173 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Quote

I play with it. Ive tested it. Ive worked with others with it. The lbx is a better brawling weapon then the ac10. The ac10 is a better precision weapon then the lbx.

For brawling, other weapons are better. Almost every weapon.. especially since you don't magically start within 100m of your target and stay there for the entire match.

You haven't actually tested it. You've used it, and you think it's ok because you've not just been autokilled when you use it every time. But you aren't actually TESTING it, and evaluating it objectively.

Because I and others have actually done that extensively, and the numbers clearly prove it's bad. Again, the numbers are there for you to look at yourself.

Quote

I think your using the weapon wrong.

There is no way to use it "right". Again, you are just repeating the same arguments which have already been disproven multiple times.

Quote

. If your just using the one lbx then yes it probly wont do much. If you use multiple lbx, if you mix it with other weapons its quite effective indeed.

Like this... Many folks have said exactly this. "Sure, one LBX is bad, but multiple LBX is good!"

No man, that isn't how it works.

One LBX is bad. Multiple LBX is worse.

That's the thing... you are making the mistake of not really analyzing the weapon, and instead simply looking at a superficial analysis like, "hey, I used it and got damage! Makes it good!".

When you bring multiple LBX, of course you can do damage.. Because multiple LBX constitutes a MASSIVE investment of tonnage and critical slots.

The fact that you are missing, and that many folks who mistakenly think the LBX is good, is that you could use that tonnage and those slots, and easily construct OTHER builds which would be far MORE effective.

That's why the "Single LBX is bad but Multiple LBX is good" argument is logically flawed.. Because the reason a single LBX is bad is because it offers a poor return on investment for the slots and tonnage. When you add more LBX, you're just multiplying that negative investment. It's just getting worse.

That doesn't mean you do less damage.. But the reasons which make a single LBX bad just grow when you put more of them on the mech.

Quote

If facing a light mech I would gladly have an lbx that I could count on to hit the legs of a light consistently instead of hoping and praying to land a shot with an ac10.

Even in cases where you aren't good enough to hit light mechs consistently with a single shot weapon, the LBX still fails.. because it's not competing solely against the AC10.

If you can't land AC shots on a light mech, and are simply content to get "some damage" on the target, then the better choice is a laser. A laser requires almost no tonnage or slots compared to the LBX, is instant hit and thus even easier to get on target, and will end up concentrating more damage even if you can't hold it on target for the whole burn time.

That's the thing... The reason why the LBX is such a terrible weapon is not simply because it's inferior to a single weapon like the AC10 in every situation.. But rather because it's always inferior (indeed, GROSSLY inferior) to SOME other weapon in every situation. If you're a good shot it's grossly inferior to other point damage weapons.. but even if you are a poor shot, then it's inferior to lasers.

There is no niche in the game currently where the LBX is the correct choice. There is always a better option for anything you want to do.

Quote

Brawling comes to mind on many levels. In fact I run a dual lbx jager with machine gun and a few lasers that I enjoy immensly. I also use a uac5/lbx jager as well that I like. I have a dual lbx atlas. I also have a dual lbx / 4 medium laser catpult. I also have an lbx streak medium laser shadowhawk that im quite fond of. Lastly I have an lbx 4 medium laser cicada with ecm I use too.

You may be fond of those mechs, but that isn't the same as them being GOOD mechs.

Edited by Roland, 20 February 2014 - 06:16 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 20 February 2014 - 06:14 PM, said:

For brawling, other weapons are better. Almost every weapon.. especially since you don't magically start within 100m of your target and stay there for the entire match.

You haven't actually tested it. You've used it, and you think it's ok because you've not just been autokilled when you use it every time. But you aren't actually TESTING it, and evaluating it objectively.

Because I and others have actually done that extensively, and the numbers clearly prove it's bad. Again, the numbers are there for you to look at yourself.



There is no way to use it "right". Again, you are just repeating the same arguments which have already been disproven multiple times.



Like this... Many folks have said exactly this. "Sure, one LBX is bad, but multiple LBX is good!"

