173 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Khobai, on 21 February 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

The AC10 actually makes a better crit weapon than the LB10X. Because the AC10 does crit damage in increments of 10 and most items have 10 health. While the LB10X does 2 damage per pellet divided up randomly among all the items in the location. So the AC10 is far more likely to destroy items.



Its not really a shotgun though. Shotguns are typically the highest damage weapons in games (but limited to short range). The LB10X does worse damage than most other autocannons. Theres nothing scary about it up close or at any range really.

If the LB10X got a substantial damage bonus at close range that would make it a shotgun. Thats actually how LBX autocannons worked in MW4.

But the other side of this is sure you may do more dmg to a peice of equipment, assuming you hit.

LBX with its spread might do less dmg, but its hard to miss entirely so it should do damage more often.

Again, I don't see that taking ONE aspect of the weapon and comparing that to the meta game is truly assessing its strengths and weaknesses.

[no one]

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 07:48 PM, said:

But the other side of this is sure you may do more dmg to a peice of equipment, assuming you hit.

You 'can'. If and only if two or more pellets hit the same component in the same unarmored torso section and you have two simultaneous 6x critical hits. What is that, a .09% chance? You 'can' win the lottery. On average, you won't.

Sure you average a bit more than one damage per component per hit to structure with an LBX pellet, but you aren't hitting with all 10. Even if you did, those pellets will spread critical damage across multiple components in a section. An ac/10 will always do 10 damage on a critical hit to a component. Most components have 10 health. It's a 100% chance versus a considerably less than 100% chance.

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 07:48 PM, said:

LBX with its spread might do less dmg, but its hard to miss entirely so it should do damage more often.

You could use the same logic to argue that you get better accuracy with lasers by hosing them across groups of enemies. I got five guys in one sweep! 500% accuracy! Woo!

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 07:48 PM, said:

Again, I don't see that taking ONE aspect of the weapon and comparing that to the meta game is truly assessing its strengths and weaknesses.

No one is doing this. Should I assume you've just made this broad dismissive statement so you can feel justified in your opinion without having actually read or understood anything anyone has posted?

Edited by no one, 21 February 2014 - 08:48 PM.

[Roland]

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 07:48 PM, said:

LBX with its spread might do less dmg, but its hard to miss entirely so it should do damage more often.

But if this is all your goal is, then a laser is better.

[Craig Steele]

no one, on 21 February 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

(1) You 'can'. If and only if two or more pellets hit the same component in the same unarmored torso section and you have two simultaneous 6x critical hits. What is that, a .09% chance? You 'can' win the lottery. On average, you won't.

(2) Sure you average a bit more than one damage per component per hit to structure with an LBX pellet, but you aren't hitting with all 10. Even if you did, those pellets will spread critical damage across multiple components in a section. An ac/10 will always do 10 damage on a critical hit to a component. Most components have 10 health. It's a 100% chance versus a considerably less than 100% chance.



(3) You could use the same logic to argue that you get better accuracy with lasers by hosing them across groups of enemies. I got five guys in one sweep! 500% accuracy! Woo!



(4) No one is doing this. Should I assume you've just made this broad dismissive statement so you can feel justified in your opinion without having actually read or understood anything anyone has posted?

(1) So we agree you can, thanks. Possibilities are endless now.

(2) See (1) above, you are assuming accuracy and also one unarmoured area.

(3) Well, yes, you could. But this discussion isn't about lasers its about LB-X. In fact, we could compare AC's to LRM's too for that matter. The point is that AC's FLD is 100% HIT or 100% miss where as LB-X is (arguably) not. Some people would argue that grinding away of armour / equipment is preferrable for them. I am saying that that's a feature of the weapon which while you might dismiss it as irrelevant, may not be to someone who has a build / tactic revolving around that feature.

(4) You may assume whatever you like, I'll only try and clarify where your assumption doesn't match my intention as that's my responsibilty in communicating my point. In this instance here I quoted ONE specific comment, not the whole thread, and made a specific observation in relation to that 1 comment. I don't see that anyone had addressed the accuracy assumption in this thread.

