311 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

IceCase88, on 30 January 2014 - 11:10 PM, said:

I guess the damage increase over the maximum damage of the weapons is caused by crits if it is not a flaw in the how the stats are calculated. Damage from hits should also equal the maximum damage for the ballistic used, with the exception of the LBX, so lower damage is a bit odd. Possibly another flaw?

My numbers (Avg damage fired and hits):

AC20
Fired: 12.61 Hit: 19.7

AC2
Fired: 1.06 Hit: 1.97

AC5
Fired: 3.14 Hit: 5.12

AC10
Fired: 6.14 Hit: 9.77

Gauss
Fired: 9.01 Hit: 14.91

LBX
Fired: 5.66 Hit: 7.44

UAC
Fired: 2.5 Hit: 5.09

The LBX is about where I thought it would be. Slightly lower than the AC10 but I do not use as my primary weapon to strip armor. Far from garbage but could use some love. If PGI wants to throw some damage per pellet love then I am all for it.

Wow, Bishop. I see why you don't use the LBX because you really suck at it. I think the only thing you beat me in is the AC10 of the listed ballistics. Might want to stick to lasers only then. lol If I am bad at aim and ballistics it appears you are worse. You probably should not be voicing your opinion on them then. Just sayin'.



Actually it is not. You are just one of those douches who thinks they are the smartest guy in the room and is really not. GG Feel free to recover from your self-inflicted wound. I am checking out on this thread. GLHF

lol.

When you rack up 170,299 damage with the ac20, come back and comment about my damage numbers. I take plenty of low percentage shots, because I could give a {Scrap} less about my epeen, and simply care about winning. I take that shot at 800 meters on the fleeing Jenner. And about 60% of the time, I make it. Being willing to throw your stats to the wind is the biggest difference between "good" and "epeen".

Gauss is a little low because I don't poptart. Real fighting tends to skew accuracy. LB-X, again, I'm willing to take that shot at 1200 meters to hit a fleeing light, or simply to make the enemy duck so I can reposition. Obviously you aren't. When you start to understand the basics that Roland has been trying to explain to you, then maybe you'll be ready to start understanding advance tactics, like movement under suppression fire.

[Bishop Steiner]

DONTOR, on 31 January 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

Well atleast you fight for what you believe in. I like Bishop, hes a pretty fair guy (unless were talking LBX lol). But his LBX stats are a bit low. His AC10 stats are great though so I can see why he prefers it.

LBX10 hit:7.61 Miss:5.76
AC20 hit:19.73 Miss:13.6
Gauss hit:14.95 Miss:9.25
AC10 hit:9.89 Miss:6

Yeah, I am a little too free with ammo, because If I can get someone to duck, it makes running across an open plain in my Medium Mech a LOT more survivable. So I am a big fan of laying down copious cover fire, especially with my UACs. AC20s I do need to tighten up again, haven't been running them enough since the projectile speed nerf (don't fit on the Griffins and WOlverines I am leveling, lol), so I have noticed my timing with my VTRs and BoomJager to be waaaaay off.

But with over 100k damage on ac10s, yeah I do use them pretty frequently. I've only touched off 3000 or so rounds with the LBX, mostly in scout hunter builds (amazing what Spider Invincibility does to ones hit %, something Icecase probably wouldn't comprehend) but found them still to be inferior to pinpoint damage from 10s, 20s and PPCs.

As for the whole IceCase thing, well, I gave up on trying to talk sense to the guy a few pages back, and now am just trolling him because watching him toss out names and such is highly entertaining. What can I say, I am only human.

BTW, just looking at damage for hits,
AC20 19.86 (Apparently you lose some damage when you send an ac20 round up a Spders buttocks and out its tonsils)
AC10 10.27 (I am guessing component damage?)

Interesting to see the minor fluctuations.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 31 January 2014 - 10:52 AM.

[Roland]

IceCase88, on 30 January 2014 - 11:10 PM, said:

I guess the damage increase over the maximum damage of the weapons is caused by crits if it is not a flaw in the how the stats are calculated. Damage from hits should also equal the maximum damage for the ballistic used, with the exception of the LBX, so lower damage is a bit odd. Possibly another flaw?

The reason that the total damage doesn't match up with the number of hits multiplied by the weapon damage is because two things can happen:
1) A hit can do extra damage as a result of critical hits on internals
2) A hit can do LESS damage if it happens to be a kill shot

Quote

Wow, Bishop. I see why you don't use the LBX because you really suck at it. I think the only thing you beat me in is the AC10 of the listed ballistics. Might want to stick to lasers only then. lol If I am bad at aim and ballistics it appears you are worse. You probably should not be voicing your opinion on them then. Just sayin'.

People in glass houses, dude.

