311 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

IceCase88, on 28 January 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

The AC10 has been replacing the Gauss in the meta which has been mentioned a few times in this thread.



I agree the velocity drop has made it worse. However, as mentioned before it has been seen as a replacement for the Gauss.



Field tested and battle proven assessments. I fight within 200 meters and have no problems getting the close in any map.



You will do more damage with the LBX then hit scanning.



The LBX is a good finisher. I do not imagine the LBX in a combat scenario. I use it regularly on my Firebrand with great results. I will take a damage bump per pellet. That would be awesome and make my Firebrand even more lethal. Again, I usually fight within 200 meters so dual LBX does great for me. Open the enemy up with the 6 MLs and use the LBX when heat gets too high or it's time to finish the enemy. Field tested and battle proven.

so....11 tons (well, lets be real, 22, as a solo LBX is pretty meh) for a "finisher" weapon. Seems like a good trade off.

[DONTOR]

Roland, on 28 January 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

Basically nothing you just said there is actually happening in this thread. I think you are confused.
No one is saying the AC10 is the best. They are saying it's better than the LBX10, because the LBX10 is trash. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king, and all that.

Also, the AC10 actually got WORSE from the velocity change.. what you just said there seems to indicate that you are confused about that.


Again, you are making assessments based on what SHOULD be true, rather than what is ACTUALLY true.
The LBX10 is not actually good at close range, given that close range is 200m. At absolute point blank range, it's very slightly better than the AC10.. but the requirement of basically touching the other mech makes that a fairly trivial non-issue.



Again, this is a non-issue.
If you want a weapon which is merely "guaranteed to do some damage" then you can bring a laser, and get the exact same effect for much less weight, far fewer critical slots, no chance of ammo explosion, and infinite shots... oh, and it's hitscan with no travel time.

Again, this points out the problem with the LBX.... it's not that it can't kill mechs. Of course it can.

But as it stands, it does not have any actual niche which it excels at compared to other weapons. Even in the terrible niche of "do some damage because my aim isn't good", the laser surpasses it easily.


Unless you are at a range of more than say 200m... in which case the 2 AC10's is far superior.

Again, you cannot judge a weapon based only on an imagined combat scenario where you are always at point blank range to your target. That isn't how weapons balance works.

That's why increasing the damage per pellet would work wonders. I'll summarize below:
1) It's already been done in prior titles. 14 damage was what the LBX10 did in MW4. It was a strong, but not overpowered, infighting weapon. Thus, there is a precedent for at least trying it to see its impact.
2) At range, it would still be weaker than the AC10, but not so much weaker as to be useless, as it is now.
3) Up close it would do gauss damage. Even with the current spread, it'd still be doing a good solid 10 to a single panel, with some extra scattered to the sides.

Again, just TRY it. The absolute worst thing that could happen is that it would be overpowered, and we could dial it back down.

If you have trouble hitting with the LBX at anything but "point blank range" then there is something wrong with your aim or you have a very high ping. It is quite easy to put 80% or more damage in a certain location at 300M, do you even use it often enough to critique the LBX? Maybe once upon a time you tried it and gave up because you coulndt make it work, im sorry for that because many of us can and do. There is more to the LBX than just the weapon, there are weapon combos that include the LBX that are devastating. Im sure that you will also state that this is false lol.

[theta123]

East Indy, on 26 January 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

Apart from a reasonable desire to see variety, it's just powergaming. A lot of people want to win at all costs, so they focus on weapons that confer an advantage to obvious playstyles, or even just have a theoretical one. Very little experimentation is done, perception becomes reality, and people adopt an all-or-nothing opinion that may not even be based on personal experience.

Yet these people ruin it for anyone who does not follow their egocentric playstyle
Yes i used that word!

[SaltBeef]

The LBX is supposed to be an improvement over the ac10. Battletech Master rules describes it as a improvement, light heat dissipating alloys , uses 2 types of ammo one being cannister. Higher crit chance , the game already has this. but it should shred armor with a tight pattern. Upping the damage per pellet by 1.4 would help to shred armor better.

Edited by SaltBeef, 29 January 2014 - 02:16 PM.

[Roland]

DONTOR, on 29 January 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

If you have trouble hitting with the LBX at anything but "point blank range" then there is something wrong with your aim or you have a very high ping.

The issue is, of course, not whether you are able to hit with LBX. The issue is how spread out that damage is.