What is relevant is that if someone says that a coin is clean because one side is shiny without flipping it over, they're prone to making an incorrect deduction.

Am I to assume from your response that you read what you wanted into a comment and given it was not in line with your rock solid indisputauble version of fact that you felt the need to defend it (again) ad nausem?

[no one]

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 09:22 PM, said:

*snip*

1 - We also agree that you can win the lottery, thanks. You should go buy like a million tickets now.

2 - I'm giving you an equivalent best case scenario for the LBX and ac/10. Sure you can be hitting multiple unarmored areas, but then you're assuming you're spreading the critical damage across even more components. That's not really a better case for your argument.

3 - That's called an analogy. So what, a strategy for LBXs based around aiming for near misses? The lost potential damage is entirely intentional instead of incidental ! You can miss entirely with both weapons, the only instance where an LBX will do some damage when an ac will do none is when your aim is off when you fire, or the enemy moves, or you clip a wall. A laser deals with all of those situations better, since it's damage can be held on one component, and the aim can be adjusted while it's firing.

4 - You're original statement -
"Again, I don't see that taking ONE aspect of the weapon and comparing that to the meta game is truly assessing its strengths and weaknesses."

You are chastising someone for focusing on only one aspect of a weapon in a vacuum while simultaneously doing the exact same thing. You are in fact, far more guilty of this than the person you are quoting. Your fist statement ignores critical health and critical spread, and your second statement, while true, completely ignores why a pinpoint meta exists in the first place. When taken to it's logical extreme, what you get is a weapon doing microscopic amounts damage at 100% accuracy. Ergo, as a laser swept briefly over a group of enemies.

You may assume what you like. You are also free to continue posting your opinion ad nauseam while ignoring all posts, arguments and evidence presented in the thread outside the one post you've chosen to reply to. I'm sure you won't make any other posts that are debatable, based on incomplete information, limited in perspective or just plain wrong.

Edited by no one, 21 February 2014 - 10:58 PM.

[grim57]

Not sure about increasing the pellet damage, but how about having the pellet always do 1 damage even at max range? It already has a scatter effect so if it's doing 1 damage per pellet at maximum range it should balance out.

[Craig Steele]

no one, on 21 February 2014 - 10:53 PM, said:

1 - we also agree you can win the lottery. You should go buy like a million tickets now.

2 - I'm giving you an equivalent best case scenario for the LBX and ac/10. Sure you can be hitting multiple unarmored areas, but then you're assuming you're spreading the critical damage across even more components. That's not a better case for your argument, it's worse.

3 - That's called an analogy. So what, a strategy for LBXs based around aiming for near misses? The lost potential damage is entirely intentional instead of incidental ! You can miss entirely with both weapons, the only instance where an LBX will do some damage when an ac will do none is when your aim is off when you fire, or clipping a wall. A laser deals with both of those situations better, since it's damage can be held on one component, and the aim can be adjusted while it's firing.

4 - You're original statement -
"Again, I don't see that taking ONE aspect of the weapon and comparing that to the meta game is truly assessing its strengths and weaknesses."

You are chastising someone for focusing on only one aspect of a weapon in a vacuum while simultaneously doing the exact same thing. You are in fact, far more guilty of this than the person you are quoting. Your fist statement ignores critical health and critical spread, and your second statement, while true, completely ignores why a pinpoint meta exists in the first place. When taken to it's logical extreme, what you get is a weapon doing microscopic amounts damage at 100% accuracy. Ergo, as a laser swept briefly over a group of enemies.

You may assume what you like. You are also free to continue posting your opinion ad nauseam while ignoring all posts, arguments and evidence presented in the thread outside the one post you've chosen to reply to. I'm sure you won't make any other posts that are debatable, based on incomplete information, limited in perspective or just plain wrong.

I like your name change, good choice if you made it.

Seems as if you're moving into the whole personal degredation thing now on the basis that it's just completely impossible for anyone to have a view different from yours.

