187 replies to this topic

[Kmieciu]

I've read the whole thread and you failed to mention that dual LBX on an Atlas makes it harder to torso twist. If you take the AC20+2xML+3xSRM6 combo the recycle time for all the weapons is 4 seconds. You take the shot (1 second) and then spend 3 seconds while the enemy wastes his time damaging your massive shoulders (68-points of armor 34 points of IS). That is how you brawl in an Atlas.

The guy with twin LBX10 has to shoot every 2.5 seconds, because he will loose his DPS otherwise. If he torso twists and waits for his lasers and srms to recharge, the dual LBX10 DPS drops to 5 - the same as AC20.

LBX10 has the highest average DPS against items, but a single AC20 round has a chance to take out 3 items instantly. And if it takes out a side torso, it will destroy all the items in it, and you loose the arm as well.

AC20 is able to score a cockpit kill in 2 hits. It's rare but it's doable against a an enemy that has shut down. I haven't seen anyone killed by a LBX headshot... (besides Founder's Alas since the last patch).

AC20 gives you the ability to leg a light mech. I mastered my share of light mechs and right now, LBX, Er large laser and SRMs are the least of my worries. SRMs just explode for no damage around me, and LBX just tickles. It's the guys with AC20 who are scary. They can get lucky and leg me in one salvo. And believe me, dual AC20 Jagers still use group fire on their first shot.

The final argument: SRM6 gives you 3 DPS / 1 HPS for measly 3 tonnes. SRMs are the kings of point blank range. If only they registered damage against mechs other than an Awesome :-)

Edited by Kmieciu, 09 October 2013 - 04:31 AM.

[Roland]

Heh, I just realized that Void Angel is the same guy who argued with Vic months ago about how lots of terrible weapons weren't in fact terrible.

Seems pointless to rehash that argument again.

[Roland]

One thing though, so that you understand that I don't necessarily disagree with all of your ideas, merely the conclusions that you draw:

Quote

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 certainly true, although spread that you can't control is a HUGE negative factor when evaluating true effective damage.

For instance, when the UAC's were broken, they were the best weapons in the game... Certainly, at those times, the LBX10 was clearly just a total trash tier weapon, because if you wanted DPS for your atlas ballistic slots, the UAC's were just plain better in every way.

The problem with the LBX is that it spreads that higher damage around. This has the effect of reducing the DPS, because you're now forced to go through multiple sections of armor, which effectively raises the amount of damage you need to do before the mech dies.

Unlike a weapon like the UAC, where the spread was effectively controlled by the shooter (i.e., I could turn it into precision damage by being able to land multiple consecutive shots), the LBX is simply incapable of putting all of its damage in a single location. Even against large targets, you admit to only being able to put that damage on a single panel once they are closer than 200m.

The UAC had the downside of requiring consecutive shots, but if well aimed, it was a precise weapon... and its dps made up for the lack of single hit punch.

The LBX doesn't do this. It has decent damage on paper, but the inherent spread makes its actual effective damage much less in an actual combat environment.

The LBX could be useful if you can't actually get damage on target otherwise.. if you need a wide spread because you will miss too often using a more precise weapon system. But this isn't really a good reason to use that weapon, as you would be better served simply improving your gunnery.

[Dawnstealer]

If someone has exposed armor in a torso, or if you're in a heavy and being twirled around by a light, they're useful. Beyond those specific situations...yeah, better off with an UAC5, two AC5s, or an AC10.

[Void Angel]

Roland, on 09 October 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

Heh, I just realized that Void Angel is the same guy who argued with Vic months ago about how lots of terrible weapons weren't in fact terrible.

Seems pointless to rehash that argument again.

I won that debate, too - and Victor also engaged in the same kinds of sophistry. Assuming we're thinking of the same thing, my argument at the time was very similar to this one - in that instance, I demonstrated that under some circumstances a couple of AC/5s could outperform their equivalent tonnage in Gauss Rifle as a brawling weapon. As I did with you, I used math; like you, Victor never refuted my math, or even dealt with it. Instead, he insisted on the cookie-cutter assumption that because the AC/20 has the highest punch damage in the game, it must always be the best weapon combination in its class. This is empirically untrue; it is ideological reasoning of the lowest stripe, and you're only able to keep your illusions by steadfastly refusing to engage me on the seminal point of the debate - time to kill. Instead, you repeatedly resort to generalized statements such as "The problem with the LBX is that it spreads that higher damage around," ignoring countervailing points that you have not refuted. Yes, the LB-X spreads, but it's grouping is tight enough at close ranges to place all of its damage on the same location - which makes two LB-Xs superior to an AC/20 at those ranges. Beyond those ranges, it's a question of whether or not the sixty fracking percent superior rate of fire is enough to counter the effect of shot spread in comparison to the AC/20 (including falloff outside 270m.) You have claimed, repeatedly, that this massive dps advantage is insufficient to offset the magic of high pinpoint damage, but you have not provided a single bit of actual evidence to support that claim.

