173 replies to this topic

[Iskareot]

Gremlich Johns, on 19 February 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

"AC10 is Canon" is what you meant despite the fact that the AC10 is a "cannon".

I wish you guys would get it right.

Tomato ...... Mechato.... ya know...lol

[Craig Steele]

wanderer, on 21 February 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

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.

LOL, you couldn't aim for the rest of the mech either. I played a few games you know

But if your comment is most effieicent way to take down a mech, its straight through the CT, less dmg required and crits if you get them have a much higher chance of being terminal to the mech. As opposed to actuators, Jump Jets, heat sinks, electronics, weapons which take up much more crit space than ammo / engine on most mechs and do not a lot for the early take down.

[wanderer]

Quote

1st of the correct name of the LB10X is Large Bore Extended Range Autocannon.

Never canonically- the term comes from the German licensee of the game, which also gave us such non-canonical gems as the Linesman precursor to the canonical Daboku/Mauler line of 'Mechs.

[Ordellus]

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!

Also... I dont' know about since the release, but they made 5 million off of just the founders they screwed like you... so yeah **** pgi

http://www.eurogamer...even-coming-out

[Gevurah]

Some vehement haters of the LBX. That's fine. You don't *HAVE* to use it. Contrary to popular belief, not every single weapon has to be ******* identical.

That said, I do believe the LBX is viable. I've used it - A LOT. Not some minor anecdotal evidence. We're talking 290+ games of consistent usage (Primarily on a triple LBX ilya or double LBX jager).

First of all, there's a going bit of derision about how critical damage doesn't matter. "But it only destroys components, and not even good ones!" They harped emphatically.

Median damage for my LBX usage is a little over 7 damage per shot. Given a per-ton basis, this comes in a *LITTLE* under what I'd like to see. Damage per ton analysis from my stats:



Interesting pulls from these: - LBX clearly has highest accuracy of the bunch, though this is weighted against it's pellet count.
Shots/game is higher because I generally run double/triple LBX and fire less judiciously (frankly, I don't have to fire as judiciously). That said, the 'shotgun' fulfills it's intended purpose, trading off accuracy (which I am not very good with) for damage. It's stats are respectable, though not spectacular, for it's class. Variance per hit is the worst of it's class (basically advertised dmg/hits). Variance per shot is interesting similar to the other ballistic weapons, meaning in total shots fired partial hits make up for the lack of 'straight up' damage most ballistics provide.

Now let's get into the meat of it. Using said LBX. LBXs are a fast way to the inexperienced user killed. This likely lends towards their significant ire on the forums. That said, once they are mastered they are a tremendously powerful weapon.

First off - the crit issue.

It's true, splattering a mech with tiny pellets to crit with was mostly ineffective. WAS. However the LBX has the absolute highest value of crit multiplier in the game. It does up to 6 damage per pellet. That means while two pellets may only hit the same area, they can still take out virtually everything save an AC20. That would take 3 pellets.
A portion of crit damage affects structure. This is directly from previous patch notes and I think is often overlooked. I am not sure the exact value that transfers, but it's enough to be noticeable. I'd reckon it's in the 10-20% range.

Second off - benefits: It's true that the LBX lacks the "clear to the layperson" straight up damage to ton of every other ballistic weapon. However it offers several ancillary benefits which can be counted for every build:
- High heat efficiency.
- Lower cost in tonnage than an ac10
- Smaller slot profile.
- Higher effective and maximum ranges than AC10 (given the spread it's a minimal benefit but exists nonetheless).
- The increase of 1+ slot, 1 ton and a full 1 heat efficiency higher than an ac10 allows you to either run 1 more ton of ammo,
or possibly even another heatsink.
- Higher projectile speed than AC10.
- Reduced ballistic drop vs the AC10. It's far more 'aim and shoot' than virtually any other weapon.
- Improved crit chance and highest crit damage in the game (up to a total of 60 damage per shot, of which an estimated
10-20% percent is transferred to structure)