So I guess if you can't win someone over with a mature logical discussion, you just abuse them until they go away? Mission accomplished

What you read as chastising I read as me repeating something I already said that was relevant to the new post.

Anyway, it must be nice for you to be completely infalliable but I would guess it get's boring to be always right sometimes, not today though.

Still, those are certainly assumptions on my part.

I listened to your view, I think you had some good points. I also think your view is not exhaustive. I get that in your world no one else is entitiled to a view that does not correspond to yours, but thats not my thing.

Enjoy

[Lucky Clove]

Ordellus, on 21 February 2014 - 12:26 AM, said:

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



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)

I am a founder, thanks for noticing! I don't think my money was wasted. Just the way I used the MC that came with it...
It was a way better MC deal than what they have now and it came with a C-bill bonus Catapult with a unique paint job and 3D module.

And think about this... It's a wonder that they're still developing this game with all the constant hate they're getting from the community! Think about Flappy Bird's developer! If you don't know what I'm talking about look it up, but basically the developer of Flappy Bird removed the game from the market because of the pressure and hate he was getting. He made a lot of money and probably could have made a lot more if he left it there. But he didn't. They could have stopped making this game a long time ago, but they haven't. Trust in them!

[Varent]

Roland, on 21 February 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:

Again, dude, you are not actually working in the realm of reality. You are imagining what the LBX is, but that imagined performance isn't what actually happens in game.

In the ACTUAL game, at a range of 300m, the spread of an LBX is larger than the entire body of a cataphract. Seriously. That's how big it is. And I can prove it, because I've actually tested it, and recorded screenshots showing exactly the spread.

Your perception of how tight the spread is, is incorrect. It doesn't match reality, which is why your perception of the LBX does not match reality.

We already proved this. There's no room for opinion in this regard. It's been empirically tested. The argument's over.


In mechwarrior 4, the LBX did 14 damage, not 10, at short range.

That's why it should have its pellet damage increased to 1.4. Because then it'd actually have a functional niche.

It'd continue to be inferior to most weapons at medium to long range, but at short range it'd actually be BETTER than some weapons. It would actually have some useful payoff to help compensate for all of its shortcomings.

Effective brawling range with missles is round 200. Try fighting with it around that range. you will have a lot more success. Sidenote, stop slinging mud just because you disagree. Your coming across as a child.

[Khobai]

Quote

But the other side of this is sure you may do more dmg to a peice of equipment, assuming you hit.

Sadly thats not the case. By the time the LB10X starts to pull ahead of the AC10 for crit damage the hit location is already completely destroyed.

AC10 = 10 damage to a random item and a guaranteed item destruction on a critical hit.

LB10X = 2x10 damage divided among random items in location, and no guaranteed item destructions.

On average it takes 3-4 LB10X shots to a location to start destroying items, and by then the internal structure of the location is completely gone.

Edited by Khobai, 22 February 2014 - 02:32 AM.

[dwwolf]

LBX would be worth more if there were penalties for partially damaged equipment. ( and hell penalties for all items in your mech ).
Think reduced arm speed and range of motion for damaged actuators. Speed penalties for leg actuators. Heat penalties for engine damage. Leg actuators speed penalty. Weapons rof for missiles and ac. Heat for ppcs. Heat or damage for lasers.
It still wouldnt be as usefull as TT because with pinpoint damage as opposed to random hit locations it is more efficient To just wipe out the side or center torsos.
That might change if we had floating crits as we had in in TT.

[dwwolf]

Alternatively a vastly reduced component hitpoint pool could work. If components actually only needed 1 hit to be destroyed. If we coupled that with a low chance for a penetrating crit chance that would also be an indicrect buff for SRMs and LBX AC. Obviously the exact chance of a penetrating crit would have to be determined becaus all weapons got a varying rof boost over TT.

For the no dice roll argument : your actions effectively already fall in a normal distribution range. And so do alot performance factors IRL, dice rolls are a perfectly fine simulation of an aggregrate of various factors.
Theres a slim chance of a RPG only hitting an MBTs turret ring but it does happen now and then and the effects are big.