Quote

It is quite easy to put 80% or more damage in a certain location at 300M, do you even use it often enough to critique the LBX?

Your statement here is not at all based in reality. Perhaps you believe this to be the case, but I assure you that you are most certainly incorrect. Screenshot time! I just took these TODAY, 5 minutes ago. This is how LBX spread is, TODAY, in the actual game. Not an imagined game that exists only in your mind, but the actual game which we are playing.

So, what we have is that at 300m, the LBX spread is AS LARGE AS THE ENTIRE TORSO OF A CATAPHRACT.

So no dude, you aren't focusing 80% of your damage on a single panel with the LBX from 300m, because that is impossible. You may think that's what is happening, but that is a mistake on your part, as the concrete evidence here clearly shows.

To go further, I went back in and did a comparative test of the killing power of the LBX against the AC10 in game. Against the same mech, from 300m, I placed the reticle dead center (as placed in those screenshots above), and fired repeatedly until the mech was dead. The results?
LBX10: 21 shots (seriously, 21 shots)
AC10: 10 shots

So you are taking about having to hit the target more than twice as many times to kill the mech with the LBX10... And that's with every shot perfectly aimed exactly over the center torso. So the idea of the LBX10 somehow being more forgiving is thus tossed out the window, because while it may make it more likely that you will get "some damage on target" in the case of a miss, you have to score so many more near misses in order to pile up enough damage to get the kill, that you would have been better off with the AC10 anyway.. I could have missed 11 times with the AC10 and still killed the mech in the same number of shots as the LBX10.

And we're not talking about crazy long range here. We're not even talking about max IDEAL range. We're talking about 300m. 270m is brawling range, where you're using SRM's and medium lasers... and the LBX is not even effective there.

Look folks, please try to understand that I am pointing out that the LBX is bad. I'm not saying YOU are bad. I'm not saying you are a bad person for using the LBX.

I love the LBX.. I think it's implementation, aside from the low damage, is actually amazingly well done. It's easily one of the best "feeling" weapons in MWO. And in prior MW4 titles, the LBX were the go-to weapon for infighting... I probably fired an LBX over a million times in MW4 in league play. It was one of my favorite weapons.

The reason I point out how bad it is, is because it needs to be improved. One of the reasons why you have such a dominance of long range sniper play is because core infighting weapons, like the LBX, are not even remotely competitive by comparison right now.

Again, the evidence is right there. And if you want, you can replicate the tests yourself if you think that I somehow cheated. It's trivial to do... take an LBX into testgrounds, and fire it at a mech.

[Deathlike]

Roland, on 29 January 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

Again, the evidence is right there. And if you want, you can replicate the tests yourself if you think that I somehow cheated. It's trivial to do... take an LBX into testgrounds, and fire it at a mech.

Why are you spreading facts around? You're craaaaazy man!

But seriously, yes... that's the sad reality. Didn't someone do a video of them before? It showed pretty much the same thing (it may have been outdated due to the last spread change, but that was a long while ago too).

The spread is better now for the most part.. the damage is a woeful joke based on brawling distance (270m or less).

[TehSBGX]

Honestly the LBX is a lot better then it used to be, but a normal ac 10 is still better.

I love the LBX as a Fun / goofing around weapon though. Mech shotguns are fun as they get, but not all that efficent.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 29 January 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

Facts..... aka "crazy speak" in forum talk

Sadly, Roland we have gone down this rabbit hole may times before. If you recall, on my own LBX implementation thread in feature suggestions like 6 months ago. People sometimes want to believe what they want to believe, regardless of hard evidence.

[DONTOR]

Honestly I like what you said there, but I would have liked to see the hit registratons on the target info doll. There are certainly times where I target a yellow interal torso fire at it, and it is destroyed. This is probably why I feel it hits where I am aiming. When I use 2 of them components I aim for tend to die in either 1 or 2 volleys within 300M if they arent armored. Obviously an AC10 is going to kill a target quicker, that test is irrelevant, like I said earlier its about the combination of 2 LBX and other weapons. Ill give an example, my DDC has 2 LBX, 2PPC, and a 340 standard. Im not trying to make the standard argument of "melt armor chew internals". When I engage with ppcs and LBX within 300M everything dies, doesnt matter if your moving 170KPH, or 50KPH in an atlas. I also like that I can torso twist alot with this setup as it has good burst damage unlike say, 2UAC5 2 ERLL.

