173 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 20 February 2014 - 09:08 PM, said:

Made that point on the first page.
Though, I'd argue that the format is slightly different than what you're proposing: "Lubalin Ballistics (AC damage class)-(series ten) autocannon".

That is, the LB 10-X AC would be the "class 10, series 10" model, while the LB 5-X AC would be the "class 5, series 10" model, and the LB 20-X AC would be the "class 20, series 10" model.
Presumably, series I through IX would have been either outright developmental failures or iterations that, while technically functional, were unfit for production without undergoing major revisions.

actually, I would show that as the first disconnect in FASAs notorious in house editing (as seen in early edition record sheets where the Rifleman had full arm actuators). Correct designations should be LB-II AC, LB-V AC and LB-XX AC, each instance the roman numeral designating the class of AC.

Calling future Clan iterations series X versions makes no sense since with their even lighter weights and caliber designations they would be series XI, XII, etc, by your line of reasoning. I will continue to follow Occam's Razor til shown reason to do otherwise.

A nice "fluff" way to explain it would be simply that like much info, the original designation nomenclature was lost and misunderstood after the Amaris War, Exodus, Pentagon Campaign, and of Course the Succession Wars and Comstar's disinformation attempts.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 20 February 2014 - 09:51 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 20 February 2014 - 09:37 PM, said:

The LBX10 has no strengths. That is the problem.
In every situation, another weapon is better than the LBX10. And it's not like the LBX10 is kind of good in all situations and thus makes a good well-rounded weapon. In most situations, it is flat out terribad. And in a very tiny subset of situations, it's not quite awful, but is still worse than other weapons.

Look, what you are saying is perfectly fine... The idea of weapons which are only situationally useful is perfectly fine. That's actually a recipe for good game design, if done correctly.

But the LBX10 isn't currently like that. It's not situationally useful. It's merely situationally not quite as terrible.

What other weapon has a high crit chance at 400m+?

[Roland]

Craig Steele, on 20 February 2014 - 09:52 PM, said:

What other weapon has a high crit chance at 400m+?

And you think that's an important distinction, do you?

Do you understand how the critical system works in MWO? Because if you do, then you know why the LBX actually isn't really good for that... and also why, in MWO, it generally doesn't matter anyway.

I'm totally serious here, because a huge percentage of the folks who don't understand why the LBX is bad tend to be confused about how criticals work in MWO. In Battletech, the LBX10 is a crit seeker weapon.. it can gut a mech when fired into internals, since it can obliterate tons of different components... But with the system in MWO, it's actually WORSE at destroying things than many other weapons, since every critical hit doesn't actually destroy a component... And the critical hits that do happen are less impactful, since you can't get engine crits, and most crits on ammo don't actually cause ammo explosions.

The idea of the LBX10 being good because of criticals is pretty much the chief misconception that tricks people into using it... to the extent that we've made image macros making fun of it.

[FupDup]

Roland, on 20 February 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

...
The idea of the LBX10 being good because of criticals is pretty much the chief misconception that tricks people into using it... to the extent that we've made image macros making fun of it.

It's that time again, isn't it?

[Alexander Williams]

Craig Steele, on 19 February 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

Maybe? I was more focussed on the effective range part of the equation. Regardless of how / why it works, light energy travels much further than 450m, but in BT canon, thats where its destructive potential ends. Someone will have some better mechanics I am sure.

Didn't see this answered in here, but I may have missed it.
I'm pretty sure the range on lasers is limited by the amount of energy poured into each beam- yes, light will go much further than 450m, but how much damage can you expect it to do when it's been turned into a laser pointer because it has diffused so much energy?

On topic, though, I like my LB-X. It might not be the best gun, but I like it. The weight I saved from switching my CN9-A off the standard AC10 allowed me to carry more ammo.

That said, the only conclusion I've drawn from this thread is that some people on this forum seem to have forgotten that we're playing a game, and that's kinda depressing, honestly.

[Lucky Clove]

Ordellus, on 20 February 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

Are you ********? Free to play is the most profitable form of game to date.

What do they pay for?
Servers - check.
Couple guys to make more mechs - check?
One guy that makes maps - check?

And from the look of the game that's about it.... it's been playable for like 3 years now and it's still an exploit filled, pay to win, gay fest.

