311 replies to this topic

[Zordicron]

LBX is not trash. Ignoring the heat and 1 ton difference to an AC10 is silly. it is even more pronounced in a pair. 1 ton is a lot when your loadout is tight, you can put another heatsink on, another ton of ammo, jump jets, a ML, 2 SL, etc.

it really depends on loadout. If you have sufficient "other stuff" for the longer ranges, an LBX is cool running and brutal for that inevitable brawl. If you are trying to use it at 500M as a paired weapon to a PPC or LL or something, well obviously results will be poor.

it has it's place, like most anything. Really, if anything is "trash" in the game it is NARC(because it is freegin heavy, ECM nullifys it, and it has a pathetic range in the 3x ballistics range reality of the game) and also flamers to an extent, mostly because they are simply too hot to use them while also sustaining weapon fire. But LBX has a place in the game. If you dont like it thats OK.

Really the only thing thats sucky on the LBX IMO is the crazy c-bill cost of it lol.

[Roland]

Pjwned, on 26 January 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

I think you are oversimplifying things drastically there. For one thing, at close enough ranges the spread is still pretty tight,

No, it's really not.
I've posted videos showing exactly how wrong you are here. The spread is terrible, even inside 200m.

This is the biggest problem with the LBX... folks base their beliefs regarding it on fairytales, rather than actually measuring the statistics for themselves.

The spread is terrible on the LBX. It's a terrible weapon. It sounds cool, and it SHOULD be a good infighting weapon, but it's not.

Quote

and when it comes to shredding up internals (read: "dropping mechs to the ground") you don't really get better than the LBX.

Almost any weapon is better than the LBX for this... because the LBX is still gonna suffer from the exact same problem that it does against armor.. terrible spread.

Quote

It is also possible that the damage spread to a valuable component (such as an arm or a leg) and disabled a crucial weapon system or the mech's movement, and that's nothing to just discard completely.

You are misinformed regarding how criticals work in this game.
Most other weapons are actually BETTER at destroying components than the LBX, because you need to do 10 damage to destroy components.. and you can't get engine crits... and ammo doesn't always explode if critted. A PPC or AC10 tends to be better at killing components, because any crit is guaranteed to at least destroy the component critted.. while the LBX may crit multiple items, and not destroy any of them.

Again, this is a big problem with the way people perceive the LBX, and why many folks don't really grasp how bad it is.. because they attribute qualities that it had in other games, like the TT version of battletech where it was an excellent crit seeking weapon, to MWO, where it totally fails to perform that role.

Quote

I guess it's a trash weapon if you try to use it like its standard counterpart, but then I would have to wonder why because it's obviously not designed that way.

It's not designed to be useful in ANY way. The ways in which you believe it's useful are actually just misconceptions on your part.

[Pjwned]

Roland, on 26 January 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

This is the biggest problem with the LBX... folks base their beliefs regarding it on fairytales, rather than actually measuring the statistics for themselves.

My bad for basing my statements on what the game tells me and a wiki page with multiple sources then I guess.

Looking into this further I'm still not seeing how the LBX is actually worse at dealing with internals, as you claim it is.

Quote

Most other weapons are actually BETTER at destroying components than the LBX, because you need to do 10 damage to destroy components.. and you can't get engine crits... and ammo doesn't always explode if critted. A PPC or AC10 tends to be better at killing components, because any crit is guaranteed to at least destroy the component critted.. while the LBX may crit multiple items, and not destroy any of them.

From what I understand this is a really extreme example where the component in question is stuffed with a bunch of heatsinks and ammo and none of the pellets crit (very unlucky) and all decide to hit different internal parts, so honestly I'm just not seeing how "this extreme example means the weapon is worse for this situation even though it's supposed to be better," but apparently my understanding of how critical hits work is lacking, so I may get back to you with a more detailed argument.

Edited by Pjwned, 26 January 2014 - 05:05 PM.

[Roland]

Pjwned, on 26 January 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

My bad for basing my statements on what the game tells me and a wiki page with multiple sources then I guess.

Nothing in the game is telling you that the LBX is good, I assure you.

Most of what you suggested is incorrect, based upon mistakenly thinking that certain aspects of this game, like the critical hit system, function differently than they do.

[Nightcrept]

I enjoy the lbx more then it's counterparts. It honeslty seems to freak people out. (maybe it creates more shaking).

I find it extremely useful and I can and do kill light mechs with an ac-20 so it isn't a lack of skill.
But by all means please do buff it.

I very much enjoy the effect when paired with srm's.

[luxebo]

Roland, on 26 January 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

I killed people using FLARES in mechwarrior 4.
Didn't mean that flares were a good weapon.

I've killed people using Smoke AGL. Yeah I know.

[FupDup]

[Mudhutwarrior]

I don't think we should change either

The LBX has one good niche and its light killing. When spider is jinking hard you can touch them with the LBX. I know guys like streaks but it seems they hit the bricks running when I nail them with and LBX and two large pulse lasers. I really don't like spiders or bugs of any kind so I enjoy legging them then dropping an arty on them as i move away. Well worth 40 k in personal satisfaction.

[Deathlike]

I'd be using LBX10 more if it were a good brawling weapon.

It's not.

I don't even use the AC10 (it's AC20, UAC5, or AC2). If anything, the UAC5 is better for brawling for me (I don't get overaggressive so that the jam mechanism would cripple me)

[Roland]

Mudhutwarrior, on 26 January 2014 - 05:58 PM, said:

I don't think we should change either

The LBX has one good niche and its light killing.

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret.

