it is a good weapon. My telling you otherwise won't change that.

[Grym]

By my experience the LBX10 by itself is not a good primary source of damage. However, if you can spare the weight it is a great secondary source of damage.

And a pair of LBX10s can be very devastating.

Regardless, like many weapons, the niche they field is more per play style than just by situation. If you pilot your mech to be in the right situation nearly any weapon can be used effectively.

Its just some weapons are useful in MORE situations than an LBX10.

Between the LBX10 and AC10 i lean towards the LBX, not because its better, but because it fits my playstyle better.

[Void Angel]

Roland, on 08 October 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

No, 8 tons is still a huge deal.
I was making fun of you when I asked you if it was starting to sound important after I pointed out how it actually related to different factors of the mech's construction.

No! But ridicule in place of actual reasoning based on facts is so out of character for you! Also, words to the effect of, "it is SO a huge deal!" Doesn't count as a refutation.

Roland, on 08 October 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

You sacrifice 14 critical slots for only 5 tons. So on some level, I would have to assume that you do in fact find that tonnage important.

Which fallacy should I tackle first? You're implying that I've claimed tonnage isn't "important," while simultaneously ignoring my actual explanation that my hardpoints are actually the more important limitation here. Here, this is for you.

Roland, on 08 October 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

I'm not really seeing clear points that you are making here. You're making claims, but I don't think you are justifying them well. [edit: spoilers added for page flow and brevity]

Spoiler

<br></p><p><br></p><p>For instance, you are suggesting that the build of 2 LBX vs the AC2, plus other stuff, is better.... that the benefits of the LBX's outweigh the sacrifices. However, I don't think that's actually the case. You are paying a large tonnage premium, and I don't think you are actually getting a benefit that makes it worth it. Indeed, I think that the two LBX are generally worse. The pure raw DPS may be higher, but that's really not the key element in mechwarrior. Without precision, that damage is going to be much less effective. Sure, it may look pretty on the scoreboard, but it's going to be less effective at killing mechs in practice.<br></p><p><br></p><p>Given that your mech is slow, surely you recognize that you are not going to be able to consistently put yourself at your ideal, point blank range, right? The mech simply lacks the agility to dictate range to that degree. So in practice, that lack of precision will amplify itself. And if you recognize that lack of precision is a problem, then this detracts from the weapon's utility. There may be specific situations where it is reasonably precise, but that's not really the same as it being a precise weapon

.

I have to thank you here, because irony is my favorite form of humor. You begin with a claim (i.e. that I'm not supporting my claims) and then fail to adequately support it; you cherry-pick data and ignore the parts of my argument that pertain to your points. Refusing to deal fairly or accurately with your opponent's reasoning invalidates your critique of his thought. As an example, you repeat a subjective claim that 8% of my total battle weight is a "large tonnage premium," but ignore the fact that, empirically, this increase in tonnage used is outstripped by an increase in dps - and that this increase brings the alpha damage up to the level of the AC/20 with a much higher dps. So if spread and heavier weight are "problems" for the dual LB-X, why isn't lower DPS a "problem" for the AC/20? It's because you're treating pinpoint damage as the only true metric by which any weapon can be judged - even though logically at some point dps will win out. I gave math to demonstrate why that point has been reached with twin LB-X's, and you have failed to deal with those calculations at all.

Roland, on 08 October 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

But it's not pinpoint at close range.

What? That's the only place it's pinpoint. On large targets, I can reliably put all 20 points of damage onto a single hit location of most 'mechs Heavy and larger.

Roland, on 08 October 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

Your claim is that you can put all of your LBX damage on one panel on, and I quote, "largish" mechs at 270m. That's not pinpoint damage at all.

Now, here I have to apologize and retract a statement. When I double checked myself in the Testing Grounds, I found that I was actually able to hit large targets (Atlas torsos, Catapult ears, Stalkers from the side, etc.) at about 200m range. This means that there is a sweet spot where the AC/20 should outperform the LB-Xs in punchthrough/shot before the damage falloff from the 270m min range kicks in. It's not a terrib ly large range, however, and it is not a forgone conclusion that the punchthrough/shot advantage is enough to offset the massive advantage in dps.