No man, that isn't how it works.

One LBX is bad. Multiple LBX is worse.

That's the thing... you are making the mistake of not really analyzing the weapon, and instead simply looking at a superficial analysis like, "hey, I used it and got damage! Makes it good!".

When you bring multiple LBX, of course you can do damage.. Because multiple LBX constitutes a MASSIVE investment of tonnage and critical slots.

The fact that you are missing, and that many folks who mistakenly think the LBX is good, is that you could use that tonnage and those slots, and easily construct OTHER builds which would be far MORE effective.

That's why the "Single LBX is bad but Multiple LBX is good" argument is logically flawed.. Because the reason a single LBX is bad is because it offers a poor return on investment for the slots and tonnage. When you add more LBX, you're just multiplying that negative investment. It's just getting worse.

That doesn't mean you do less damage.. But the reasons which make a single LBX bad just grow when you put more of them on the mech.



Even in cases where you aren't good enough to hit light mechs consistently with a single shot weapon, the LBX still fails.. because it's not competing solely against the AC10.

If you can't land AC shots on a light mech, and are simply content to get "some damage" on the target, then the better choice is a laser. A laser requires almost no tonnage or slots compared to the LBX, is instant hit and thus even easier to get on target, and will end up concentrating more damage even if you can't hold it on target for the whole burn time.

That's the thing... The reason why the LBX is such a terrible weapon is not simply because it's inferior to a single weapon like the AC10 in every situation.. But rather because it's always inferior (indeed, GROSSLY inferior) to SOME other weapon in every situation. If you're a good shot it's grossly inferior to other point damage weapons.. but even if you are a poor shot, then it's inferior to lasers.

There is no niche in the game currently where the LBX is the correct choice. There is always a better option for anything you want to do.


You may be fond of those mechs, but that isn't the same as them being GOOD mechs.

You know Roland, in 1940 the german army had tanks that were deplorable compared to the allies, really bad. Most had just light autocannons or even machine guns and they couldn't scratch the paint of the french and english tanks.

And they were out numbered too, by a very large margin. The numbers and equipment just didn't support that the german army was in any way superior to the allies.

Strange thing though, they won. Forced it to surrender in a few weeks and kicked th what was left off the continent.

So whats my point?

Well its this.

We can compare the pro's and cons of one weapon until the cows some home (strengths of tanks) but at the end of the day what really matters is how effective the TOTAL PACKAGE is used / deployed by the pilot (or in 1940, the generals)

You have a view that LB is weak comparably, the French thought the same about the german tanks.

But those same tanks wrecked them because they were better deployed / utilised in ways the allies hadn't grasped.

Stepping away from the weapon and looking at the total package is usually they way people can achieve the overall goal.

It might just be that you haven't thought of every possible permetation of an infinite number of scenarios.

[Roland]

Quote

We can compare the pro's and cons of one weapon until the cows some home (strengths of tanks) but at the end of the day what really matters is how effective the TOTAL PACKAGE is used / deployed by the pilot (or in 1940, the generals)

That only matters if the total package actually has some special quality which can be exploited better than other options.

And just because a brilliant commander like Rommel can win using inferior equipment, that doesn't make that equipment superior. It just means that he was able to win DESPITE those limitations.

This is the case when people do well with the LBX. It's not because the LBX was good, it was because they overcame its limitations. But they would do better with other weapons, since for any particular playstyle there are superior options.

To take your WWII tank example... Imagine Rommel was given T-34's to play with. Do you think he would have fared WORSE than with PzIII's? No, I think not. I think he would have face-rolled the allies if his tactical brilliance was paired with the best tank of the war.

Unfortunately for him, it was the Soviets who managed to show the engineering brilliance when it came to armor design. Someone had a great quote:
"Ask a Russian engineer to design a shoe, and he will design something that looks like the box the shoe came in. Ask him to design a machine to slaughter Germans, and he turns into Thomas ******* Edison."

Quote

You have a view that LB is weak comparably, the French thought the same about the german tanks.

