311 replies to this topic

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Yo Bishop. You hit over 10k posts 'brah'!

[Asmudius Heng]

mwhighlander, on 29 January 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

Yo Bishop. You hit over 10k posts 'brah'!

Go outside now Bishop! Get some sunlight dear god!

[Bishop Steiner]

Asmudius Heng, on 29 January 2014 - 08:52 PM, said:

Go outside now Bishop! Get some sunlight dear god!

but I am retired on a Mexican beach. I get plenty of sun! I was just scuba diving yesterday!

[Asmudius Heng]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 January 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:

but I am retired on a Mexican beach. I get plenty of sun! I was just scuba diving yesterday!

In that case lets swap

[IceCase88]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 January 2014 - 08:40 PM, said:

all of which matters not since your own posted "proof" shows you are neither lucky, nor good.

The last shelter of the unintelligent is insults and rudeness.

[YueFei]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

The last shelter of the unintelligent is insults and rudeness.

You know he wasn't insulting you. You think these folks were trying to be mean to you? All these people were genuinely trying to teach you.

If you are firm in your convictions that you are right, why don't you drop with them into a game and duel them with your LBX?

[TehSBGX]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

To each their own. The LBXs are sub-optimal for you not for me. Again, it is the operator not the tool. Just because you guys cannot run an optimal build with them does not mean I am, or anyone else, not capable of running an optimal build with it.

You can run the math all your want. You can keep theorizing, hypothesizing, and concrete thinking about it. It still does not change the fact people are able to make effective builds with the LBXs. It is okay to admit to weakness and a lack of skill in certain areas.

I am not saying anyone is a bad pilot because they cannot use the LBX. I am just saying they are bad at the LBX and it is okay to admit it. I am not particularly good with LRMs which is why I don't run them often. Saying people are bad pilots because they effectively use a weapon you think is terrible is the same.

It is okay to admit you are not good at a weapon. Just remember Stuart Smalley and recite his positive words...



Again... I am all for an increase in damage to 1.4 points per pellet. Makes my build even better and probably a new meta build.

Actually Take it from a guy who LOVES the lbx to death. They're the poster child for sub optimal weapons. They still need tweaks to become just as good as it's brother the AC/10. Given their current spread 1.3 damage per pellet would probably do it.

[Bishop Steiner]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

The last shelter of the unintelligent is insults and rudeness.

Lolz. Maybe you should try rereading your own posts, there Mr Rogers?

[Roland]

Ultimately, what separates the bad players from the good is an inability to really make unbiased observations about the game, and internalize those observations to improve one's own gameplay. A good player will see things as they are, and adapt himself to the game to become better. A bad player will imagine things are as he wishes, and then complain when things somehow don't play out as they do in his mind.

That's why you have people who simultaneously use garbage weapons (and argue that they are good), while complaining about other players using "meta builds".

[Deathlike]

Roland, on 29 January 2014 - 10:12 PM, said:

That's why you have people who simultaneously use garbage weapons (and argue that they are good), while complaining about other players using "meta builds".

You mean, "my meta is better than your meta".

When reading crazy talk from people, "what the meta?!?!" goes through the mind.

Edited by Deathlike, 29 January 2014 - 11:25 PM.

[IceCase88]

YueFei, on 29 January 2014 - 09:18 PM, said:

You know he wasn't insulting you. You think these folks were trying to be mean to you? All these people were genuinely trying to teach you.

If you are firm in your convictions that you are right, why don't you drop with them into a game and duel them with your LBX?

Opinion is not something to teach. It is exactly what it is... an opinion. They obviously have not spent any significant time using it so they should probably try it before they make uneducated guesses. Advice comes from someone knowledgeable and if they do not use the weapon they are not knowledgeable on it. Plain and simple. I use both weapons and prefer the LBX for my Firebrand to fit the role I like for it. The AC10 works better for other builds I use in a different role. Remember though, many of these players were historically saying the AC10 was a garbage weapon but now somehow it has crept into the meta. Remember the only thing that has changed with it is a velocity nerf. Why did this happen? How did a previously thought of "garbage weapon" become part of the meta?