Quote

You are just one of those douches who thinks they are the smartest guy in the room and is really not.

This statement is humorous, given how you have presented yourself in this thread.

[Trauglodyte]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 January 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:

BTW, just looking at damage for hits,
AC20 19.86 (Apparently you lose some damage when you send an ac20 round up a Spders buttocks and out its tonsils)
AC10 10.27 (I am guessing component damage?)

Interesting to see the minor fluctuations.

Could be either ammo explosions or the added damage from criticals. Remember that you do more damage when you critical AND that 15% of that critical damage goes back to the IS. Pretty much, internal structure gets double taxed on critical hits which is one reason why mechs crumple so fast. Outside of my AC20s, which I don't use a lot of, pretty much all of my AC5s, UAC5s, AC10s, and PPCs exceed the base damage on hits.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 31 January 2014 - 12:59 PM.

[Praehotec8]

Is the LBX great as-is? No, and I don't think anyone here would argue it doesn't need some type of improvement. I will be first in line to ask for some buffs to the LBX. I long for the day that it's damage is increased, its spread decreased, and its crit-seeking abilities improved!

However, it seems that where the argument is occurring is that some people still find uses for the LBX whereas others only like to run the L33T competitive builds with AC/UAC5s, AC20, and PPCs.

Bottom line is that in the pure competitive setting, the LBX currently has no place due to its mechanics. For the rest of us who aren't Mechwarrior GODS, they often are useable and have the advantage of less heat and less tonnage. I for one, am glad to not play in the lofty ranks of the ultimate ELO, so that I can build mechs however I feel interesting, and still (usually) stay in the top-half performers of my matches.

[Roland]

Quote

However, it seems that where the argument is occurring is that some people still find uses for the LBX whereas others only like to run the L33T competitive builds with AC/UAC5s, AC20, and PPCs.

Shame on good players for understanding the game mechanics and using good weapons!

[LowSubmarino]

On a fast jumping mech that only wants to expose its front torsos briefly the lbx is great is all I can say. It doesn't require perfect aim and does decent damage while running very cool.

[Praehotec8]

Roland, on 31 January 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

Shame on good players for understanding the game mechanics and using good weapons!

Where did I say that? All I said was that those who only wish to use the best game mechanics are at odds with those who choose to use what they like, at the expense of efficiency.

That, and I am glad to not be in the ELO where the only way to win is to use only the most efficient builds. If you want to play that way, go for it, just don't assume that everyone who chooses otherwise is mentally challenged, or otherwise lacks understanding of the game.

[LowSubmarino]

Praehotec8, on 31 January 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

Where did I say that? All I said was that those who only wish to use the best game mechanics are at odds with those who choose to use what they like, at the expense of efficiency.

That, and I am glad to not be in the ELO where the only way to win is to use only the most efficient builds. If you want to play that way, go for it, just don't assume that everyone who chooses otherwise is mentally challenged, or otherwise lacks understanding of the game.

Man what do you care about the "meta" knowledge here or how many ppl believe certain builds are the best?

I never see my build anywhere and believe it is the best sniper build there is. Nobody cares that my personal experience proves it and I don't care about the results of 100 K ppl all using other builds swearing they are far superior.

But quite frankly, nobody likes to play with utterly ineffective weapons or utterly useless builds that's simply no fun. If a mech is not competitive in the role (brawler, sniper, flanker, scout, mixed builds, etc...) you build it for then how can you have any kind of fun? I have played vs excellent teams and incredibly bad teams with my build and it is always good.

That's why it is fun and mainly also because I love the configuration. You have to find a balance between the two. One of those pillars missing and a loadout is shiat.

Edited by oneda, 01 February 2014 - 07:42 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

Quote

Where did I say that? All I said was that those who only wish to use the best game mechanics are at odds with those who choose to use what they like, at the expense of efficiency.

That, and I am glad to not be in the ELO where the only way to win is to use only the most efficient builds. If you want to play that way, go for it, just don't assume that everyone who chooses otherwise is mentally challenged, or otherwise lacks understanding of the game.

I'm kind of close to that ELO and I enjoy winning. If you want to win, you take what is efficient and what works. That means that you cut out things like normal SRMs (can't be depended upon), LRMs (have to be boated and can be neutralized via ECM, AMS, and cover), LBs (just because), Small Lasers and Pulses (too weak and/or heavy for what you get out of them). It is a sad realization that so many weapons don't have a use but it is true.

[LowSubmarino]

Trauglodyte, on 01 February 2014 - 08:10 AM, said:

I'm kind of close to that ELO and I enjoy winning. If you want to win, you take what is efficient and what works. That means that you cut out things like normal SRMs (can't be depended upon), LRMs (have to be boated and can be neutralized via ECM, AMS, and cover), LBs (just because), Small Lasers and Pulses (too weak and/or heavy for what you get out of them). It is a sad realization that so many weapons don't have a use but it is true.

