187 replies to this topic

[Training Instructor]

Against lights and mediums, the bonuses to critting exposed internals don't matter so much, as that location is going to get vaporized by the next big weapon that hits it anyways. Against heavies and assaults though, even a single lb10x can really put the hurt on.

I run a single lb10x with 2xMG on my HBK-4G, and it's a little monster flanker in a brawl, because the three medium lasers will open up most back sections, and the lb10x and machine guns will quickly wreck absolute havoc on the internals. Then that big target has to turn to protect it's back, either exposing that section to teammates, or simply not firing at them, which is a victory for me either way. It also works pretty well against lights, because of the huge torso twist and ability to land consistent shots even against spiders. *I'm not an awesome shot, so forgive me for using a shotgun to kill a spider*

I really like using dual LB10X on my jager, k2, and Atlas D and DDC. I find them better for my playstyle, as I have severe issues with SRM hit registration. 140-150ping, playing from Russia, something just goes wonky when it comes time to land those srms effectively against anyone moving faster than 40kph.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Void Angel, on 10 October 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

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.

First off Mack, I was the original damn poster, so if my posts are so irrelevant, go look at another topic. It seems to have been a good enough topic to spawn 9 pages of discussion. I'm also telling you I DO understand your argument, but disagree because I think your "maths" about the damage fall-off at range of the AC/20 eventually making dual LB 10-Xs better after a certain distance because of their increased range is bollocks. First, you already said it is better at close range than the AC/20 because you can pinpoint the shot reliably and it fires faster and cooler than an AC/20. Now you are touting range. Which the **** is it? You might do more damage overall. I get it. Your going to kill less {Scrap} though. I tried this myself. Hours upon hours of gameplay with both setups proved it. Did you actually test this like I did? Have you run these two builds for weeks at a time to figure out in real game conditions if your assumptions are even correct? Maybe, I don't know. But I DID, so quit acting like the god-given authority on the topic. Even if there is (and there may or may not mathematically be) a magical perfect range where dual LB 10-Xs pinpoint well enough and have the range to beat an AC/20 after it's damage drops off like you seem to be touting, it is a very small one, and 90% of the time in actual game conditions all your specialized circumstances aren't going to happen. People aren't going to all be sitting at that magic range for you.

What has begun to irritate me is that after seeing your first less-than-civil reply to one of my posts, I actually apologized for maybe making you angry unintentionally. I get another nasty reply back from you even worse than the first after I attempt to be civil and even try to make you feel better. On top of that, you are also verbally abusing some of the other people who have posted on this topic. You are just ******* off the other posters and me at this point. Keep it up, and I will just delete or lock the topic, and see about reporting your behavior.

Edited by Mcchuggernaut, 10 October 2013 - 04:17 AM.

[Roland]

Void Angel, on 09 October 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

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.

You have presented nothing more than poorly conceived ideas. You haven't presented any kind of empirical data.

I've presented exactly why I believe what I do. I even offered an experiment that would clearly demonstrate its truth... Oh, but apparently you don't like that either? lolz

Void Angel, on 09 October 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

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...

The experiment I laid out would clearly test exactly what you are claiming (without evidence) is the advantage of the LBX10... namely, that it's higher DPS will counteract its spread.


You are making a claim, and this experiment would test it. It'll actually end up painting the LBX in a more favorable light than it'll see in real combat, but it'll at least test your unsupported suggestion that it's DPS counteracts its lack of precision.

[Void Angel]

Roland, on 10 October 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

You have presented nothing more than poorly conceived ideas. You haven't presented any kind of empirical data.

I've presented exactly why I believe what I do. I even offered an experiment that would clearly demonstrate its truth... Oh, but apparently you don't like that either? lolz


The experiment I laid out would clearly test exactly what you are claiming (without evidence) is the advantage of the LBX10... namely, that it's higher DPS will counteract its spread.


You are making a claim, and this experiment would test it. It'll actually end up painting the LBX in a more favorable light than it'll see in real combat, but it'll at least test your unsupported suggestion that it's DPS counteracts its lack of precision.

You've presented faulty logic based on anecdote and opinion - often mistaking conclusions for reasons. You've ignored contrary reasoning that deals directly with your conclusions, and steadfastly refused to engage my points on a mathematical basis. I've given you math; you respond that my supporting evidence is not "empirical." Come on.

Similarly, your proposed experiment will produce warped results, and in your favor; the fact that you not only do not realize this, but actually expect the opposite occurrence tells me you don't understand the principles involved - which was why I asked you for math. Claiming that my math does not support my "unsupported" conclusions without ever actually mentioning said math is absurd.

Mech, I don't even know where to begin with you. You're conflating your having started the thread with whether or not your subsequent posts have been relevant to the debate; you're complaining of an imaginary contradiction (accounting for range in damage comparison isn't "touting range") and trying to make me responsible for your subjective impression that I'm "nasty." If I am unkind to your ideas, defend them; don't threaten to report me for disagreeing with you and use your forum powers to silence dissent. If you are not prepared to argue fairly, please refrain from asking questions whose answers you are not willing to accept.