But the PzIII and IV had actual advantages.. The LBX has none.

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 20 February 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

That only matters if the total package actually has some special quality which can be exploited better than other options.

And just because a brilliant commander like Rommel can win using inferior equipment, that doesn't make that equipment superior. It just means that he was able to win DESPITE those limitations.

This is the case when people do well with the LBX. It's not because the LBX was good, it was because they overcame its limitations. But they would do better with other weapons, since for any particular playstyle there are superior options.

To take your WWII tank example... Imagine Rommel was given T-34's to play with. Do you think he would have fared WORSE than with PzIII's? No, I think not. I think he would have face-rolled the allies if his tactical brilliance was paired with the best tank of the war.

Unfortunately for him, it was the Soviets who managed to show the engineering brilliance when it came to armor design. Someone had a great quote:
"Ask a Russian engineer to design a shoe, and he will design something that looks like the box the shoe came in. Ask him to design a machine to slaughter Germans, and he turns into Thomas ******* Edison."



But the PzIII and IV had actual advantages.. The LBX has none.

Well you're wrong on a number of fronts but broadly you're clouding the point.

Every piece of equipment has Pro's and Con's. The LB-X has Pro's whether you like them or not, in the hands of a more inventive pilot they can have a dramtic effect.

Every mech (like an army) is a balance, a trade. You cannot have 'everything' and so people look for Configs that suit them.

If the T-34 was the best tank of the war, why did it get rolled so easily for 2 / 3 years. I'll tell you why to save you looking it up, mostly another piece of equipment called an 88mm AA gun.

But the 88, like every other piece of equipment, had a weakness, High explosive rounds, and so the circle keeps going on and on and on.

And btw, Rommel in 1940 had mostly Pz35's and Pz38's which were inferior to the French tanks by a wide margin, but he employed them better with better tactics (rolling fire I think he called it, basically drive and fire on the run, don't worry if you miss, just keep their heads down)

[Ordellus]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

This is a "free-to-play" game. They don't exactly have a ten foot tall wallet of cash at their disposal. Not to mention a lack of funds means a lack of staff.

So have faith in them! This game has lots of potential!

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.

Edited by Ordellus, 20 February 2014 - 07:39 PM.

[Roland]

Quote

If the T-34 was the best tank of the war, why did it get rolled so easily for 2 / 3 years. I'll tell you why to save you looking it up, mostly another piece of equipment called an 88mm AA gun.

Virtually all military historians, and contemporary analysts at the time, all agree that the T-34 was pretty much the best tank of the first half of WWII. I dunno what to tell you if you disagree. I guess take it up with the community of historians and military experts. It's the second highest produced tank of all time, second only to the T-54 and its variants... In the late 90's, there were T-34's which were still actively used in militaries around the globe. I'm not really that interested in arguing the merits of WWII technology here though... it really doesn't matter at all.

Also, I'm sorry, but I gotta lolz at your suggestion that the T34 wasn't really that good, because the Germans were able to kill it with 88mm anti-aircraft guns deployed in a direct fire role... The fact that the germans had to use howitzers and huge AA guns to kill the T34 demonstrates exactly how badass it was, because at the time german anti-tank guns really couldn't do anything to it.

But again, whatever. It doesn't matter.

Quote

And btw, Rommel in 1940 had mostly Pz35's and Pz38's which were inferior to the French tanks by a wide margin, but he employed them better with better tactics (rolling fire I think he called it, basically drive and fire on the run, don't worry if you miss, just keep their heads down)

Who cares?

Again, superior tactics can overcome inferior equipment... There is no question about that.

But that doesn't make that inferior equipment any less inferior.

When you evaluate a weapon, you need to distill OUT the factors that aren't inherent in the weapon. You need to measure what happens when you use two different weapons, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.

Back in MW4, we used to use total joke builds and kill garbage teams with whole lances carrying nothing but machine guns... Hell, I killed mechs with equipment which wasn't even considered weaponry, like flares. That didn't mean those weapons were good. It meant that the people getting killed with them were bad.