No light pilot worth anything is even REMOTELY afraid of your LBX trash mech.

The LBX is, without question, the worst weapon in the game against light mechs. I literally laugh at people who shoot at my light mech with LBX, because they are doing AT MOST, one point of damage to any given section of my mech. Most of their pellets are guaranteed to not even touch me.

They could have used a laser and easilly done more damage, and had it more focused, to my mech.

The thing that just baffles me is why folks continue to repeat this nonsense about LBX being good against light mechs? You can simply look at how the weapon works in game, and you can know beyond question that it will be terrible against light mechs.

Simply because it lands a hit against a light mech doesn't mean it actually did anything useful.

Seriously, it will do no more than 1 damage to any given panel. At like 400m against a light mech, an LBX10 is going to do MAYBE 3 damage to them, spread out over their entire mech.

Come on people,you need to actually pay attention to how the game works, and use that to decide what weapons to use.. not just throw {Scrap} onto your mech because it sounds neato.

[IceCase88]

Apparently, the LBX naysayers have not used the LBX since the buff. They are too busy trying to be the smartest guys in the room and failing. The LBX was a trash weapon. The spread has since been greatly compressed at close range and my 6 ML/2 LBX Firebrand says you are wrong. Open you up with the MLs and finish you off with the LBXs. Keep trying and failing though. gga

Edited by IceCase88, 26 January 2014 - 06:35 PM.

[Deathlike]

IceCase88, on 26 January 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

Apparently, the LBX naysayers have not used the LBX since the buff. They are too busy trying to be the smartest guys in the room and failing. The LBX was a trash weapon. The spread has since been greatly compressed at close range and my 6 ML/2 LBX Firebrand says you are wrong. Open you up with the MLs and finish you off with the LBXs. Keep trying and failing though. gga

I have, and still have determined it is terrible.

Sorry. I'd rather be using UAC5s, saving that extra 1 ton 2 tons and 1 crit for more UAC5 ammo.

Edit: Had to check smurfy's to be sure.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 January 2014 - 06:58 PM.

[wanderer]

Rather have twin AC/2's if I can get it on the average 'Mech, honestly.

It's improved. This doesn't mean it's more than mediocre right now, and I get much more punch out of the twin 2's than a single LB-X. Plus, it's STILL missing solid shot.

I'd like to see it properly done, just with a lower max range than an AC/10 and slightly lower ROF, but switchable ammo like it should- solid AND cluster. That'd fix it, finally.

[Clydewinder]

Isn't the main advantage of an LB-X the fact that it has 10 chances to crit an unarmored location rather than one chance?

[Ghogiel]

AC10 gets seen often enough on comp CTF builds.

LBX doesn't get used. Ever.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

LBX damage will be higher since it's spread out more. A simple answer, really, if disappointing.

[Deathlike]

Clydewinder, on 26 January 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

Isn't the main advantage of an LB-X the fact that it has 10 chances to crit an unarmored location rather than one chance?

Technically yes.

However, you have to recognize two different things at work...

1) Getting that section exposed in the first place - LBX will not get you there on its own due to its spread.

2) Getting enough pellets into that exposed section to take advantage of that crit bonus - at this point, any weapon, including the MG would be pretty effective anyways.

So, essentially, it's suffering what the MG suffered from a long while ago... except consuming more space on the mech to accomplish the goal.

What's actually worse is that people really make the silly mistake in taking the damage numbers seriously. Did you know that crit damage to the internal equipment is added to the total? That means, while you're using the crit-mangler that is the MG, you are collecting "empty damage points" in those sections of the mech, in addition to the damage you are actually doing to the mech. It's inflating numbers, but not actually meaningfully effective under many instances.

In sum, LBX is "mostly fluff", less substance.

The only "benefit" LBX does is inflate the damage score, so that you earn more C-bills. Too bad it really won't help you kill things quicker than "comparable" weapons within its profile.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 January 2014 - 08:27 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Isn't the main advantage of an LB-X the fact that it has 10 chances to crit an unarmored location rather than one chance?

AC10 > LB10X at destroying items.

LB10X = 10 chances to do 2 damage to multiple items which have 10 health each. Likely Result = no items destroyed

AC10 = 1 chance to do 10 damage to a single item which has 10 health. Likely Result = item automatically destroyed

The LB10X isnt even better than the AC10 at the ONE thing its supposed to be good at.

On 90% of mechs the LB10X is absolute {Scrap}. However one advantage the LB10X does have over the AC10 is that you can mount two of them in the same side torso. So on certain mechs, like the Atlas, which cant take dual AC10s or AC20s, dual LBX10s are still a strong option.

Edited by Khobai, 26 January 2014 - 11:48 PM.

[Deathlike]

Khobai, on 26 January 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

LB10X = 10 chances to do 2 damage to items which have 10 health. Likely Result = no items destroyed

It's not quite that simple. I mean, it can do double or triple damage to the component, but the likely result is still true though.

Source of crit info (though not the exact math): smurfy's website.

Khobai, on 26 January 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

The LB10X isnt even better than the AC10 at the ONE thing its supposed to be good at. The only advantage the LB10X has over the AC10 is that you can mount two of them in the same side torso location. So on certain mechs, like the Atlas, which cant take dual AC10s or AC20s, dual LBX10s are still a strong option.

Dual UAC5 dakka is stronger...

[Deathlike]

Khobai, on 26 January 2014 - 08:35 PM, said:

Some people hate UAC5s though. I dont know about other people, but I like my weapons to fire every time I pull the trigger.

2 AC5s are a problem then?