Roland, on 08 October 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

Against a light mech, at what range do you think all 20 pellets from those 2 LBX will all land on a single panel? Do you think that happens at any range?

It's a light 'mech; how much do you think it matters? Certainly, if you hit a light twice, in the same location, before he retreats, he's going to die from that AC/20. That's a lot of "ifs;" certainly the same kind of "ifs" apply to the LB-Xs - but the LB-X setup is taking 60% more shots with a 22.2% faster projectile speed. I touched on this before, but you're not seeming to consider why punch damage is important: time to kill. The reason that all else being equal, punch damage is better than spread damage is that you can achieve first, armor strikethrough, and, then, a location kill faster with focused damage on a single location - thus taking an enemy or weapon out of the fight faster. Torso twisting is used to mitigate the dps of faster pinpoint damage weapons, making heavier pinpoint damage weapons generally preferred. So far, so good, but people end up reducing this logical sequence to mental shorthand: big hits are an advantage; spread damage and small hits are a disadvantage - therefore big hits are an absolute advantage. This is simply incorrect; at some point a certain amount of raw dps will overwhelm the advantages of big, slow, punch weapons. This is what I feel is happening with dual LB-Xs at close range; I've given math to support it - and gotten back "big hit good, spread damage and dps bad!" without any math to support that claim.

Roland, on 08 October 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

See, I think where the disconnect here is that you are choosing to see things in such a light that it fits your preconceptions. You are choosing to focus your attention on what you feel is good about the LBX, and then ignoring the critical flaws in the weapon.

Spoiler

You are using a loadout which weighs 8 tons more than a comparable loadout, but that's ok because tonnage doesn't matter... you can do pinpoint damage, as long as the targets are large and very close.<br></p><p><br></p><p>That level of analysis just doesn't cut it for me. Pinpoint damage, to me, means that I can put my damage on a single location. That's the chief reason why I use non-laser weapons... because in exchange for dealing with the travel time, I get to dump all of the damage on a single location. If I want to spread damage, I can take lighter energy weapons and have instant hit damage which will spread a bit.</p><p><br></p><p>I don't think your case here is supported by hard numbers. I think perhaps it is supported, in your head, by your anecdotal experience.<br></p><p><br></p><p>You are perhaps reading more hostility into my post than I intend. I do not think you are a bad person, nor do I personally dislike you. I do not even know who you are. I'm merely pointing out that your analysis here has some flaws.

But honestly, I don't think I'll be able to convince you. You apparently like using the LBX, and feel that it is a good weapon. My telling you otherwise won't change that.

On the contrary, the disconnect here is that you repeatedly conflate your subjective opinions with the empirical characteristics of the weapon system, ignore critical facts in my argument, and then cannot understand why I remain unconvinced. You've repeatedly misrepresented my arguments, putting words in my mouth even when I've corrected you ("tonnage doesn't matter") and failing to deal with important claims.

To be clear, any feeling of personal hostility you have from me is misplaced: I am not hostile toward you, or even angry (though I must confess that I am a bit annoyed.) I am however, insistent - and I am precise. I've given you precise reasons, grounded in and referencing hard math, and you've completely failed to address them. Your objections really don't make sense - and very often you disregard my reasons for disagreeing with you without dealing with or even mentioning those reasons. Certainly you don't have to address every sentence of my posts - but you do have to deal with reasoning that directly opposes your point. Without dealing with important objections to your position, your arguments become nonsensical - which brings us back to where we began.

Edited by Void Angel, 09 October 2013 - 02:39 AM.

[J4ck4l]

Because it's fun way of killing other mechs. It might not be as effecient or effective as other builds. But every build is going to get boring at some point. The LB 10X builds are a welcome change of style.

Edited by J4ck4l, 09 October 2013 - 02:40 AM.