311 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

wanderer, on 27 January 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

You can actually even improve cluster firepower by not making it a pure "spread" weapon, if you want to go that way.

Have the cluster narrow towards a minimal separation as it goes from 0 to midrange, back to it's original spread at the end of it's range band, then simply start to spread further as it approaches maximum.

The problem with this is that then it's based on where the actual crosshair is pointed, and there are times where you have to point the crosshair in front of a target to get it to land on a target. This means your penalized for higher spread by aiming the crosshair on background terrain, which is a different distance than the target, giving a penalty/benefit dependent on the terrain distance vs target distance.

[wanderer]

Quote

The problem with this is that then it's based on where the actual crosshair is pointed, and there are times where you have to point the crosshair in front of a target to get it to land on a target. This means your penalized for higher spread by aiming the crosshair on background terrain, which is a different distance than the target, giving a penalty/benefit dependent on the terrain distance vs target distance.

Um...if the cluster follows the same pattern regardless, it's a moot point.

An LB-10X has 540 range. The cluster narrows to minimum at 270 and begins to spread again, hitting it's original spread at 540. It then continues to spread wider from there.

This means the weapon does get a smaller cluster in midrange, doesn't have a huge spread at long, and only starts suffering serious scattering as it exceeds that range (to 1080m, in my example if we make the smoothbore LB only have 2x maximum range instead of 3x).

Then give the LB the solid shot option it's supposed to have, slow it's ROF slightly and we've got an effective gun.

Edited by wanderer, 27 January 2014 - 11:15 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Trauglodyte, on 27 January 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

The only way for this to happen is for the weapon to be recoded as a pure ballistic, like the AC10 currently is, but turning it into a pure spread weapon (think a single "old" SRM). I don't think that the Cryengine allows for proximity interactions so you couldn't have a prox fuse like the weapon is intended. The unfortunate side effect of changing it to a pure spread AC would be that it would raise the skill cap for people that use them now. Instead of leading and spraying/praying, you've got to actually aim and then pray. Essentially, you'd force more work for return. But, the benefit would be that it would be usable at extreme ranges instead of how it is now.

ams coding shows that they do proximity reaction. In this case you are just flipping the script. In either method, multiple fast projectiles have to be tracked. And since HSR is used to help refere that, I would think some combo of the tow would provide our answer.

[Trauglodyte]

Dude, if it is possible to be done, let's do it!

+1 for the Bish and Zyllos!

Edited by Trauglodyte, 27 January 2014 - 11:33 AM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Cannister rounds (air-burst cluster munitions) are how the LBX-AC10 should work mechanically, but I've long been an advocate of increasing per-pellet damage as well (like SSRMs and LRMs got per-missile buffs and SRMs had before they got nerfed). If total damage is higher then it at least partially compensates for damage spread, especially at longer ranges, while making the weapon brutally effective up-close, when you can place most of the pellets in one location (especially with amplified damage against internals due to critical damage multipliers and damage transfer).

I'd also love to see an overall cooldown pass on weapons, designed to increase TTK and further differentiate between long-range lower-dps and short-range higher-dps weapon systems. The LBX-AC10 could retain a lower reload time compared to the standard AC10, though if they got a per-pellet damage boost and air-burst cannister rounds then that would be far less necessary.

[Roland]

Quote

I've long been an advocate of increasing per-pellet damage as well (like SSRMs and LRMs got per-missile buffs and SRMs had before they got nerfed). If total damage is higher then it at least partially compensates for damage spread, especially at longer ranges, while making the weapon brutally effective up-close, when you can place most of the pellets in one location (especially with amplified damage against internals due to critical damage multipliers and damage transfer).

Exactly.

Also, it is trivial to implement.. it's changing a number in an XML document.

While other more complex changes may be good, the fact is that any of their implementation is many orders of magnitude more complex than this one.

So we should just increase the damage, and see what the effect is. If it doesn't achieve the desired effect, then we can role back the change and pursue some other change down the road... But if it DOES achieve the desired effect, then we're done, and we didn't spend much time on it.

[Zyllos]

Many here saying that it is not as bad as everyone claims might be right.

But it's not the actual end benefit that LB-X provides, but instead in how the LB-X was implemented. A LB-X, or any of the other LB-# acs, are not shotgun's of mechs. They are extended ranged ac's that happen to have spreading rounds for it. Their extended range doesn't make one bit of sense if the weapon is just a shotgun.

That is why the TT mechanics more aligns with a canister autocannon. The whole point of the weapon is to get the majority of the pellets to hit an exposed mech location at range. The spreading mechanic is suppose to be inferior to regular autocannons vs armor due to not all the damage being applied to that single location.