I have no problems dropping with them. When I get back to my gaming computer in a few days I will take them up on the offer.

Trying to be mean to me? No... they are not trying it appears to come naturally. Their vanity prevents them from accepting the fact they cannot use a tool and others are able to do so.

Bishop Steiner, on 29 January 2014 - 09:48 PM, said:

Lolz. Maybe you should try rereading your own posts, there Mr Rogers?

I apologize if stating, "its not the tool it's the operator" offended you. It is really just a statement of fact. If you cannot make it work you cannot make it work. It is all good. You think it is garbage and others think it is not. Deal with it. You have your opinion and we have our opinion. Neither is a statement of fact. However, since you don't use it you are not knowledgeable about it.

You might want to heed your own advice and reread your posts. I am aware of my posts and the nature of them.

[TehSBGX]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:

Opinion is not something to teach. It is exactly what it is... an opinion. They obviously have not spent any significant time using it so they should probably try it before they make uneducated guesses. Advice comes from someone knowledgeable and if they do not use the weapon they are not knowledgeable on it. Plain and simple. I use both weapons and prefer the LBX for my Firebrand to fit the role I like for it. The AC10 works better for other builds I use in a different role. Remember though, many of these players were historically saying the AC10 was a garbage weapon but now somehow it has crept into the meta. Remember the only thing that has changed with it is a velocity nerf. Why did this happen? How did a previously thought of "garbage weapon" become part of the meta?

Simple. PPCs got brought down a bit, and SRM hit reg is a mess. The AC/10 popped up because It works reasonably well up close and reasonably well at range, being a jack of all trades weapon payed off.

[Bishop Steiner]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

Saying people are bad pilots because they effectively use a weapon you think is terrible is the same.

actually just waiting for a remote demonstration of this. Because so far every bit of "proof" given is the opposite of good. Or with your posted Firebrand stats, have you just run the LBX the last 10 rounds and your 900 pt average has brought your damage up from about 50 pts per game before?

Seriously. Believe what you want, but stop trying to blow sunshine up peoples ****** canals about how great the LB-X is when your "doing good" with them really is not. And that is not meant as an insult, before your feelings get hurt again, just a statement of fact. If you can't break a 2.0 in a Firebrand, well dang son, IDK what to tell you, since that's widely considered the best non jumping chassis in the game (or at least tied with the Ilya. Which I seemed to have dwarfed you with).

[Spades Kincaid]

I was curious and did some testing of my own.

I don't consider 270m brawling range, much less 300m. 270 is the max effective of a medium laser and takes small lasers completely out of the picture. Yes, it's max SRM range, and SRM's are considered brawling weapons. But they aren't terribly efficient at 270 either, even with artemis.

The previously discussed 200m seems much more useful as a brawling measure to me. You're nearing max hit range for small lasers and the range where SRM's become effective (for what they are atm)


Here's what I got at 300m, added since that range was brought up. I used the Catapult, Atlas, Cataphract and Awesome as targets on Forest Colony.

First, AC10 shots to kill all CT (our 100% accurate baseline at any range)

Catapult - 9
Atlas - 16
Cataphract - 10
Awesome - 11

LBX-10 at 300m, all CT

Catapult - 16 (9)
Atlas - 40! (16)
Cataphract - 20 (10)
Awesome - 28 (11)

So averaging more than double the number of shots. The Catapult unsurpisingly was the lone less than double with it's tiny side torso's from the front.

But my original tests were at 200m. More what I consider entering brawl range.

Catapult - 12 (9)
Atlas - 32 (16)
Cataphract - 13 (10)
Awesome - 15 (11)

Still obviously worse than the AC10, but an improvement. Was still really bad at Atlas killing (The Atlas has a fairly narrow CT hitbox dead center for it's overall size.) Likely conclusion? It's worse, but not -terrible- other than on the Atlas.

But here's where a small problem in perception arises. Those are 100% location accuracy. Someone stepping up to claim 100% location accuracy on an engaged target? (someone paying attention to you and making at least average effort to not be a sitting duck.) Anyone?