Edited by dwwolf, 22 February 2014 - 04:05 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

we need to see the lbx-20 and lbx5 to really flesh this entire discussion out.

[dwwolf]

Not really you can already simulate an lb 20x with 2* lb10x on the atlas. I expect a broader shotgun effect from it however. The main point is that taking 1.2 hitpoints of a module slot does nothing to the functioning of said module. In TT any hit disabled a module here in MWO yer vastly more likely to destroy a location than to kill a module and lbx's are off worse since they dont do enough damage to really destroy a module in one shot.

[Mudhutwarrior]

dwwolf, on 22 February 2014 - 04:23 AM, said:

Not really you can already simulate an lb 20x with 2* lb10x on the atlas. I expect a broader shotgun effect from it however. The main point is that taking 1.2 hitpoints of a module slot does nothing to the functioning of said module. In TT any hit disabled a module here in MWO yer vastly more likely to destroy a location than to kill a module and lbx's are off worse since they dont do enough damage to really destroy a module in one shot.

Only way to get anything out of the LBX is duals.

[Gevurah]

Osric Lancaster, on 21 February 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

My point is that it's artificially inflating your accuracy. If you were to use an ac/10, or any weapon, only within the range which you would normally use the LBX, then your accuracy would improve.
Interesting that you should bring up MW4. The MW4 LBXs had a higher dIamage per shot than their normal counterparts. 1.4 times the damage of a normal auto cannon for an ac/10, if I remember correctly.
No. No realistic amount of damage increase is going to make the LB10-X exceed the viability of the AC/10 at longer ranges. I want a damage increase to make them better than ac/10s in brawling range. They would still be considerably worse than ac/10s at long range.
Have I not? What in my last post, specifically, is wrong and why?

1) re: my playstyle - You're making assumptions. I don't generally play at long range. Primarily because my accuracy is bad. So what you see is actually pretty close for both AC10 and LBXAC10 accuracy because I use them at similar ranges.

2) Didn't know that about mw4 but I was primarily talking about how the gun itself worked, mechanically within the game (NOT about the damage values).
3) Played my IM again today, made note of the ranges I was engaging out to. I was firing around 330 meters on a regular basis. Of note, I shot a highlander at 300m and it covered the l/r/center torso, probably a little bit of one of the arms. Spread seemed fine for what I was using (a shotgun).
5) Stats were 5 kills, 0 deaths, 4 games, 2w/2l (cap games sigh)< avg dmg per game around 330 or so.
ILYA MUROMETS 323 169 153 1.10 395 208 1.90 128,779 352,619 1 day 06:26:45

Obviously one player does not make a functional test case. But the reality is my point that some players can make it work for them, is I believe valid based on the evidence provided (maths O_O) and personal experience through much use in actual gameplay.

A little bonus math:
http://mwomercs.com/...-a-brief-guide/
"LB 10-X & Flamer
1x Crit = 39%
2x Crit = 22%
3x Crit = 7%
Total Crit Chance = 67%"

Using this and the 15% metric, we can come up with rough values of structural xfer.

39% of time it's 1 dmg (15% of bonus dmg = .15 xfer 5.85 dmg (out of 100 shots)
22% of time it's 3 dmg (15% of bonus dmg = .45 xfer 9.9 dmg (out of 100 shots)
7% of time it's 5 dmg (15% of bonus dmg = 1.05 xfer 7.35 dmg (out of 100 shots)
33% of the time, it's 0 extra dmg

Average structural transfer per pellet: .231 dmg

If all 10 hit, on average you will do a damage increase of: 2.31 dmg.
This gives us an average .924 dps increase for the weapon. It's nearly a 25% increase (23.1%, of course) on stripped armor. (Final average dps is 4.924 / weapon if my math isn't bad).