That is why just increasing damage will end up making the LB-X just a shotgun weapon with extended range that you can't use at range and making it actually good against armor instead of a ranged component destroyer that is not all that great against armor.

This is partly to stem from the situations that the current mechanics favors only those weapons which focus damage onto a single point and can easily be done with as little effort as possible. But changes has to start somewhere and the LB-X is a great starting point.

[LastPaladin]

I could see how the LB could outperform in terms of damage. Even if you are good with the AC/10, you'll still be missing shots completely. Say you hit 75% of the time, and take 3 tons of ammo. That's .75 * 450 = 337.50 damage done with the AC/10. Now, if you have the same accuracy but use the LB-10X, then some of those 25% of shots that you would normally miss might hit with a couple pellets at least. So you still have the 337.50 damage from your hits, but maybe another 50-75 points from pellets hitting when most of the shot misses.

[IceCase88]

If you cannot get the LBX to work it is operator error.  I do not think any of you have used the LBX since the buff.  It is a good finishing weapon but like many have said it will not open up armor.It is good at hitting lights legs because the spread is pretty tight to good damage put spread a bit to ensure hits. Even if you use lasers you are not getting direct hits so you are only doing 1 to 2 points of damage to each leg for medium lasers and 2 to 3 points of damage, maybe the occassional 4 points, for large lasers. Ballistics and PPCs are hit or miss with most shots being misses. By far the better legging weapon.

Edited by IceCase88, 27 January 2014 - 02:21 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

IceCase88, on 27 January 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

If you cannot get the LBX to work it is operator error. I do not think any of you have used the LBX since the buff. It is a good finishing weapon but like many have said it will not open up armor.

The point is that there is little use, in other words it isn't efficient, in a weapon that is only good part of the time. The reason that LRMs aren't used en masse in the high end game is that you only hit 33% of the time. You can't readily dispatch an enemy when you're only putting damage on the target one out of three times. So, taking a weapon that weighs 11 tons that is really only effective at half the max effective range (ie, 0-270m) and is only "viable" IF the target's armor is exposed AND you score multiple crits doesn't make much sense. Granted, we're limited by hard points but why take the LB when you can take an LRM10 which is guided, weighs half as much, always goes center target, is just as heat friendly, and offers more salvoes per ton of ammo while being as effective at 180m as it is at 1000m? Even only being able to hit 33% of the time makes the LRM10 better.

Don't count me as one of the many anti-LB players. I actually find the weapon interesting but just not practical. The thing that puzzles me is that all of this debating is like saying that I could play in the NBA because I can shoot basketball. The truth is that it could happen if I were taller, more athletic, stronger, had the genetics, and had been playing competitively all of my life. The truth is that, while I know that I can shoot and NBA 3 pointer and know that I can shoot free throws at an 80%+ clip, the truth is that I don't play in the NBA cause I'm a 6 foot white guy that played power foward in a rec league with friends plus all of the reasons I listed above. I can argue scenarios but its the truth that gets in the way.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 27 January 2014 - 02:32 PM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 January 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

Honestly haven't seen Joe hanging with the Elitists too often. Am...intrigued and a little scared by the concept of your build Details?

You should be scared. They worked 40% of the time, 100% of the time!

Joseph Mallan, on 27 January 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

If I said I didn't like your Mech It was due to my distaste for how the LB-X functions, not your using it. But please refresh me by quoting what I posted. As to being Elite... That is only a badge PGI gave me for pre ordering MW:O! I do not believe you will ever find me outright insulting a player for his ride. I may say I would not use that build and why, but I don't insult player's preference.

Edited by lockwoodx, 27 January 2014 - 03:25 PM.

[Necromantion]

Merchant, on 26 January 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

I have used LBX before on a Hunchback 4H, back then a couple years ago I preferred it since I was not good at aiming well. The LBX is a good beginner Ballistic due to its spread effect.

Now I am using a Hunchback 4G and switching between both of these weapons for comparison. Since using both, I have discovered the LBX still works better even though I have just as good an aim with the AC/10. I can score about 250+ damage with the AC/10 compared to 300+ with the LBX. So far at max, I can get into the 400s with the AC/10 but over 500 with the LBX. I wonder why the spread Autocannon works better, I would expect them to have roughly similar results.

Looking at this, first the LBX has better range.
LBX Range: 540; Max Range 1620
AC/10 Range: 450; Max Range: 1350
But due to spread, you get better damage closer in with the LBX since even with spread, the concentration on target would give better results. I usually do not fight much outside Range with either weapon. Even with a 90m difference, I would expect similar results, maybe a slight edge to the AC/10 since it does not spread.