So let's take a look at a more moderate location accuracy in a fight. 50% sound fair? Meaning of your actual hits, half of them hit the specific location you desired. I know an elite player is going to get more than that. But I'm looking for what an average MWO player might see.

I alternated shots at 200m. CT, LT, CT, RT, CT, LT....etc. That's 50% location accuracy on your actual hits. The other 50% of hits a little off mark. Here's what happened:

Catapult - LBX = 14, AC10 = 13
Atlas - LBX = 39, AC10 = 31
Cataphract - LBX = 18, AC10 = 19!
Awesome - LBX = 21, AC10 = 22!

Notes: A few of the Catapult L/RT AC10 shots registered on CT. While it's torso quirks no doubt help the LBX as well, those hits kept the AC10 from being probably 15. Also, the Atlas's torso hitboxes still kinda shrug at the LBX. I did do a few 50% tests at 300m too. The results also got much closer to the AC10, but didn't quite achieve comparable hits to kill like at 200m.


The point is, at what I'd consider brawling range, the LBX actually is a bit forgiving and not bad. -IF- you aren't location accurate at something significantly more than 50%; it can do just about as well, for 1 ton less. With that extra ton to use, the LBX might be considered a decent choice for a player with average or below aim. Strictly for brawling with.

That's right. The only way the LBX is capable of matching the AC10, is at 200m or less and because you have not better than average-ish aim.

[Hello Ice? Take a deep breath. Ready?.... If you're doing 'better' with the LBX? It's because your aim isn't that good. That's not an insult. It's simple truth. The good news is that I think I've at least shown on your behalf, that it -is- possible to be in a place where using the LBX is at least comparable in results for a player (in 200m or less ranges). The bad news is it's not because you're better at using it than anyone else, it's because your aim isn't good enough with the AC10.]

For what it's worth, it does have a place where it can compare equitably with the AC10. The problem remains that's a very narrowly (skill and range) limited place, just to basically get similar results.

It never gives you a performance reason to desire it otherwise. Forgiveness a little, yes. Fun, sure. Overall performance capability, no. It can only match an AC10 under ideal circumstances for advantage to it's spread at ranges about half or less than either weapon's max effective.



My opinion:

The LBX needs some love. Because it needs to clearly outperform the AC10 when things get up close and personal and not be just about useless at what is supposedly it's max effective range. In order to have a solid place for use by all players, it can't only measure up to the AC10 in a limited window of aiming ability (or lack of) and distance.


A spread tightening and 1.2 - 1.3 dmg per pellet seems a potentially good buff to me in light of the results, or something around that.

200M or less it should have potential to get better than AC10 performance out of, and still equitable even if you just can hit the torso but can't reliably location pinpoint. Making it truly forgiving for brawling

200-300m or so, you'd be in that "just how location accurate are you?" range. Average or worse? stick with LBX. Pretty darn accurate? AC10 might be better for you.

Still less effective as you extend toward the AC10's 450m max effective range (or beyond), but not as awful as it is now.

I think with a buff like that the weapon would come closer to being a real choice of performance/desired playstyle vs the AC10.

Don't have great aim, or want a more forgiving brawling weapon? Or do have great aim and want a slight advantage for brawling damage and 1 ton to use elsewhere? LBX-10.

Have great aim and want better location specific damage for your non-brawling shots? (To me, over 200m) Or more performance potential at middle to max effective ranges? AC10.


TL-DR: Under the best conditions for it the LBX is okay. Some people will get similar to AC10 performance out of it strictly while brawling. But overall, it's a definitively inferior weapon and could use some love.

Good luck Ice. It's possible it works 'well' for you. Just not for the reason(s) you think.

*edit - holy copy/paste format clutter.

Edited by Spades Kincaid, 30 January 2014 - 01:01 AM.

[Roland]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:

Remember though, many of these players were historically saying the AC10 was a garbage weapon but now somehow it has crept into the meta. Remember the only thing that has changed with it is a velocity nerf. Why did this happen? How did a previously thought of "garbage weapon" become part of the meta?