The weapons are the way they are so that as little skill as possible is needed to kill with them.

By the way Ordellus, I think you're over exaggerating their funds/income just a wee bit maybe? One reason I could be right is the ridiculous prices on the clan invasion packs! Especially the $500 "gold plated" mechs. Call me crazy, but I think they might be living off of take-out Chinese fast food... Truth of the fact is, they probably need the money. So unless you got proof of the opposite, I think we should have faith in them!

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 20 February 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

And you think that's an important distinction, do you?

Do you understand how the critical system works in MWO? Because if you do, then you know why the LBX actually isn't really good for that... and also why, in MWO, it generally doesn't matter anyway.

I'm totally serious here, because a huge percentage of the folks who don't understand why the LBX is bad tend to be confused about how criticals work in MWO. In Battletech, the LBX10 is a crit seeker weapon.. it can gut a mech when fired into internals, since it can obliterate tons of different components... But with the system in MWO, it's actually WORSE at destroying things than many other weapons, since every critical hit doesn't actually destroy a component... And the critical hits that do happen are less impactful, since you can't get engine crits, and most crits on ammo don't actually cause ammo explosions.

The idea of the LBX10 being good because of criticals is pretty much the chief misconception that tricks people into using it... to the extent that we've made image macros making fun of it.

So two things, firstly in TT crits were hard to get even after armour was gone. It was 8+ to get a roll on a table and the table was lopsided to one item damaged so the concept that ANY weapon in TT was a crit seeker is ludicrous. Serious crit wrecking was like maybe 10 / 15%. I remember some great ones, but there were a heck of a lot more 7's on the crit roll that got nothing.

Secondly, the point of raising the higher crit chance at 400m was not to fall back to a comparison of how that chance compares to any other weapon. It was to put forward A DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTE of the weapon which some smart duck (certainly not me) may be able to turn into a competitive advantage.

I get that you don't agree that LB is any good, I really do.

But that doesn't make the weapon BAD as you consistently state, it just means you (well not specifically you, a general whoever you ofc) has not come up with a legitimate tactic that captures the weapons inherent strengths (as limited as they may or may not be)

Personally, I don't have a view on LB, I use it sometimes, not often, it goes OK. One game I got 4 kills and I was pretty happy with that.

Sometimes I use it as a primary weapon on my Wolverine and get close and just smash them cause the backup weapon is all streaks so accuracy is not my focus with that load. CT, RT, RA, I don't care. Just hit and run around the building and come back once the CD's are gone. It goes OK too. Goes nice hunting lights with the BAP too.

I'm not saying the weapon is good or couldn't be improved, just that I think other people may have found it to be a very good weapon for them cause they have unlocked a strategy / tactic / build that suits the weapon more.

[YueFei]

The problem with LBX crit mechanics in MWO is that every pellet that crits doesn't do enough damage to destroy a component. In TT, a crit destroys something. In MWO, items have health.

When an AC/10 crits, or a PPC crits, it's guaranteed to destroy most items, since most items have 10 health.

[Ordellus]

Hickory, on 20 February 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

Ordellus, I don't like the way you seem to use the word "gay" as a bad word. That's not very nice to them is it? I mean they can't help it after all!

Many words have multiple definitions. So don't be gay.

Hickory, on 20 February 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

By the way Ordellus, I think you're over exaggerating their funds/income just a wee bit maybe? One reason I could be right is the ridiculous prices on the clan invasion packs! Especially the $500 "gold plated" mechs. Call me crazy, but I think they might be living off of take-out Chinese fast food... Truth of the fact is, they probably need the money. So unless you got proof of the opposite, I think we should have faith in them!

I'd be more inclined to think the overpriced mechs are evidence of the crazy amout of money they make.

A company only produces things it expects to sell.

P.S. - You're a founder.... you should be well aware of how many times this company has proven they dont' deserve trust. Are you a masochist? (probably spelled that wrong)

[wanderer]

Quote

So two things, firstly in TT crits were hard to get even after armour was gone. It was 8+ to get a roll on a table and the table was lopsided to one item damaged so the concept that ANY weapon in TT was a crit seeker is ludicrous. Serious crit wrecking was like maybe 10 / 15%. I remember some great ones, but there were a heck of a lot more 7's on the crit roll that got nothing.