Third off - usage:
The lbx is a mediocre front line weapon. It excels at destroying limbs, torsos, cockpits; anything that's got exposed structure. This weapon is NOT a weapon used traditionally in the sense of "aim at left/right/center torso, try for engine kill". It's best use is in killing (preferably wide) legs or side torsos. Legs particularly should be sought out in situations where ammo is being stored. Critting ammo is stupidly easy to do with this weapon. Any missile/ballistic using mechs can be torn down fast if focusing their ammo repositories. Typically I prefer to be the last one in. Go in fresh, with an LBX-heavy mech and watch the bodies pile up. My personal best is 8. Contrary to popular belief, it's so-so at fighting lights. Unless they're missing armor, then it mangles them like it mangles anything else. No, rather it's exceptional at fighting heavies and assaults. Once stripped of their armor, they're easily dispatched.

Optimum range: point blank, obviously. Effective out to 350 or so meters. Maximum effective range is rather pointless unless you like wasting ammo. My maximum engagement range with it is about 550-600m - generally medium laser distance and it better be a situation where it's necessary. Ironically this mirrors most of my other ballistics usage, including gauss.

Now all that said, is it meta? Heck no. Poptarts with their PPC/AC5 combos are meta. Do I care about meta? Absolutely not. I run what I enjoy; and I generally enjoy things that work for me. I have a reasonable KDR (1.4 avg) over 4500 games. My 'LBX mechs' *WITHOUT EXCEPTION* run higher than the average in terms of KDR. I don't feel this is an accident.

So don't rag on the thing. Just because you don't understand it, or how to use it, doesn't mean it's ineffective trash. Maybe ineffective trash for you, but certainly not for everyone.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 February 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

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.

I would agree that part of your theory is plausible - specifically, that the "X" could be the Roman numeral for "10".

However, I do disagree with the assertion that the "X" refers to the AC damage class (that is clearly the specific purpose the "10" in the name of the LB 10-X, as well as the "2" in "LB 2-X", the "5" in "LB 5-X", and the "20" in "LB 20-X"), and I do disagree with the assertion that "LB (AC damage class)-X" is not the nomenclature intended by the BT writers.

Pointing out that there are other, non-related errors (that, frankly, were hardly as common as statements like "...in light of how horrible FASA in house communication and editing quality was..." was intended to assert) does not actually advance your argument on either of those fronts, particularly when the original weapon's name shows up in the same form (with both the "10" and the "X") at multiple points in TRO 2750 ("LB 10-X" on page 08 & page 14, "Lubalin LB 10-X" on page 34, "Lubalin Ballistics 10-X" also on page 34, "LB 10-X" on page 35, "Blackenburg LB 10-X autocannon" on page 50, and "LB 10-X" on page 51) rather clearly demonstrates that this is the intended form of the weapon's name (which, frankly, is a great deal more believable than "they made the same error seven separate times in seven separate places" (which your proposal necessarily asserts to be the case) - if it was an error, the majority of those instances (at least 4 of the 7) would be in a different form).

Even if indeed the "X" is a "10", it's arguably more likely to be more along the lines of my proposal - that is, as a designator for some form of superclass (such as a series) into which all subclasses (as designated by tech base & damage class) of LB-X ACs fall.
Moreover, if the "X" were supposed to represent the AC class, they most likely wouldn't have bothered with Roman numerals in the first place - the original weapon would have followed the basic form of AC naming and would have come out as something to the effect of "LB/10 autocannon" or "LB AC/10".

[Osric Lancaster]

Gevurah, on 21 February 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

It does up to 6 damage per pellet.

75% - 1 critical damage
14% - 2 critical damage
8% - 4 critical damage
3% - 6 critical damage

On average, you do about 1.5 critical damage per pellet. On average, you'd need to put six or seven pellets in one component to destroy it. On average you are hitting your target with about 7.2 pellets in total. If all of those pellets hit on one unarmored section of the 'Mech you were targeting and that section contained only one component, you would normally knock it out.

Also, your higher accuracy with the LB-10x probably has more to do with your holding fire at long ranges and the wide area spread of the weapon than anything. I can't find anything corroborating your claim that the LB10-X transfers some extra damage to structure, but even if it's true you're still doing less damage per shot than with an AC/10. If you're getting more kills with the LB10-X then you are most probably not aiming for damaged sections with other weapons and relying on the spread of the LB10-X to do your hole finding for you. Streaks and LRMs typically do this better.