Right here you are demonstrating your ignorance in being able to assess weapon utility.
The AC10's velocity isn't the only thing that changed. Indeed, that change didn't actually happen until AFTER it started getting used across a variety of mechs. Because, yeah, it was pretty garbage.

So what changed?

The stats of OTHER weapons changed. That's the part which eludes you. Because a weapon is not measured in a vacuum, based purely on its ability to kill mechs... It's measured based upon its ability to kill mechs compared to other weapons.

The AC10 only became used after the gauss rifle was nerfed, because it was previously a poor choice comparatively. Once the gauss was nerfed, then the AC10 became the next best tool for the job, and the job is delivering large precision alpha strikes. And that itself followed a transition to more ballistics in loadouts after ghost heat and PPC nerfs.

In reality, it competed with the (U)AC5, because on certain mechs you could pack two AC5's vs on AC10, and the option was generally superior because the speed matched the PPC's better.

The change you describe, of the AC10 having its speed drop, didn't actually make anyone start using the AC10. Indeed, it basically stopped most folks from using the AC10. Your perception of the meta isn't really in sync with what is happening.

I'm not really explaining this for your benefit, since I suspect you will just wave your hands and bury your head, but rather for the benefit of other folks who actually want to better understand how the weapons in this game work, and how "meta builds" enjoy widespread usage due to actually accomplishing certain things which are empirically advantageous within this game.

[Roland]

Quote

That's right. The only way the LBX is capable of matching the AC10, is at 200m or less and because you have not better than average-ish aim.

This is the same conclusion other folks have come to.

Although, in reality, it's not just having bad aim which would push the LBX onto par with the AC10.. because if your problem is just bad aim, then lasers will actually be a better choice than the LBX, if you are only looking to get some damage on target.

A buddy pointed out though, that the LBX starts to seem appealing if you have poor aim AND you have problem managing heat... so basically, if all of your skills in game are below average, then the LBX may be for you.

But really, that's not where the LBX should be. It's a disgrace that such an awesome weapon has been relegated to the trash bin.

[Trauglodyte]

Took 17 rounds of LB to kill a stock Catapult from the front at 270m in the Testing Grounds. That alone is horrible when you consider that you only save 1 ton and 1 heat. And, it doesn't even say anything about the 55 shots it took to kill the stock Mando, either.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 30 January 2014 - 07:24 AM.

[DONTOR]

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

I hope all commandos you fight dont move. When im in mine I dont ever fear 2 X AC10 mechs but Ill get nowhere near a 2LBX mech, your video is pointless. It shows how it takes many shots at the smallest mech in the game at a poor range for that circumstance. If your fighting a comando it wll be in your face, circling you, your Ac10s will do nothing.

[Sug]

DONTOR, on 30 January 2014 - 08:04 AM, said:

I hope all commandos you fight dont move. When im in mine I dont ever fear 2 X AC10 mechs but Ill get nowhere near a 2LBX mech, your video is pointless. It shows how it takes many shots at the smallest mech in the game at a poor range for that circumstance. If your fighting a comando it wll be in your face, circling you, your Ac10s will do nothing.

That video is pretty old. It predates the LBX buffs. If you try it now it would only take about 20 shots to kill that commando. Still more than 3 ac10 shots but the video wasn't about killing Commandos it was a response to people saying the LBX was more powerful than it really was at the time.

270m is a poor range? You have to be 100m or closer for the pellets to hit the same location. LBX spread is almost the same at any other range now. It will always be within the red square around your target.

Edited by Sug, 30 January 2014 - 08:13 AM.

[Roland]

DONTOR, on 30 January 2014 - 08:04 AM, said:

I hope all commandos you fight dont move. When im in mine I dont ever fear 2 X AC10 mechs but Ill get nowhere near a 2LBX mech, your video is pointless. It shows how it takes many shots at the smallest mech in the game at a poor range for that circumstance. If your fighting a comando it wll be in your face, circling you, your Ac10s will do nothing.

What exactly makes you think that you can't hit a commando with AC10's?
Because.. uh... you definitely can.