Your summary of that prior debate is inaccurate in nearly every particular. I did not argue about "lots of weapons;" I did not argue that two AC/5s were "in fact not terrible," or even that the weapon combination was better than the Gauss as a long-range system. The only thing you got right was that I argued with Victor. What I did point out, proven with hard math, was that, all else being equal, a heavy armed only with dual AC/5s could leg to death a torso-twisting heavy armed only with a Gauss rifle before the Gauss killed him - my conclusion was that while the AC/5 should almost always be substituted for a real gun, it was simply not true that high-pinpoint damage always beats any amount of DPS. Yet this is the underlying ideology behind your objections, as well as Victor's own. And now you come mocking, citing a debate you did. not. even. understand.

When you cannot or will not deal with your opponent's points, you have lost the argument. When you cannot understand the argument, yet still oppose it, you embarrass yourself.

[PropagandaWar]

I dunno. take a Jager. Pack 2 LBX 10's which have a decent firing rate then add a few SRM's with a backup laser and don't shoot at anything over 200 meters unless you have to. see how that works for ya.

[Void Angel]

Kmieciu, on 09 October 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

I've read the whole thread and you failed to mention that dual LBX on an Atlas makes it harder to torso twist. If you take the AC20+2xML+3xSRM6 combo the recycle time for all the weapons is 4 seconds. You take the shot (1 second) and then spend 3 seconds while the enemy wastes his time damaging your massive shoulders (68-points of armor 34 points of IS). That is how you brawl in an Atlas.
[edit: supporting reasoning cut for brevity, not content.]
The final argument: SRM6 gives you 3 DPS / 1 HPS for measly 3 tonnes. SRMs are the kings of point blank range. If only they registered damage against mechs other than an Awesome :-)

This is true, and certainly one of the good things about an AC/20 setup. Let me reiterate here that I have used that exact setup and enjoyed it immensely. If they nerfed the LB-10X today, I'd go back to it without qualm.

That being said, while torso twisting is an important tactic, it's hard to use it convincingly in an argument. This is because it doesn't encompass the entire tactical picture - and often involves an unsupported assumption. For the first point, it covers only a certain type of combat - direct, sustained brawling. Torso twisting doesn't always apply to the kind of close-range corner-fighting that occurs when the team isn't yet ready to move in. On the second point, theorycrafting about torso twisting often ignores the effect of teammates; very seldom are you going to have leisure to run lumbering into the arms of your Atlas soul-mate, proclaiming your love with cannon and missile fire . You're usually going to have teammates also pouring fire into the both of you (often from different directions,) resulting in reduced time to armor strikethrough. This in turn lends more and more benefit to the higher-dps weapon option - but it's impossible to quantify in forum theorycrafting.

This is why, while I recognize the importance of torso twisting, and do it myself, I haven't dealt with it directly here.

PS: As for SRMs, uh, I have them, too? So the choice is really between one more heatsink increment in engine weight, and the heavier autocannon arrangement.

Edited by Void Angel, 09 October 2013 - 02:57 PM.

[DarkDevilDancer]

I have a duel lbx jeager that works well, 150 ammo is enough for even the longest matches and 4 mlas help me strip armour and give a 40 point blank range alpha.

I also use a single lbx on my protector along with 2 LL it's great for finishing off mechs.

[Roland]

Void Angel, on 09 October 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

I won that debate, too

I have absolutely no doubt that you believe that to be the case.

Quote

Yes, the LB-X spreads, but it's grouping is tight enough at close ranges to place all of its damage on the same location - which makes two LB-Xs superior to an AC/20 at those ranges.

As you pointed out, even at a range of 200m, you are only able to place all of the damage on a single location against large targets.

I ask again, at what range are you able to place all of your damage on a single location on a light mech?

And, again, you are making the error of comparing 22 tons of weapons to 14 tons of weapons.