I'll have to agree on the uselessness of: srms and lare pulse lasers. To some extent lrms too. Lrms effectiveness relies too heavily on a clumsy, disorganized, bad playing team. A good team just doesn't wander brainlessly through open fields to get hammered by lrms.

And if you do face a good team then you wasted dozens of tons on an lrm boat and are virtually useless.

Srms just dont do damage reliably. And small lasers are pathetic haha. Tag does more damage.

In the end the good weapons are acs, med lasers and large lasers as well as ER large lasers. SSrms are good too and ppcs of course. Almost forgot them since I personally never use them.

I wish we had twice as many different weapon types that are also effective.

Right now there is virtually no diversity since the loadouts dont allow for it if you want to be effective.

Edited by oneda, 01 February 2014 - 08:24 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

oneda, on 01 February 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

Man what do you care about the "meta" knowledge here or how many ppl believe certain builds are the best?

I never see my build anywhere and believe it is the best sniper build there is. Nobody cares that my personal experience proves it and I don't care about the results of 100 K ppl all using other builds swearing they are far superior.

But quite frankly, nobody likes to play with utterly ineffective weapons or utterly useless builds that's simply no fun. If a mech is not competitive in the role (brawler, sniper, flanker, scout, mixed builds, etc...) you build it for then how can you have any kind of fun? I have played vs excellent teams and incredibly bad teams with my build and it is always good.

That's why it is fun and mainly also because I love the configuration. You have to find a balance between the two. One of those pillars missing and a loadout is shiat.

Oh there are certainly unorthodox builds that people not only make work, but seem to excel in. I have always supported this, though I don't go so far as to promote saying bad is good, and such. And I have seen people in "sub-optimal" builds outperform me in a "meta-approved" one. (I seldom run Meta ever myself, unless I am running in a 12 man. I don't believe in handicapping my unit for "serious" drops. IMO, you can't handicap a PUG match. The quality and intelligence of the players has more to do with who wins or loses in PUG matches than the individual builds ever will. (Well that, and premade units sync dropping and doing other forms of stat harvesting)

What I am am commenting on is entirely about a person who is claiming a totally sub optimal weapon and build is GOOD and who's posted "stats" with it undeniably show it is BAD. Do I care that he runs it? NO. But anyone who is running a .89 KDr in a Firebrand while insisting he knows how to use those LB-Xs and the rest of us who are to be blunt playing way outside his league do not, is the ludicrous notion here.

I don't pull the "LEET" card, as I feel that there is no legit format to prove that on MWO ATM (Since MWO sanctioned events have been extinct for quite some time, possibly due to low player retention?) and the stats in this game are entirely to easy to cook. But I will blow some n00b up when they go on a little rant then after being categorically proven wrong in an attempt to help him actually play better, gos on personal attacks? Yeah, then little sister needs a slapdown.

[LowSubmarino]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 February 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

Oh there are certainly unorthodox builds that people not only make work, but seem to excel in. I have always supported this, though I don't go so far as to promote saying bad is good, and such. And I have seen people in "sub-optimal" builds outperform me in a "meta-approved" one. (I seldom run Meta ever myself, unless I am running in a 12 man. I don't believe in handicapping my unit for "serious" drops. IMO, you can't handicap a PUG match. The quality and intelligence of the players has more to do with who wins or loses in PUG matches than the individual builds ever will. (Well that, and premade units sync dropping and doing other forms of stat harvesting)

What I am am commenting on is entirely about a person who is claiming a totally sub optimal weapon and build is GOOD and who's posted "stats" with it undeniably show it is BAD. Do I care that he runs it? NO. But anyone who is running a .89 KDr in a Firebrand while insisting he knows how to use those LB-Xs and the rest of us who are to be blunt playing way outside his league do not, is the ludicrous notion here.

I don't pull the "LEET" card, as I feel that there is no legit format to prove that on MWO ATM (Since MWO sanctioned events have been extinct for quite some time, possibly due to low player retention?) and the stats in this game are entirely to easy to cook. But I will blow some n00b up when they go on a little rant then after being categorically proven wrong in an attempt to help him actually play better, gos on personal attacks? Yeah, then little sister needs a slapdown.

Well who enjoys utterly worthless builds. I know there are some ppl here that like to play according to canon, trying to move away from or outright ignore meta configurations.

And yet some ppl even play in a locust which is, in my opinion, a worthless mech and not competitive no matter what you equip it with. At least not in the currently available game modes. Especially in skirmish it is a wasted slot. But ppl obviously like it. Comes down to personal preference I guess. But yeah, I tell ppl what I think works and doesn't work as well.