Yet the LBX has the edge and I put some thought into why. The LBX is 1 less heat and 1 less critical slot but I do not see these as a cause for the damage difference either though the heat might allow more firings before pulling back to cool off. The LBX has a crit chance like a MG, I don't think that is a big deal. The LBX has a percent chance for additional damage that makes no sense but the percentages are low (higher than a MG but not game breaking) so I do not think they contribute much to what I see here.

I can come up with only 1 answer. The 1 ton difference between them. That 1 ton allows the LBX to carry 15 more shots for more damage while playing a match, even with spread a competent player can concentrate most of the pellet spread on target by firing more often at Range or less thus a LBX user gets more shots and a higher damage output not counting certain factors such as if killed and when.

Even my after match stats prove this to me, after a successful match I will have more damage and thus points & CBills from using LBX than a AC/10. Thus the AC/10s primary weakness is, to me, clear. This 1 ton difference makes a standard AC/10 less desirable than a LBX for use when the two should be even with the primary difference being single shot AC/10 vs spread LBX.

So the question comes to mind how to fix this. In the past year the LBX got buffed by having the spread reduced and fixed while the AC/10 recently got a projectile speed reduction. The 'nerf' did not really hurt the AC/10 in the hands of a competent player (still faster than a LBX shot anyway) while the 'buff' on the LBX helped it as it should. I do not think changing projectile speed on the AC/10 will do anything for this weakness between the 2 weapons.

I can only think of three things that could fix this problem.

Fix #1 - Up AC/10 damage per shot to maybe 10.5-11. I don't like front loaded damage but have to list this in honesty as an option. This would make ammo explosions more deadly and begs whether it throws off any balance between the AC/10 and other Autocannon.

Fix #2 - Increase the # of shots per ton for the AC/10 to say 22-23. This would give it a rough parity with the LBX by allowing as many shots within the same tons. But this is based off my HBK-4G and may not work on some other Mech based on amount of ammo used.

Fix #3 - Change the AC/10 weight to 11. This allows both to carry the same tons in ammo.

Maybe there is a solution I did not list. But there is a problem in my view and something needs changing so these 2 weapons have a rough comparison and similarity between them.

For reference, here is the HBK-4G I am running that I noticed this on. You can swap the AC/10 + 2 tons ammo for a LBX + 3 tons ammo. I have something similar on my 4H where I normally carry a LBX + 2 tons ammo, with an AC/10 I could only fit 15 shots.

Thanks for reading if you got this far.

Theres a really simple reason as to why people use them, mid to close range component crits. Each of the lb10x's pellets have a chance to crit internals whereas the ac10 only has one chance to crit.

If youre running a short to med range build id prefer it because of the crit chance and lighter weapon system.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

My current stance is this.

The LBX needs a rework. This can be done in two ways as set by past precedence.

Easier MW4 method, of converting the LBX10 to a "shotgun" and retain its spread instant barrel spread -- but up the pellet damage to 1.4 instead of 1. This makes it a rather deadly brawler weapon, no doubt. Also, reduce choke, again.

The second "proper" fix set by MW3 and TT descriptions, is to rework the weapon mechanic from scratch, so it is a canister round that detonates a % to the target, lets say 75% there for an example.

The game already has built in range finders, such as current enemy target distance, and the default "m distance" crosshair range.

The weapon could be reworked so that if no target acquired, shell detonates at n*75% distance to crosshair range. Otherwise shell detonates at n*75%(targetMech) range. Not terribly difficult to implement, but PGI doesn't score high on the, ... how should I put it... "Things working how they should-o-meter".

Thomas D.! The LBX-10 needs your help!

Edited by mwhighlander, 27 January 2014 - 03:33 PM.

[Roland]

IceCase88, on 27 January 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

If you cannot get the LBX to work it is operator error. I do not think any of you have used the LBX since the buff. It is a good finishing weapon but like many have said it will not open up armor.It is good at hitting lights legs because the spread is pretty tight to good damage put spread a bit to ensure hits. Even if you use lasers you are not getting direct hits so you are only doing 1 to 2 points of damage to each leg for medium lasers and 2 to 3 points of damage, maybe the occassional 4 points, for large lasers. By far the better legging weapon.

Here, do this. Go into the game right now, and go fire your LBX at a range of say 300m at a light mech's legs. I just did this myself, so I'm basing my opinion here on how the game is at this very moment.

It's better than it WAS, but it's still spread out to the extent that you're only landing a few pellets on the mech's legs. Which means that it's going to be roughly equivalent to the amount of damage you'd land on the legs with a laser... only the laser only weighs a trivial amount compared to the LBX.

The issue isn't whether you can use the LBX to kill mechs.

The issue is whether there are superior options for killing mechs.

That's what makes it so bad against lights... because its spread ends up resulting in damage

Quote

Ballistics and PPCs are hit or miss with most shots being misses.