Quote

The LB-X has Pro's whether you like them or not, in the hands of a more inventive pilot they can have a dramtic effect.

No man, that's the issue here.
The LBX is not good in any situation. It is ALWAYS an inferior choice to some other weapon, no matter what tactic you are planning on employing.

If the weapon were especially good in some particular situation, then that would be great. Back in MW4, for instance, it wasn't useful for a ranged engagement, but it was a devastating infighting weapon up close... But in MWO, that's not the case. Even at close range, the spread is so wide that it's a poor weapon even up close, compared to other options that can be employed for comparable weight and space.

That's why I'm advocating for the increase of pellet damage, while keeping the spread.. because if you do that, then it WOULD be what you imagine it to be... It would be a weapon which benefited certain playstyles.

But currently, with the stats it currently possesses, the LBX10 does not achieve this. There is no tactic which you can employ which benefits from you carrying an LBX over another option. There is always a better choice, which would make whatever playstyle you are employing more effective compared to your attempt to execute it with LBX.

Edited by Roland, 20 February 2014 - 07:49 PM.

[Mcgral18]

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

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.

Is anyone kind enough to inform this man of his ignorance? I'm tired of it.

Edited by Mcgral18, 21 February 2014 - 05:22 AM.

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 20 February 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

Virtually all military historians, and contemporary analysts at the time, all agree that the T-34 was pretty much the best tank of the first half of WWII. I dunno what to tell you if you disagree. I guess take it up with the community of historians and military experts. It's the second highest produced tank of all time, second only to the T-54 and its variants... In the late 90's, there were T-34's which were still actively used in militaries around the globe. I'm not really that interested in arguing the merits of WWII technology here though... it really doesn't matter at all.




Who cares?

Again, superior tactics can overcome inferior equipment... There is no question about that.

But that doesn't make that inferior equipment any less inferior.

When you evaluate a weapon, you need to distill OUT the factors that aren't inherent in the weapon. You need to measure what happens when you use two different weapons, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.

Back in MW4, we used to use total joke builds and kill garbage teams with whole lances carrying nothing but machine guns... Hell, I killed mechs with equipment which wasn't even considered weaponry, like flares. That didn't mean those weapons were good. It meant that the people getting killed with them were bad.


No man, that's the issue here.
The LBX is not good in any situation. It is ALWAYS an inferior choice to some other weapon, no matter what tactic you are planning on employing.

If the weapon were especially good in some particular situation, then that would be great. Back in MW4, for instance, it wasn't useful for a ranged engagement, but it was a devastating infighting weapon up close... But in MWO, that's not the case. Even at close range, the spread is so wide that it's a poor weapon even up close, compared to other options that can be employed for comparable weight and space.

That's why I'm advocating for the increase of pellet damage, while keeping the spread.. because if you do that, then it WOULD be what you imagine it to be... It would be a weapon which benefited certain playstyles.

But currently, with the stats it currently possesses, the LBX10 does not achieve this. There is no tactic which you can employ which benefits from you carrying an LBX over another option. There is always a better choice, which would make whatever playstyle you are employing more effective compared to your attempt to execute it with LBX.

The historians are pretty evenly divided between the T-34 and the Panther as to the 'best', but you probably already knew that cause you clearly have some idea.

Most produced sure, in all its variants. It was good, why mess with it. That and they had just relocated the bulk of their factories and the country was on its kneees so they couldn't afford to stop production for even a week, but we digress.

The point is that tactics (in this comaprison read pilot skill) can overcome a weapons weakness by using its strength. Rommel used the speed and communication advantages of his equipment to acheive the result. They were inferior tanks, but they had strengths. Strengths the allies disregarded to thier cost. And hence the point, just because you're of the view that the weapon has 'no strengths' (like the french dismissed german tanks) that doesn't make you right (just like the french in 1940)

There is no tactic you've come up with that maximises the weapons potential, that doesn't make it a bad weapon. It might be limited, but only by the pilots and their builds.

[Roland]

Craig, again, there is no argument that superior skill can overcome equipment inferiority.