I just wanted to tell him to try things out for himself. While I frequently checked out builds that ppl had great success with I change things around. Sometimes they work better for me and sometimes I realize the community had a point.

[SaltBeef]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 January 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:

Yeah, I am a little too free with ammo, because If I can get someone to duck, it makes running across an open plain in my Medium Mech a LOT more survivable. So I am a big fan of laying down copious cover fire,
Interesting to see the minor fluctuations.

I do this a lot too waste ammo for suppression for movement, ( It works), keep your head down or get hit trying to peek off a shot when I am scrambling. Suppression fire is a must laser or cannon. Again would love to see the LBX get more pellets for lesser damage per pellet or a pellet buffing. Needs to be able to strip armor better. I love this weapon always have. Don't use ac 10's much yet never have always loved the LBX types. Cannot wait for the smaller faster firing versions BRAKK......BRAKK.......BRAKK!!

Edited by SaltBeef, 02 February 2014 - 03:54 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

oneda, on 02 February 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:

Well who enjoys utterly worthless builds. I know there are some ppl here that like to play according to canon, trying to move away from or outright ignore meta configurations.

And yet some ppl even play in a locust which is, in my opinion, a worthless mech and not competitive no matter what you equip it with. At least not in the currently available game modes. Especially in skirmish it is a wasted slot. But ppl obviously like it. Comes down to personal preference I guess. But yeah, I tell ppl what I think works and doesn't work as well.

I just wanted to tell him to try things out for himself. While I frequently checked out builds that ppl had great success with I change things around. Sometimes they work better for me and sometimes I realize the community had a point.

I can roll with that. And yeah, I like my Locust. A lot actually. But it is pretty worthless. But it is like MarioKart meets Mechwarrior. *Shrugs*

Avoiding Meta because it is meta, I don't get. Anymore than I get people who go ape if you don't run Meta.

[Praehotec8]

oneda, on 01 February 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

Man what do you care about the "meta" knowledge here or how many ppl believe certain builds are the best?

I never see my build anywhere and believe it is the best sniper build there is. Nobody cares that my personal experience proves it and I don't care about the results of 100 K ppl all using other builds swearing they are far superior.

But quite frankly, nobody likes to play with utterly ineffective weapons or utterly useless builds that's simply no fun. If a mech is not competitive in the role (brawler, sniper, flanker, scout, mixed builds, etc...) you build it for then how can you have any kind of fun? I have played vs excellent teams and incredibly bad teams with my build and it is always good.

That's why it is fun and mainly also because I love the configuration. You have to find a balance between the two. One of those pillars missing and a loadout is shiat.

I'm not entirely sure what the first part of your post is trying to say, it is not clearly worded. As to the rest, well, you obviously find fun primarly (only?) in winning. Not everyone feels exactly the same way, and fun is entirely subjective. Some people just like certain mechs or weapons, some people enjoy a good challenge, and some people just like trying out unusual builds.

As for me, I enjoy trying to make different loadouts for each of my mechs, to make them at least somewhat unique from each other. Therefore, I have some meta-builds, and some very non-meta builds. Each, however, is adjusted to work with my preferred playing style and strengths. Sometimes I own the match, and sometimes I lose terribly, but on average, I play decently and get 1-3 kills. That's good enough to entertain me.

Unless you're in that top bracket of the "elite", there really are not many completely worthless builds (flamers, NARC, and the like are definitely suboptimal). Some are better and some worse, but if your playstyle permits, a player can generally do fair to good with some of the subpar weapons.

The big argument (as I posted initially) about the LBX isn't whether or not it is underpowered (because it is), but rather it's about dissent between the general players who can get by with it fairly well, and those ultra-competitive souls, for whom only the top 3-4 weapons are worth anything.

[PLOG]

LBX's sound the best.....

good enough for me:P

PLOG

[Bishop Steiner]

PLOG, on 03 February 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

LBX's sound the best.....

good enough for me:P

PLOG

you sir are a loon. But is that a bad thing? I think not as long as you keep cranking the cool art my man!

[Trauglodyte]

I've got to admit that the LB does sound freaking cool. Bish, you're going to hate me for saying this, but I've got one on my Phract 3D - 2 PPCs and an LB. And you know what? Outside of the PPCs, it sucks complete ass! I shot a Shadowhawk the other day that was down one leg and had all of its armor, except for the head, completely stripped. I nailed that sucker twice center mass with the LB at under 200m and it kept spitting Streaks at me. Damn LBs are pathetic. But they do sound cool!

[Dan Nashe]

Somewhat related.
Because it is smaller, you can fit two lb10xs into a single torso.
Combine with 3 srm6 in an atlas, and you have a fun super shotgun.