Your accusation of personal rudeness is just the last straw. If I have been unkind to your arguments, the proper response is to defend your reasoning rather than attempt to deflect the debate to social issues. I have not been unkind to you personally, nor to anyone else - despite my opinion being called "ridiculous," "absurd," etc. Nor have I responded to claims which imply that I hold my views because I'm an inferior player ("well, at high Elo...") except to point out that those arguments are not appropriate.

Neither you nor Roland have presented falsifiable facts to support your claims, despite being repeatedly asked to provide actual math in your theorycrafting - yet you still feel justified in your opinions. So be it. When you're resorting to "you're mean!" as an argumentative tactic, you've left the bounds of polite debate.

/unfollow.

[Scalien]

Khobai, on 27 September 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

Correct they have a higher crit rate. But they are still much worse at critting than an AC/10.

The reason is because all items have 10 health. When an AC/10 crits, it does 10 damage to a random item, and destroys it instantly. When an LB10X crits, each pellet does 2 damage to a random item, but since every pellet can hit a different item randomly, theres no guarantee of destroying any items.



Yes and no. There are currently only five weapons that are effective at critting. The AC/10, ERPPC, PPC, Gauss, and AC/20. Because all of these weapons do 10+ damage to the same location, which means they automatically destroy at least one item whenever they get a crit on internals. Since the AC/10 fires the fastest of all these weapons, its currently the best crit-seeking weapon in the game.

I'm not 100% sure this is correct currently. I have seen 2 and 3 crit hits from my LB10-X and that is without destroying the location. By your logic my LB-10X did 20-30 damage in one hit.

And just for info sake. I'm running a BJ-1 with a single LB10-X and two back up lasers. Almost always fired separately.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Void Angel, on 10 October 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

/unfollow.

Now maybe something productive will happen.

P.S. learn to spell.

Edited by Mcchuggernaut, 11 October 2013 - 05:30 AM.

[Cimarb]

Scalien, on 11 October 2013 - 02:00 AM, said:

I'm not 100% sure this is correct currently. I have seen 2 and 3 crit hits from my LB10-X and that is without destroying the location. By your logic my LB-10X did 20-30 damage in one hit.

And just for info sake. I'm running a BJ-1 with a single LB10-X and two back up lasers. Almost always fired separately.

I can back this up, and mentioned it way back earlier in this thread. Each item may have already had damage to it before I connected, but that is irregardless, as it is team combat. There is nothing more satisfying than hearing the LBX pound into the side of an atlas and your alert messages fly up with 5-6 bonuses from one shot. Well, maybe a headshot at max range is more satisfying, but...

[Mr 144]

I pulled off the impossible last night and Headshotted an Atlas-RS with my Ilya build from about 200m. Apparently it's not just the Founder's Atlas that's bugged...still made me smile though...and very angrily accused of aimbotting, lol.

[Cimarb]

Mr 144, on 11 October 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

I pulled off the impossible last night and Headshotted an Atlas-RS with my Ilya build from about 200m. Apparently it's not just the Founder's Atlas that's bugged...still made me smile though...and very angrily accused of aimbotting, lol.

I got a six-kill match with my Streaktaro the other day and someone said I had to be hacking because that was the worst build he had ever saw (i think its 20 Streaks and a LL, but I don't play it often enough to be sure). Gave me quite the chuckle.

Don't discount your skill/luck, though. The Founders is the only one that had the bug, so yours was legit. That is one of the advantages of spread-fire weapons.

[Kiritumi]

If all reasons to justify using it over ac10 fail. Remember this, shotguns are timeless~

Edited by Rina, 11 October 2013 - 07:39 AM.

[Mr 144]

Cimarb, on 11 October 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

I got a six-kill match with my Streaktaro the other day and someone said I had to be hacking because that was the worst build he had ever saw (i think its 20 Streaks and a LL, but I don't play it often enough to be sure). Gave me quite the chuckle.

Don't discount your skill/luck, though. The Founders is the only one that had the bug, so yours was legit. That is one of the advantages of spread-fire weapons.

Oh, I've always had an uncanny knack for Atlas Eyeballs, so hitting the cockpit doesn't really shock me at all. My build only does 20 pinpoint though, with another 20 from the LBX pair. He wasn't fresh, but still had at least yellow armor intact, head included. The more I think about it, it could have been the foolish 'ammo in the head' thing a lot of people insist on doing. The PPCs breached the armor, and a few lucky hits and crits from the 20 pellets would do it. I immediately thought of this thread and how headshots are 'impossible' with LBXs...Luck...Skill...Bug...whatever, I'll take it

[Jman5]

Cimarb, on 11 October 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

I got a six-kill match with my Streaktaro the other day and someone said I had to be hacking because that was the worst build he had ever saw (i think its 20 Streaks and a LL, but I don't play it often enough to be sure). Gave me quite the chuckle.

Don't discount your skill/luck, though. The Founders is the only one that had the bug, so yours was legit. That is one of the advantages of spread-fire weapons.

If he died to the "worst build he ever saw" what does that say about him?