[IceCase88]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 January 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

Sadly, Roland we have gone down this rabbit hole may times before. If you recall, on my own LBX implementation thread in feature suggestions like 6 months ago. People sometimes want to believe what they want to believe, regardless of hard evidence.

Field tested and battle proven. No believing what I want to believe. It is not the tool... it is the operator.

Edited by IceCase88, 29 January 2014 - 04:04 PM.

[Roland]

DONTOR, on 29 January 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

Honestly I like what you said there, but I would have liked to see the hit registratons on the target info doll. There are certainly times where I target a yellow interal torso fire at it, and it is destroyed. This is probably why I feel it hits where I am aiming. When I use 2 of them components I aim for tend to die in either 1 or 2 volleys within 300M if they arent armored.

Dontor, when you use two of them, you are firing 22 tons of weapons at something. If you fire 22 tons of weapons at an unarmored component, it is supposed to be destroyed, pretty much no matter what weapons you are shooting.. Again, it's not a question of whether the LBX can destroy a section, it's that other combinations of weapons are better at it.

In terms of the info doll, the whole front of the mech was red wrecked when it finally died. It had some armor left on its legs and arms, but the LBX had to destroy ALL of the armor on the entire torso before it finally killed it. That's why it took the ridiculous 21 shots... because it was spreading damage all over the place. And that's with the reticle perfectly lined up with the center of the mech.

Quote

Obviously an AC10 is going to kill a target quicker, that test is irrelevant, like I said earlier its about the combination of 2 LBX and other weapons. Ill give an example, my DDC has 2 LBX, 2PPC, and a 340 standard.

Yes, this is a pretty standard LBX build. It's also grossly inferior to the same build, but if you replace the LBX with AC5's or UAC5's.

Honestly, prior to the last nerf of UAC's, it was hillarious running into the LBX Atlas with my UAC atlas.. because their mech would just MELT while mine would walk away with some of its armor yellow.

Again, all of the supposed niches for the LBX are illusions... From what I've seen, there is literally always a better option.

Quote

When I engage with ppcs and LBX within 300M everything dies, doesnt matter if your moving 170KPH, or 50KPH in an atlas. I also like that I can torso twist alot with this setup as it has good burst damage unlike say, 2UAC5 2 ERLL.

But if you just switch out the LBX for UAC's, and keep the PPC's, then you have a mech with great burst damage which is then able to follow it up with a stream of death.. and it all hits one place. At 300m, Two (U)AC5's are going to put at least as much damage on a single location as the LBX will... and hitting one location is all that matters. So the LBX10's at that point are just wasting tonnage.

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

Field tested and battle proven. No believing what I want to believe. It is not the tool... it is the operator.

I just posted concrete evidence supporting my statements.

If you think that the LBX is a good weapon, then perhaps we have different definitions of what constitutes a good weapon, or perhaps you are incapable of using the other, better, weapons effectively.

[Bishop Steiner]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

Field tested and battle proven. No believing what I want to believe. It is not the tool... it is the operator.

then you should have no trouble replicating it on non moving targets on the testing Ground?

Yes, the LB-X is effective against already stripped targets, which leads to the placebo effect "Oh look! I got 2 kills! What crit seeking monsters!". Doesn't actually tell the real story. But hey, it's all good to me. The more people that run LBXs, the more I can pad my stats I guess. Cuz ad hominem experiences prove about as much as people seeing Jesus face in their pancakes.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 29 January 2014 - 04:38 PM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

I'm still shocked as to how many people are drinking the Koolaide thinking the LBX is effective.

Many of us are pointing out its shortcomings and PGI's failure of weapon mechanic implementation so that it can get the rehaul it deserves. We don't hate the LBX, we just see how bad it actually is (in comparison to pretty much any other AC currently).

Its bad, and everyone wants it to be good. Some people just want it to be good so much more than others that I believe they are perceiving it as being good just by the arbitrary damage numbers, and 'splosions it produces when it hits a target.




Quick! Someone help me create a summoning circle! We need to summon Thomas D. to save the LBX!