But that's not the same as that inferior equipment being good.

You keep ignoring the fact that the LBX is never the best choice, in any situation. It's always inferior to some other weapon, no matter what tactics you are employing.

If you disagree, then try and lay out what exactly you think it does well.. because trust me, it's already been suggested, and it's already been proven to be incorrect.

All of the perceived "advantages" that people have laid out for the LBX stem from a failure to fully analyze how the LBX can be replaced by other options. And we've covered these things extensively, for the entire history of this game's development at this point.

The one thing that an LBX can do, which is perhaps why a lot of folks get tricked into not seeing how bad they are, is that they will generate a lot of damage... but raw damage isn't how you kill mechs in Mechwarrior.

If you have an LBX mech and a consistently good K/D ratio in it? Then that's a good mech... but from past discussions, most of the folks who claimed to do really well in their LBX mechs then went on to post K/D's in them which clearly illustrated exactly how bad those mechs were.

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 20 February 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

Craig, again, there is no argument that superior skill can overcome equipment inferiority.

But that's not the same as that inferior equipment being good.

You keep ignoring the fact that the LBX is never the best choice, in any situation. It's always inferior to some other weapon, no matter what tactics you are employing.

If you disagree, then try and lay out what exactly you think it does well.. because trust me, it's already been suggested, and it's already been proven to be incorrect.

All of the perceived "advantages" that people have laid out for the LBX stem from a failure to fully analyze how the LBX can be replaced by other options. And we've covered these things extensively, for the entire history of this game's development at this point.

The one thing that an LBX can do, which is perhaps why a lot of folks get tricked into not seeing how bad they are, is that they will generate a lot of damage... but raw damage isn't how you kill mechs in Mechwarrior.

If you have an LBX mech and a consistently good K/D ratio in it? Then that's a good mech... but from past discussions, most of the folks who claimed to do really well in their LBX mechs then went on to post K/D's in them which clearly illustrated exactly how bad those mechs were.

My point is that 'inferior equipment' isn't inferior when pilots use them to their advantages.

I get the current meta game doesn't suit LBX, I get its not the first cab off the rank cause pinpoint FLD dmg is in. I get that it may even be a niche weapon.

It is however the only weapon the can drive up crit instances at 400m+ no?

Sooner or later someone will (if they haven't already) come up with a build that utilises the weapons strength and then we'll all be sitting around saying "it's the new meta man'.

Your argument is essentially the no one should have a shotgun cause an automatic rifle is better.

The manufacturers of shotguns for the last umpteen years will say you're wrong. So would many duck hunters who use the weapon to its strengths.

[Lucky Clove]

Varent, on 20 February 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

At close ranges the spread is very negligible at best. Also its a pretty tight spread, you can get all your shots onto a mechs torso pretty far out.

It weighs less, takes up less slots, uses less heat, has more range, has higher crit rate.

Im not exactly sure what your complaining about. Its a great brawling weapon. It also excels quite nicely against light mechs.

I'm not complaining! I personally like it! But it still doesn't have the regular AC round compatibility that it's supposed to. I wasn't complaining, I was just stating things that had been stewing in my brain that I felt needed to be spoken aloud. Or posted aloud!

And oh how this topic has grown! Now for quad mechs!

[Bishop Steiner]

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.)

Actually, the correct answer is int he original 2750 TRO, and one that even the Battletech staff lost track of. Look at the "Original" LB-X Autocannon.

"Lubalin Ballistics series -X" aka LB-X (X being the roman numeral for 10, as in "Class 10 Autocannon)

Seriously folks, it ain't rocket science.
http://www.sarna.net...LB-X_Autocannon

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 20 February 2014 - 08:41 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

Craig Steele, on 20 February 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

Your argument is essentially the no one should have a shotgun cause an automatic rifle is better.

Mechs don't bleed out when you scratch their armor.

That's why shotguns are so devastating against unarmored targets...the surface damage is usually catastrophic and the target bleeds out rapidly.