That was one of the reasons LB/SRM's in TT are crit-seekers- you only had to do one damage to internals to get a crit check, and LB-X pellets dealt...1 damage per pellet, individually checked,SRMs did two. (LRMs and MRMs dealt damage in groups of 5 by comparison).

So you'd go solid shot to chew through armor,and swap to cluster once the armor was holed- hoping to hit ammo or something else that would effectively disable a 'Mech before raw damage would. In MWO, it's more effective to simply core the target, since many things that would matter if critted to death either can't be (engine, gyro, actuators), far more difficult to cause catastrophic damage to (ammo), and usually have limited opportunities to do so.

And for that matter "Ultra" was also a specific model name at first- but much like the Gatling,it got stuck onto an entire class of gun. LB's are much the same, thus the use for weapons of that type that were never made by the company to begin with, but perform the same way.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 February 2014 - 09:49 PM, said:

actually, I would show that as the first disconnect in FASAs notorious in house editing (as seen in early edition record sheets where the Rifleman had full arm actuators). Correct designations should be LB-II AC, LB-V AC and LB-XX AC, each instance the roman numeral designating the class of AC.

Calling future Clan iterations series X versions makes no sense since with their even lighter weights and caliber designations they would be series XI, XII, etc, by your line of reasoning. I will continue to follow Occam's Razor til shown reason to do otherwise.

A nice "fluff" way to explain it would be simply that like much info, the original designation nomenclature was lost and misunderstood after the Amaris War, Exodus, Pentagon Campaign, and of Course the Succession Wars and Comstar's disinformation attempts.

Actually, "my line of reasoning" is that each element of the general designation "LB-X" denotes some characteristic (or set of characteristics) that are common to all of those weapons, regardless of tech base, while the numbers present in the specific designations (e.g. the "10" in "LB 10-X", the "5" in "LB 5-X") are what denote the class of AC (as is the case with all of the other AC families - the Standard AC/2, the LB 2-X, the UAC/2, the LAC/2, the RAC/2, and the HVAC/2 are all "class 2 autocannons" & are designated as such by the "2" in the weapon's name).

Ergo, the "X" in "LB-X" necessarily cannot be specific to the LB 10-X AC (the only model actually designed & built by Lubalin themselves, in-universe) alone, and must indicate some feature (or set of features) that are common to both IS-built and Clan-built examples, as well as examples across the range of AC classes (e.g. "use of Endo-Steel in construction", regardless of the differences in density between IS Endo-Steel and Clan Endo-Steel, "use of the Mercury-IV targeting system" regardless of (slight?) improvements to both hardware & software that the Clans must surely have made in the 200+ years since the SLDF Exodus, and so on).

In terms of print:

• TRO 2750 was originally printed sometime in 1989.
  
• Lethal Heritage was originally printed in September 1989.
  
• TRO 3050 was originally printed sometime in 1990.
  
• Blood Legacy was originally printed in December 1990.
  
• Lost Destiny was originally printed in September 1991.

We can assume, with a fairly-high degree of safety, that both sides (that is, IS & Clan) of the LB-X family had been planned out all at once, and that the "LB (AC class)-X" nomenclature is in fact intended to be correct from both in-universe and IRL perspectives.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 21 February 2014 - 05:35 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 21 February 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

Actually, "my line of reasoning" is that each element of the general designation "LB-X" denotes some characteristic (or set of characteristics) that are common to all of those weapons, regardless of tech base, while the numbers present in the specific designations (e.g. the "10" in "LB 10-X", the "5" in "LB 5-X") are what denote the class of AC (as is the case with all of the other AC families - the Standard AC/2, the LB 2-X, the UAC/2, the LAC/2, the RAC/2, and the HVAC/2 are all "class 2 autocannons" & are designated as such by the "2" in the weapon's name).

Ergo, the "X" in "LB-X" necessarily cannot be specific to the LB 10-X AC (the only model actually designed & built by Lubalin themselves, in-universe) alone, and must indicate some feature (or set of features) that are common to both IS-built and Clan-built examples, as well as examples across the range of AC classes (e.g. "use of Endo-Steel in construction", regardless of the differences in density between IS Endo-Steel and Clan Endo-Steel, "use of the Mercury-IV targeting system" regardless of (slight?) improvements to both hardware & software that the Clans must surely have made in the 200+ years since the SLDF Exodus, and so on).