[Roland]

Void Angel, on 10 October 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

You've presented faulty logic based on anecdote and opinion - often mistaking conclusions for reasons. You've ignored contrary reasoning that deals directly with your conclusions, and steadfastly refused to engage my points on a mathematical basis. I've given you math; you respond that my supporting evidence is not "empirical." Come on.

What math did you present?

Quote

Similarly, your proposed experiment will produce warped results, and in your favor; the fact that you not only do not realize this, but actually expect the opposite occurrence tells me you don't understand the principles involved - which was why I asked you for math. Claiming that my math does not support my "unsupported" conclusions without ever actually mentioning said math is absurd.

Again, I'm not seeing where you presented any math. Maybe I just missed it.

Please explain exactly what principles you believe that I am ignorant of, that the suggested experiment would fail to account for. Perhaps you would like to present your own experimental methodology to prove your case. Thus far, you have not presented any empirical data to support your claims.

The reality is that you have suggested the one bonus to LBX, its raw DPS, will counteract its lack of precision. This SHOULD translate into increased killing power. But I think perhaps you know that it doesn't, which is exactly the reason why the LBX is bad.

On some level, I really am interested in running the test just to see the results for myself, regardless of whether or not you will accept them as evidence.

Quote

Your accusation of personal rudeness is just the last straw.

The fact that you don't even realize how ridiculously obnoxious you are being is crazy. Your arguments are not well formed, and the reason that other folks don't understand them the same way that they apparently exist in your mind is not due to some gross ignorance on their part. It's because your arguments are bad. They may not be bad in your head, but you aren't communicating them well.

Void Angel, on 10 October 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Neither you nor Roland have presented falsifiable facts to support your claims, despite being repeatedly asked to provide actual math in your theorycrafting - yet you still feel justified in your opinions. So be it. When you're resorting to "you're mean!" as an argumentative tactic, you've left the bounds of polite debate.

This is what is so hillarious. When presented with a plan for clear testing, you discounted it even before it was performed, because "reasons". You didn't actually provide any of those reasons, other than "it's obvious that such a test wouldn't provide good results, for reasons which can't be put into words."

The reality is, the test I laid out actually BENEFITS the DPS build, because it allows them to absolutely maximize their DPS in a way that would never actually happen in the real world. It eliminates the real-world advantage that the precision AC20 would have, in that it'd be able to spread damage all over itself while the LBX boat needs to continually stare at him to actually leverage his DPS.

The test reduces the situation to pure DPS vs precision... and I'm pretty certain that the DPS is gonna lose, especially against non assault targets. There is a chance that it may actually get some benefit from the crit bonus damage factor that exists now, once armor is eventually removed, but it's unclear how much.

I'll run the tests, and you can discount them all you like. Like I said, I'll be doing them mainly for my own amusement, and for other folks who want to actually see the difference in killing power between those two weapons.

If you think that you have a better experiment, then please explain your methodolgy. Hell, maybe I'll even run your test if it makes sense. But an actual experiement isn't "I ran this sometimes, and I do well!"

[Cimarb]

When UACs were king, I was guilty of the head ammo on both my Heavy Metal and Jaegers, lol. The small difference in damage between "enough to destroy the internal" and "just enough to get a head crit" is immensely insignificant. A head shot is lucky enough, but to get a headshot that destroys the armor and just enough internal to get a crit without destroying all of it? That is miracle level, lol.

[Roland]

Cimarb, on 11 October 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

When UACs were king, I was guilty of the head ammo on both my Heavy Metal and Jaegers, lol. The small difference in damage between "enough to destroy the internal" and "just enough to get a head crit" is immensely insignificant. A head shot is lucky enough, but to get a headshot that destroys the armor and just enough internal to get a crit without destroying all of it? That is miracle level, lol.

Plus, the ammo stored in your head ends up getting used first, so it's rare that it'll be in there once the head armor is gone anyway.

[Cimarb]

Jman5, on 11 October 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

If he died to the "worst build he ever saw" what does that say about him?

It was a teammate that stated the comment, though I do have to admit I was being quite the lucky vulture that match...

Roland, on 11 October 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

Plus, the ammo stored in your head ends up getting used first, so it's rare that it'll be in there once the head armor is gone anyway.

Really? Where did you read that? (Not saying its not true, but I'm interested if that is the case)

[Roland]

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

Really? Where did you read that? (Not saying its not true, but I'm interested if that is the case)

Ammo usage rotation.

Basically, your ammo gets used in this order:
Head -> CT - > RT -> LT -> LA -> RA -> LL -> RL

[Cimarb]

Roland, on 11 October 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

Ammo usage rotation.

Basically, your ammo gets used in this order:
Head -> CT - > RT -> LT -> LA -> RA -> LL -> RL

That's awesome to know - thanks for the link!

[Roland]

Ya, it's useful because it means that putting ammo in the middle of your mech really isn't THAT dangerous, if you know it's gonna get used fast.

[PLOG]

since the last time they changed the Ac SFX, the lb10X has the best sounding shot in the game. I don't really need any more reason than that to use one:P

mattPLOG