Consider for a moment the context of this statement, where you are claiming that folks who have issue with the LBX do so because they are incapable of using those weapons competently.

You are comparing the LBX against incompetently used ballistics and PPC's.

To understand why people believe the LBX is poor, is because they are comparing it to using weapons like PPC's and ballistics where you DON'T miss most of your shots.

[Zyllos]

mwhighlander, on 27 January 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

My current stance is this.

The LBX needs a rework. This can be done in two ways as set by past precedence.

Easier MW4 method, of converting the LBX10 to a "shotgun" and retain its spread instant barrel spread -- but up the pellet damage to 1.4 instead of 1. This makes it a rather deadly brawler weapon, no doubt. Also, reduce choke, again.

The second "proper" fix set by MW3 and TT descriptions, is to rework the weapon mechanic from scratch, so it is a canister round that detonates a % to the target, lets say 75% there for an example.

The game already has built in range finders, such as current enemy target distance, and the default "m distance" crosshair range.

The weapon could be reworked so that if no target acquired, shell detonates at n*75% distance to crosshair range. Otherwise shell detonates at n*75%(targetMech) range. Not terribly difficult to implement, but PGI doesn't score high on the, ... how should I put it... "Things working how they should-o-meter".

Thomas D.! The LBX-10 needs your help!

You don't even need a rangefinder for the projectile. While it would be more realistic, the problem is how rangefinders work in games is they do some type of ray tracing to get distances (I think) and that is intensive in a real time environment, that is doing many, many other calculations.

Instead, they should just repurpose the CClaymore code for Crysis 3, which just iterates through a list of valid targets and checks to see if that valid target is within range and in it's current angle for detonation, if so, then do it's clustering explosion, if not, then continue flying.

Some work would have to go into making the angle and range checking is the right variables so that canister shots that fly close to it's target still explodes, dealing some damage to the target but that is just balancing/testing work that has to be done for any gameplay mechanics.

The only corner case is if the projectile was ran into, perpendicular from it's flight path thus not setting off the clustering round. I would then just make it deal 50% of it's normal damage onto the single spot it landed on. It would be a rare case but it does need to be at the determent of the LB AC user so that the user doesn't try to use the case as a poor man's AC of the same size.

Edited by Zyllos, 27 January 2014 - 08:03 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

The issue isn't whether you can use the LBX to kill mechs.

The issue is whether there are superior options for killing mechs.

Of course there are. But those options are boring because everybody uses them. There is something extraordinarily satisfying about coming out of a game with the highest damage and most kills while using LB10Xs.

[Roland]

Khobai, on 27 January 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

Of course there are. But those options are boring because everybody uses them. There is something extraordinarily satisfying about coming out of a game with the highest damage and most kills while using LB10Xs.

But using garbage weapons for extra challenge isn't a well balanced game.

They could improve the LBX, and it would be a better weapon, and yet not be overpowering.

By doing such things to the bad weapons, then you can actually enable variety, even for competitive players who aren't looking to put themselves at a disadvantage. And then you actually have widespread variety throughout the entire game.

The problem with saying things like the LBX aren't so bad is that you hamper a progression to that state where the choice between the LBX and the other weapons that you admit are superior isn't one born simply out of boredom, but is rather one of genuine choice between two equally competitive weapons and playstyles.

[Khobai]

Quote

But using garbage weapons for extra challenge isn't a well balanced game.

When a skilled player plays a less skilled player in chess, they can opt to take a handicap, and start with less pieces on the board. Using LB10Xs is the same concept as a handicap in chess.

Youre correct that LB10Xs should be better balanced with other Autocannons though. There are other ways that I can handicap myself, like playing a Dragon. But for now I find using LB10Xs to be rather entertaining.

Edited by Khobai, 27 January 2014 - 08:17 PM.

[Roland]

Khobai, on 27 January 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

When a skilled player plays a less skilled player in chess, they can opt to take a handicap, and start with less pieces on the board. Using LB10Xs is the same concept as a handicap in chess.

There are lots of ways to self-impose a handicap, that don't require making certain weapons clearly inferior to others.
Even if weapons were better balanced, you could still choose to make bad builds if you wanted.

There is no reason to relegate one of the prime infighting weapons to the trash bin, just so that you can use it in cases where you want to handicap yourself.

Make things balanced, and then go undertonnage if you want.

[Khobai]

Quote

There are lots of ways to self-impose a handicap, that don't require making certain weapons clearly inferior to others.

Of course weapons should be balanced. But the reality is theyre not balanced. I dont build mechs based on how I think the game should be. I build mechs based on how the game is. And in the game I play, LB10Xs are an inferior weapons which serve no other purpose than making games more challenging.