This is of course, a maximum damage value. But the reality is in my case I'm firing in pairs or triples on injured structural sections in ways to maximize the damage and trying to minimize pellet loss. This is a pilot skill issue. Even assuming my own personal average of 7.2 hits per shot:
7.2/2.5 = 2.88 REAL dps (factoring in misses, which can be done for any weapon and in most cases for me this is actually one of the highest I have) - 23.1% increase would be: 3.55 dps.

So to answer your question:

let's hypothesize a 1.4 dmg per pellet firing:
14/2.5 = 5.6 dps.
14*.72/2.5 = 4.08 "real" dps. This would put it so firmly above any other weapon it'd far and away be the best weapon in the game at that point.

At this point I'll simply defer to my experience with the weapon. It works fine for me. Changing to a flat damage increase would be easier for people to understand and from a game design standpoint makes more sense as a developer. But they're canadian. We can't expect them to do things easily or simply So since we have what we have:

The LBX is a generally mediocre weapon that is situationally exceptional.

If you don't like that, stick with your meta-boats.

[Deathlike]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 22 February 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

we need to see the lbx-20 and lbx5 to really flesh this entire discussion out.

Normally I would agree with waiting it out, but given the way the LBX 10 works (it's middle of the road relatively speaking of LBX weaponry), the Clan LBX5 and Clan LBX20 implementations would actually be just as bad, if not worse (moreso with the LBX5 anyways). Even the current iteration of the IS UAC5 is still superior to the LBX10, so expanding on what we already know of the current mechanics won't really change the end result.

Edited by Deathlike, 22 February 2014 - 10:15 AM.

[YueFei]

Gevurah, on 22 February 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

So to answer your question:

let's hypothesize a 1.4 dmg per pellet firing:
14/2.5 = 5.6 dps.
14*.72/2.5 = 4.08 "real" dps. This would put it so firmly above any other weapon it'd far and away be the best weapon in the game at that point.

It's 4.08 DPS applied to the entire target. The concentration of damage would depend on range. At 300 meters it's applying DPS over an area larger than a Cataphract's body, so still inferior there. So there's nothing wrong with setting damage-per-pellet to 1.4 and making it the best autocannon in the game at 30 meters.

[Roland]

Varent, on 22 February 2014 - 12:20 AM, said:

Effective brawling range with missles is round 200. Try fighting with it around that range. you will have a lot more success. Sidenote, stop slinging mud just because you disagree. Your coming across as a child.

No one is slinging any mud here, Varent. I'm pointing out that we already did extensive testing and proved that what you are saying is incorrect.

Now you want to say that you need to be within 200m for the LBX to be effective? Because this is "effective brawling range with missiles"? Despite the fact that missiles have been nerfed to the point where they are very rarely used any more?

I actually also took screenshots of the LBX spread pattern at 200m. At that range, the pattern is basically the same size as a whole Jenner. It's still not an efficient weapon. And the reality is, you're now talking about a weapon which will be usefless for most of the fight... because you aren't able to just force opponents to come up and hug you.

There is no justification for spending 11 tons plus ammo on a weapon which totally lacks precision. I understand that some bad players think that there is some utility there, in that it will let them "at least get some damage on the target", but that in itself is a flawed idea, because the amount of damage is so low as to merely match what can easily be landed using lasers, which will use far less tonnage and critical space.

YueFei, on 22 February 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

It's 4.08 DPS applied to the entire target. The concentration of damage would depend on range. At 300 meters it's applying DPS over an area larger than a Cataphract's body, so still inferior there. So there's nothing wrong with setting damage-per-pellet to 1.4 and making it the best autocannon in the game at 30 meters.

Exactly this.. It would make it a dominant weapon at point blank range, but still inferior (although functional) at longer ranges. That is, it would have an actual niche in the game.

[Reslin]

I'm not doubting anyone and I know the "Effective" range of the LBX is well, well under 200 meters but it has been tossed around that there was a lot of testing done to show case it's effective ranges and failings. Is there a link to this thread where this was done? I'm not asking for "proof." I just enjoy seeing well done analysis.