Quote

Beyond those ranges, it's a question of whether or not the sixty fracking percent superior rate of fire is enough to counter the effect of shot spread in comparison to the AC/20 (including falloff outside 270m.)

And it's not.

Quote

You have claimed, repeatedly, that this massive dps advantage is insufficient to offset the magic of high pinpoint damage, but you have not provided a single bit of actual evidence to support that claim.

It can be seen quite easily how the increase of damage doesn't offset it, because of two factors:
1) It only matters if you are able to continually fire on target constantly, meaning that you are limited in your ability to defend yourself. You have to continue to stare at the target in order to actually achieve that increase in DPS. This is its own disadvantage.
2) That increase in DPS ends up being dramatically reduced in its kiling power, because it is spread across sections. So while you are technically putting out more damage, the target has MORE ARMOR that you end up having to go through. Whereas an AC 20 can cleanly kill through a single location, and thus only needs to do enough damage to kill that single location, the LBX will spread damage and thus needs to destroy multiple armor sections with that spread out damage. So its effective DPS is in fact not doubled, since that damage isn't being used as effectively.

If you want to test this empirically, you can go into the testing grounds and compare the time to kill a target using an AC 20 vs the LBX 10. You can vary ranges, and target mechs, and see which one kills targets faster.

Of course, you'd have to intentionally ignore the fact that the AC20 can kill targets through its head, and will always be able to kill a stationary target in exactly 4 seconds, something the LBX will never be able to do... but even ignoring that, you could compare the time to kill at different ranges against different mechs.

Maybe I'll run the test and provide the specific numbers. It'll take a bit of time to run it though.

That won't highlight the dynamic gameplay advantages of high alpha weapons vs. DPS weapons, but everyone who knows anything already knows that alpha weapons beat out DPS from the perspective of defending yourself and not letting the enemy defend themselves. So this kind of test would simply focus on the killing power of those two configurations.

And, of course, it ignores the fact that the LBX really should win by a landslide given that it weighs 8 tons more.

Edited by Roland, 09 October 2013 - 06:33 PM.

[Void Angel]

Once again, you make many claims which you refuse to support with actual facts - just your opinions. Math up or shut up. Everything I've heard from you so far has come from ideological reasoning based on a cookie-cutter oversimplification of certain game mechanics.

PS: Your offer to go to the testing grounds to test time to kill demonstrates, at best, a total ignorance of how punch damage works to the benefit of weapon systems. At worst, you're being intentionally disingenuous, but there's a saying about attributing things to malice...

[Kmieciu]

Void Angel, on 09 October 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

That being said, while torso twisting is an important tactic, it's hard to use it convincingly in an argument. This is because it doesn't encompass the entire tactical picture - and often involves an unsupported assumption. For the first point, it covers only a certain type of combat - direct, sustained brawling. Torso twisting doesn't always apply to the kind of close-range corner-fighting that occurs when the team isn't yet ready to move in.

How do you use your Atlas if not for "direct, sustained brawling"? It is THE best mech for "direct, sustained brawling". If you are using your Atlas for "close-range corner-fighting", you are making a mistake. An Atlas is too sluggish for hit and run tactics. I have seen many Atlas pilots making that mistake. They step out of cover, take a shot and then move back to cover. During this time, they receive more damage than they deliver. And in PUG games there is always someone behind you blocking you while you retreat.

The best Assaults "when the team isn't yet ready to move in" are the Stalker (ridge humping), Highlander & Victor (jump-sniping). Even an Atlas LRM-boat is a better use of resources than trying to harass the enemy by peeking out of cover. The best weapons "when the team isn't yet ready to move in" are those that deal pinpoint, long range, instant damage. An Atlas, in my opinion excels in one field: leading the final charge, protecting the primary damage dealers (Jagers, Cataphracts).

You can recognize a seasoned Atlas pilot when you see his arms more often than his center torso. You ask yourself "should I wait for him to show me his torso, or should I hit his arms?" You can wait or you can waste your ammo and heat capacity. While you wait, enemy Victors and Highlanders are hitting your center torso with 40 damage pinpoint alphas. That is how the game is played at high level.

Edited by Kmieciu, 09 October 2013 - 10:40 PM.

[YueFei]

Kmieciu, on 09 October 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

You can recognize a seasoned Atlas pilot when you see his arms more often than his center torso. You ask yourself "should I wait for him to show me his torso, or should I hit his arms?" You can wait or you can waste your ammo and heat capacity. While you wait, enemy Victors and Highlanders are hitting your center torso with 40 damage pinpoint alphas. That is how the game is played at high level.