And...that's also why shotguns are predominately used by civilian forces; typical targets in the private sector are unarmored / soft targets that splat easily.

[Osric Lancaster]

Craig Steele, on 20 February 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

Your argument is essentially the no one should have a shotgun cause an automatic rifle is better.

To kill a 'Mech you must destroy either both legs or it's center or side torsos. All things being equal the fastest way to do this is to put as much focused damage on one of those locations as possible. The LB 10X will never do this. You will always spread your damage over more sections than with any other weapon. You will always waste more damage scraping armor off irrelevant, fully armored parts of a 'Mech and missing with part of your spread. An angled shot will invariably worsen the spread from an LB 10-X.

You think it's a good crit-seeking weapon? Nope. Only remotely true if there is only one component in a section. If there are multiple components in a section the lb-10X has an extremely low chance to do 10 points of critical damage to any one component and knock it out. An ac/10, ac/5, or PPC has a much, MUCH higher chance of doing the needed damage to knock out a component.

So yeah, you're entitled to your opinion and I encourage you to continue using inferior weapons. Out of curiosity, what are your stats with ac/10s and lb10-Xs?

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 20 February 2014 - 09:03 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 February 2014 - 08:40 PM, said:

Actually, the correct answer is int he original 2750 TRO, and one that even the Battletech staff lost track of. Look at the "Original" LB-X Autocannon.

"Lubalin Ballistics series -X" aka LB-X (X being the roman numeral for 10, as in "Class 10 Autocannon)

Seriously folks, it ain't rocket science.
http://www.sarna.net...LB-X_Autocannon

Made that point on the first page.

Quote

The original name of the weapon, as stated on page 34 of TRO 2750, is "Lubalin Ballistics 10-X autocannon"; the "LB" originally stands for the in-universe OEM of the weapon (the Lubalin Ballistics company... which, sadly, did not survive the Succession Wars), and then became a generic trademark to represent "specialized shotgun-like autocannon".

The idea that "LB" stands for "light/long barrel" originally comes from non-canonical German-published sources, though similar language was recently used as a general description for the weapon on page 104 of Era Report: 3062 ("The class-ten light barrel, extended range automatic cannon was a breakthrough in autocannon technology when it was first introduced...")

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.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 20 February 2014 - 09:21 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Bhael Fire, on 20 February 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

Mechs don't bleed out when you scratch their armor.

That's why shotguns are so devastating against unarmored targets...the surface damage is usually catastrophic and the target bleeds out rapidly.

And...that's also why shotguns are predominately used by civilian forces; typical targets in the private sector are unarmored / soft targets that splat easily.

But the point is it's a glaringly inferior weapon besides an automatic rifle (some would argue) but it has a place. Heck it even showed up with a colonial marine in Aliens, and those boys were bad.

If people try and compare a weapon to a weapon with appreciating the restraints each are under or the strengths of each other, they are missing an oppurtunity.

[Ordellus]

Mcgral18, on 20 February 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:

Is anyone kind enough to inform this man in his ignorance? I'm tired of it.

2.5 years not close enough to 3 for you?

[Roland]

Craig Steele, on 20 February 2014 - 09:17 PM, said:

But the point is it's a glaringly inferior weapon besides an automatic rifle (some would argue) but it has a place. Heck it even showed up with a colonial marine in Aliens, and those boys were bad.

If people try and compare a weapon to a weapon with appreciating the restraints each are under or the strengths of each other, they are missing an oppurtunity.

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.

[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.

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!

[Lucky Clove]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 February 2014 - 08:40 PM, said:

Actually, the correct answer is int he original 2750 TRO, and one that even the Battletech staff lost track of. Look at the "Original" LB-X Autocannon.

"Lubalin Ballistics series -X" aka LB-X (X being the roman numeral for 10, as in "Class 10 Autocannon)

Seriously folks, it ain't rocket science.
http://www.sarna.net...LB-X_Autocannon

Oh stop insulting our intelligence! If you'd seen one of my replies you'd know that I stated the naming of the LB-X could also mean Lubalin Ballistics...