[IceCase88]

I run the LBX in the game several times a day. I do not need to run it in the training grounds. In concert with other weapons it works great. My 6 ML / 2 LBX Firebrand has had zero problems registering solid damage / kills / assists in matches. I will run a 2 AC10 version again to see if the results are better but I went to the 2 LBX loadout because it was not better. Running dual UACs is more of a gamble because too frequently it jams without firing a shot from at least one UAC.

I personally like the spread because if I can damage all the torsi it makes it harder for my opponent to protect vital components. Fire 3 MLs then a LBX then 3 MLs then a LBX. All can be done in a matter of 5 seconds. The opponents torsi are all shredded within 15-20 seconds. Now what components do they protect? None because they are all equally screwed. Using the AC10s in that loadout only works if you hit and hit the same area repeatedly. Since I doubt many of you are above 60% in hitting efficiency you are essentially gambling. My damage is guaranteed and effective damage. Especially since I am fighting well within 200 meters.

It is not the tool... it is the operator. Learn to use it effectively. However, by all means show it some love by buffing the pellets to 1.4. That would make me smile. I will be the new meta.

[Bishop Steiner]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

I run the LBX in the game several times a day. I do not need to run it in the training grounds. In concert with other weapons it works great. My 6 ML / 2 LBX Firebrand has had zero problems registering solid damage / kills / assists in matches. I will run a 2 AC10 version again to see if the results are better but I went to the 2 LBX loadout because it was not better. Running dual UACs is more of a gamble because too frequently it jams without firing a shot from at least one UAC.

I personally like the spread because if I can damage all the torsi it makes it harder for my opponent to protect vital components. Fire 3 MLs then a LBX then 3 MLs then a LBX. All can be done in a matter of 5 seconds. The opponents torsi are all shredded within 15-20 seconds. Now what components do they protect? None because they are all equally screwed. Using the AC10s in that loadout only works if you hit and hit the same area repeatedly. Since I doubt many of you are above 60% in hitting efficiency you are essentially gambling. My damage is guaranteed and effective damage. Especially since I am fighting well within 200 meters.

It is not the tool... it is the operator. Learn to use it effectively. However, by all means show it some love by buffing the pellets to 1.4. That would make me smile. I will be the new meta.

guess what? In concert with other weapons, Machine Guns work great. And weight 10.5 tons less.

[Sug]

[Roland]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

I run the LBX in the game several times a day. I do not need to run it in the training grounds. In concert with other weapons it works great. My 6 ML / 2 LBX Firebrand has had zero problems registering solid damage / kills / assists in matches.

What's your K/D in that mech?

Quote

I personally like the spread because if I can damage all the torsi it makes it harder for my opponent to protect vital components.

No man, because you've not done any signficant damage to any of them. They don't even have to bother protecting vital components from you, because you can't hit vital components.

That is exactly the problem.

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

It is not the tool... it is the operator. Learn to use it effectively. However, by all means show it some love by buffing the pellets to 1.4. That would make me smile. I will be the new meta.

No dude, I just showed you that it is the tool.
No amount of skill on your part is going to reduce that spread. It's the size of an entire cataphract.

Sug, on 29 January 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

**hillarious video**

Only 55 shots to kill a commando.
That's pretty legit.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

I counted 45 (I must've been distracted).

So lets see, ~50 shots to finish off a non-moving stock armor light mech (paper armor, not dodging) or 4 with the AC10.

Can I have what you're smoking there IceCase?

Edited by mwhighlander, 29 January 2014 - 06:12 PM.

[Deathlike]

I love how this thread brought us all together. This talk was enjoyable. Let's do it again sometime.

[IceCase88]

I have run several different loadouts with the Firebrand that were not successful. I tried the stock loadout for a few matches (AC2/PPC), 2 AC10 / 6 ML, 2 AC5 / LL, and 2 LBX / 6 ML. I am on my phone right now so I cannot do a screenshot and post it. Mech stats are:

63 matches, 35 wins, 28 losses, W/L ratio 1.25, 49 kills, 55 deaths, KDR 0.89, damage 18,223, XP 39,111, Time played 4:04:10.

Roughly 289-290 damage per match.

lol, Roland. Unless you are spectating my matches you cannot say, without sounding utterly ridiculous, that what I am saying is not actually happening. It is happening and you do sound ridiculous. Too much number crunching, theorizing, and concrete thinking. It works for me and in the role I need it for exceptionally. It may defy your logic but it does not mean it does not work great. It is the operator not the tool. You remind me of this guy from the Princess Bride...