The correct answer is to swap targets and shoot the enemy Victors and Highlanders while maneuvering away from the enemy Atlas.

Even smart PUGers recognize this. =/ I remember tanking with my Atlas for a buddy in his Cataphract. I stepped in, fired a salvo and took some hits, and then shielded with my arm. I waited a bit to see what would happen, realized no one was shooting at me, and then turned to see my buddy in his XL-equipped 'phract getting smoked.

[Kmieciu]

YueFei, on 09 October 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

The correct answer is to swap targets and shoot the enemy Victors and Highlanders while maneuvering away from the enemy Atlas.

Even smart PUGers recognize this. =/ I remember tanking with my Atlas for a buddy in his Cataphract. I stepped in, fired a salvo and took some hits, and then shielded with my arm. I waited a bit to see what would happen, realized no one was shooting at me, and then turned to see my buddy in his XL-equipped 'phract getting smoked.

Maybe those smart PUGers were actually a premade using team speak? But anyway, If you are in an Atlas armed with LBX, you have no option but to shoot the other advancing Atlas. There might be a quad AC5 Cataphract 400 meters behind him, pumping you full of lead (13,33 DPS till he runs out of ammo), so the best thing you could do is to ram the enemy Atlas so his buddy cannot aim at you.
One Atlas tanking for one Cataphract is easy to counter. When multiple DC-Atlai are attacking your positions and all the enemy jump snipers and dakka-mechs are moving behind them it's really difficult to pick the weakest target. So the team concentrates fire on the target that is easy to hit (Atlas) while the commander searches for the most valuable targets (high dps XL jagers and cataphracts).

Edited by Kmieciu, 09 October 2013 - 11:22 PM.

[Captain Stiffy]

[Mcchuggernaut]

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

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'm going to take 10 damage on a single point over a bit more more damage spread out any day. Your going to end up either killing or disabling something vital much quicker that way. I did like being able to hit people pretty far away with the dual LB 10-X setup, but all it did for me in my experience after a lot of time experimenting was annoy people, boost my damage done numbers, and warn people I hit at range that: "Hey, this guy is running a build that is most effective at close range, I better stay back!"

Most importantly, I watched what my K/D and win-loss ratio did over a long time running the two builds. I ended up with more damage done but fewer kills and more losses with the dual LB 10-X build on average, and less damage done overall but a good bit more kills and more wins with the AC/20 version. I think this was for two reasons: First, pinpoint damage of the AC/20 finished mechs instead of spreading a lot of damage over longer rages, and the fact that the extra free tonnage and crit spaces an AC/20 allowed me let me carry better secondary weapons and a bigger engine, so I could do a significant amount more damage and get to the fight quicker. The second factor that determined more wins and kills for me I think was that I ended up taking more mechs out of the fight by outright killing them, rather than the afore-mentioned damage spreading. This slightly tipped more fights in the favor of my team, raising my win/loss ratio, which allowed me even MORE kills when cleaning up a mostly defeated enemy at the end of a match.

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

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.

I am certainly NOT claiming a higher elo level than you. I said "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." That means good players do this, not that you aren't or that I am. I have just watched how people who are considered "skilled" play, and that's what they do. I try and emulate these competitive players myself, and from my experience, those tactics are VERY effective. I peek around corners, fire, then back up so I can't be reliably hit (this can be done even in an Atlas, and I didn't even MENTION pop-tarting mechs like the Highlander). And I know you can't back up as fast as you can go forward, but if I see someone coming at me with short-range weapons I WILL back away as fast as I can go to keep them out of effective range as long as I can. Even if you back away from someone half as fast as they move forward, you can keep them out of their best range a good bit longer. Sometimes it makes all the difference.

You have solid "math" to back up some of what you say, but the problem is that what looks very solid on paper often doesn't translate well to the realities of the actual game. I'm pretty sure that's why I got better in-game performance overall with the AC/20 build. I am not trying to attack you, call you stupid, a bad player, OR say that I am superior although you sadly seem to have taken it that way. These are just my thoughts on the two weapon setups for an Atlas. Don't take anything I have said personally, please, because it certainly isn't intended to be. I apologize if I sounded condescending or like I was trashing your ability.