In terms of print:

• TRO 2750 was originally printed sometime in 1989.
  
• Lethal Heritage was originally printed in September 1989.
  
• TRO 3050 was originally printed sometime in 1990.
  
• Blood Legacy was originally printed in December 1990.
  
• Lost Destiny was originally printed in September 1991.

We can assume, with a fairly-high degree of safety, that both sides (that is, IS & Clan) of the LB-X family had been planned out all at once, and that the "LB (AC class)-X" nomenclature is in fact intended to be correct from both in-universe and IRL perspectives.

still doesn't support your I-X series nomenclature, as the Clan versions would be a new series. Whereas X = 10 is a mighty strange coincidence.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 February 2014 - 05:49 AM, said:

still doesn't support your I-X series nomenclature, as the Clan versions would be a new series. Whereas X = 10 is a mighty strange coincidence.

Yet, a coincidence it is.

Perhaps one or more of the (strictly hypothetical) series I through IX used radically different materials (e.g. standard materials or even Ferro-Fibrous), or used previous iterations of the Mercury system (e.g. Mercury I through III) or another targeting system entirely, or experimented with different subsystems & functionalities (such as an ammo-conserving, Streak-like behavior in not firing until the target was lined up and the salvo was guaranteed to hit), or other substantial structural or operational differences.

And maybe there was no series I through IX, and the "X" in "LB-X" has an entirely different meaning related to the function or capabilities of the whole LB-X family (e.g. "eXtended range", "eXpaning kill-zone", or even just "X's are cool, and an in-universe company would use it as a marketing gimmick").

[Mudhutwarrior]

LBX is okay in some circumstances. It sure brings up the damage but doesn't kill well. Only good thing about it is in pug matches it lights up my target calling in the kill stealers. With dual LBX in my atlas I get the best damage and assist scores but lack kills ad with the AC20.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 21 February 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:

Yet, a coincidence it is.

Perhaps one or more of the (strictly hypothetical) series I through IX used radically different materials (e.g. standard materials or even Ferro-Fibrous), or used previous iterations of the Mercury system (e.g. Mercury I through III) or another targeting system entirely, or experimented with different subsystems & functionalities (such as an ammo-conserving, Streak-like behavior in not firing until the target was lined up and the salvo was guaranteed to hit), or other substantial structural or operational differences.

And maybe there was no series I through IX, and the "X" in "LB-X" has an entirely different meaning related to the function or capabilities of the whole LB-X family (e.g. "eXtended range", "eXpaning kill-zone", or even just "X's are cool, and an in-universe company would use it as a marketing gimmick").

so you admit there is no concrete answer to the "X" and thus, especially in light of how horrible FASA in house communication and editing quality was, my own theory is just as plausible as either you have submitted. (Hence possibly, but currently not provable, not a "coincidence".) Especially as none of the 5 writers for the 2750 tro contributed to the 3050. And how the 3025 TRo frequently contradicted itself.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Mudhutwarrior, on 21 February 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

LBX is okay in some circumstances. It sure brings up the damage but doesn't kill well. Only good thing about it is in pug matches it lights up my target calling in the kill stealers. With dual LBX in my atlas I get the best damage and assist scores but lack kills ad with the AC20.

The only time I've seen it work, was a 'Phract brawling on the lower part of the parking garage on Crimson Straight.

Had 3 LBX 10's and 2 MLas...but it was near the end of the match, and basically mech's were coming down and he was just able to without much effort at close range, finish them off. This was more a factor of them being totally shredded at the time, and the close range.

But he definitely torched 4 mechs in a row.

But does that mean the weapon is good? No. Means it is usable.

[Craig Steele]

wanderer, on 21 February 2014 - 04:46 AM, said:

That was one of the reasons LB/SRM's in TT are crit-seekers- you only had to do one damage to internals to get a crit check, and LB-X pellets dealt...1 damage per pellet, individually checked,SRMs did two. (LRMs and MRMs dealt damage in groups of 5 by comparison).