[Void Angel]

Kmieciu, on 09 October 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

How do you use your Atlas if not for "direct, sustained brawling"? It is THE best mech for "direct, sustained brawling". If you are using your Atlas for "close-range corner-fighting", you are making a mistake. An Atlas is too sluggish for hit and run tactics. I have seen many Atlas pilots making that mistake. They step out of cover, take a shot and then move back to cover. During this time, they receive more damage than they deliver. And in PUG games there is always someone behind you blocking you while you retreat.

Except when there isn't. Or when the enemy isn't all set up waiting for you in a firing line, or when the team isn't ready to commit to a charge, or when only part of the enemy team is visible around cover, and they're backing away. Some games you just group up and charge; others you end up facing the enemy across a gap or around a corner; or it just degenerates into a scattered sniperfest because PuGs. Some games, you can find yourself holding off enemies while your team tries to flank - the possibilities are varied. To be sure, it's foolish to try and cover snipe with an Atlas - but that's not the only reason to use cover. Sometimes it really is best to limp back into the rear, announce that your armor is broken, and carry on. The trouble with your examples is that you assume non-universal circumstances as a universal quality of life.

Speaking of assumptions, take your response to YueFei: "any puggers who do smart things are probably a coordinated group using teamspeak, actually." The problem is that puggers often do swap targets just as he describes. I do it if I see a lot of heavy fire coming from the lighter 'mech, because it's more effective to do so - assuming the Atlas isn't severely damaged. This is because many Heavy chassis and lighter Assaults can carry a higher proportion of their weight as guns - so not only can you kill them faster because of their toughness, but you reduce enemy damage by a greater amount per point of damage done to kill. I'm certain that I'm not the only one to have ever come to this conclusion, and it doesn't take one ounce of coordination to switch to an exposed priority chassis. Of course, as of PGI's last released statistics, a little over half of all players in the random queue drop with one or more friends/guildmates, if I recall. I know I do. So since about half of the people in PuGs are premade teams, I don't see how that's a useful distinction.

Given that you're using anecdotal reasoning supported by flawed assumptions, I really don't find the objection convincing. To reiterate, I don't find the AC/20 to be a bad choice - but the numbers support my own observations that it is an overall superior knife-range brawling weapon. Show me the math that shows where I'm wrong, and I'll consider your point of view; blindly insist on your point of view along the lines of cherry picking a minor point and saying "this is how we do it in high Elo games," and I'll ask you to stop wasting my time.

[Void Angel]

Mcchuggernaut, on 10 October 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

I'm going to take 10 damage on a single point over a bit more more damage spread out any day.

A simple, "I don't understand the question, could you explain?" Would have worked better.

The question isn't "do you like spread damage or pinpoint damage." That's a no-brainer. The question is "how much LB-X damage has to spread before the damage I can reliably put on my target location is less than the adjusted pinpoint damage from the AC/20?" I've said that repeatedly, and it just keeps whizzing by over your head. I'll happily explain the principles involved in even more detail if you require, but until you can actually address the argument being made, your posts are tiring and irrelevant.

Like the poster above, you're making unsupported assumptions to support your argument. I will not typically run at you over open ground so you can run away from me - I'm going to come at you from the side, or from around cover. Sure, you could do similar things (though you can't react to actions taken outside your knowledge,) but the point here is that neither of us is going to willingly conform to a scenario that makes one or both of us act like an *****. So you should probably stop reasoning from that basis.

[Kmieciu]

So to sum up this debate I think we all agree that when a target is huge, stationary, unarmored and at point blank the LBX performs better than an AC20. Besides, the triple LBX10 (33 tons) it is a great gun against stock 25-ton mechs:

Edited by Kmieciu, 10 October 2013 - 01:12 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

LBX10 spreads which means it will help those people that an't that great a shot hit something, or people on a slow pc high ping

ohh and it makes an intresting noise

I do actually like and use them and ac10, its down to choice

Edited by Cathy, 10 October 2013 - 01:22 AM.

[Ahasver]

DarkDevilDancer, on 09 October 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

I have a duel lbx jeager that works well, 150 ammo is enough for even the longest matches and 4 mlas help me strip armour and give a 40 point blank range alpha.

I also use a single lbx on my protector along with 2 LL it's great for finishing off mechs.

Shoot in the right order, first the 4 ML and then the lbx and MGs ... I have lots of fun with this build and quite high Ratios.
I am running a Jäger with two AC10 and otherwise almost the same and I have less success.