So you'd go solid shot to chew through armor,and swap to cluster once the armor was holed- hoping to hit ammo or something else that would effectively disable a 'Mech before raw damage would. In MWO, it's more effective to simply core the target, since many things that would matter if critted to death either can't be (engine, gyro, actuators), far more difficult to cause catastrophic damage to (ammo), and usually have limited opportunities to do so.

And for that matter "Ultra" was also a specific model name at first- but much like the Gatling,it got stuck onto an entire class of gun. LB's are much the same, thus the use for weapons of that type that were never made by the company to begin with, but perform the same way.

Coring a mech in TT was also the most effective way to take one down (excluding head shots)

Strum Wealh, on 21 February 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:

Yet, a coincidence it is.

Perhaps one or more of the (strictly hypothetical) series I through IX used radically different materials (e.g. standard materials or even Ferro-Fibrous), or used previous iterations of the Mercury system (e.g. Mercury I through III) or another targeting system entirely, or experimented with different subsystems & functionalities (such as an ammo-conserving, Streak-like behavior in not firing until the target was lined up and the salvo was guaranteed to hit), or other substantial structural or operational differences.

And maybe there was no series I through IX, and the "X" in "LB-X" has an entirely different meaning related to the function or capabilities of the whole LB-X family (e.g. "eXtended range", "eXpaning kill-zone", or even just "X's are cool, and an in-universe company would use it as a marketing gimmick").

Maybe it's 'X' marks the spot?

[Mudhutwarrior]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 21 February 2014 - 06:30 AM, said:

The only time I've seen it work, was a 'Phract brawling on the lower part of the parking garage on Crimson Straight.

Had 3 LBX 10's and 2 MLas...but it was near the end of the match, and basically mech's were coming down and he was just able to without much effort at close range, finish them off. This was more a factor of them being totally shredded at the time, and the close range.

But he definitely torched 4 mechs in a row.

But does that mean the weapon is good? No. Means it is usable.

Agreed. I think if we were not stuck in the flying fairy princess meta it might be more usable.

[The Basilisk]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

[...]
But why does it have a longer range than the AC-10 if it's first impression is a shotgun? The LB 10-X's name actually tells us the answer! The LB stands for "Light Barrel" or "Long Barrel" as I would prefer to call it as a longer barrel makes a weapon's accuracy better at longer range. This, however, is just speculation so don't take it too seriously.
(Light Barrel is the spectualtion stated at Sarna.net. Long Barrel is my own spectualtion, but both would make sense.)
[...]

As always Sarna tells us much but not always quite the right story.
1st of the correct name of the LB10X is Large Bore Extended Range Autocannon.
Since the classification of autocannons in Battletech are quite ..... vague lets say it usage of *standart* ammunitions is also a generalization.
Every Tier of ACs in Battletech ( 2; 5; 10; 20) stands for a group of weapons for a certain purpose.
The AC10s are heavy mediumrange autocannons that would normaly be a compromise between calibre, cyclespeed and accuracy. So dependent on its manufacturer there will be diffrent AC10s with their own distinctive numbers of shots per round fired, their own bore and muzzle.
The LB-X 10 is an own family of ACs using new alloys, load mechanisms and targeting technics.
And thats what makes them expensive....or should make them expensive....at least in battletech but....then came PGI and said......*Autocannons....oh yea cool idea lets throw lore and all logic away and make large old BOOOOMSTICKS.*

[wanderer]

Quote

Coring a mech in TT was also the most effective way to take one down (excluding head shots)

But you couldn't aim concentrated damage at the CT,meaning that many more effective "kills" happened:

Ammo explosion. No CASE, 'Mech is dead. Even with CASE, frequently triggered further internal damage and automatically caused pilot damage- cascading criticals from multiple ammo crits could reduce a pilot to a thin red paste even though the 'Mech itself was operational. Clan 'Mechs are especially prone to this with universal CASE.

Engine/gyro crits- nothing says "golden BB" like one point of internal damage fragging the gyro and leaving you flopping helpless to the ground, or triple-critted engine going "g'bye!"

XL damage- like normal engine crits, only side torsos would work.

Chewing through the most heavily armored section without targeted damage was actually kinda rough.