So let me ask this - Are you, or are you not against a damage increase on the LBX pellets? Why? Would it not give it a nicer niche as a brawler weapon?

[Gevurah]

Osric Lancaster, on 21 February 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

75% - 1 critical damage
14% - 2 critical damage
8% - 4 critical damage
3% - 6 critical damage

On average, you do about 1.5 critical damage per pellet. On average, you'd need to put six or seven pellets in one component to destroy it. On average you are hitting your target with about 7.2 pellets in total. If all of those pellets hit on one unarmored section of the 'Mech you were targeting and that section contained only one component, you would normally knock it out.

Also, your higher accuracy with the LB-10x probably has more to do with your holding fire at long ranges and the wide area spread of the weapon than anything. I can't find anything corroborating your claim that the LB10-X transfers some extra damage to structure, but even if it's true you're still doing less damage per shot than with an AC/10. If you're getting more kills with the LB10-X then you are most probably not aiming for damaged sections with other weapons and relying on the spread of the LB10-X to do your hole finding for you. Streaks and LRMs typically do this better.

So let me ask this - Are you, or are you not against a damage increase on the LBX pellets? Why? Would it not give it a nicer niche as a brawler weapon?

Hence the words "Up to" I'm a very literal person, you'll find. My words mean precisely what they mean, unless my dyslexia kicks in and screws me.

I'd take a straight damage increase, sure. It'd probably improve the weapon, by my estimation since it's 100% of the time vs the last 20% or so where it's current niche is. My point is in it's current iteration it's very usable. Can it be improved? Absolutely. What weapon couldn't?

http://mwomercs.com/...35-06-aug-2013/

That's the source for the internal structure thing.


- 15% of critical damage dealt to an exposed 'Mech component will now be directly applied to the internal structure of that component.
- This is only applied to the critical damage done. Base weapon damage is not taken into account.

[Roland]

Gevurah, on 21 February 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

That said, I do believe the LBX is viable. I've used it - A LOT. Not some minor anecdotal evidence. We're talking 290+ games of consistent usage (Primarily on a triple LBX ilya or double LBX jager).

And what are your K/D ratios in those mechs?

Gevurah, on 21 February 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

It's true, splattering a mech with tiny pellets to crit with was mostly ineffective. WAS. However the LBX has the absolute highest value of crit multiplier in the game. It does up to 6 damage per pellet. That means while two pellets may only hit the same area, they can still take out virtually everything save an AC20. That would take 3 pellets.

But you're missing the fact that they would have to both hit THE SAME COMPONENT to destroy it. Even in ideal cases where they are doing 6 damage per pellet, they STILL won't destroy anything unless they happen to land on the same component in that section. And if the target has multiple things in that section, such as padding their important stuff with heat sinks, then you are most likely not going to destroy anything.

By comparison, if an AC10 or PPC crits, it is GUARANTEED to destroy something.

Again, the crit mechanics in MWO basically prevent the LBX10 from being the crit seeker that it was in battletech.

Quote

It excels at destroying limbs, torsos, cockpits; anything that's got exposed structure.

It's actually terrible at destroying those things, since their fairly small hitboxes mean that in most cases you will never be able to land the majority of pellets on a section. The head, for instance... you are never going to land more than one pellet on the head, due simply to the inherent spread pattern of the gun, even at close range.

(and again, I have recently posted pictures showing exactly how large the spread pattern is at various ranges)

Quote

Optimum range: point blank, obviously. Effective out to 350 or so meters.

Nope.
At 350 meters, the spread pattern is larger than the entire body of a cataphract.

[Gevurah]

Roland, on 21 February 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

And what are your K/D ratios in those mechs?
But you're missing the fact that they would have to both hit THE SAME COMPONENT to destroy it. Even in ideal cases where they are doing 6 damage per pellet, they STILL won't destroy anything unless they happen to land on the same component in that section. And if the target has multiple things in that section, such as padding their important stuff with heat sinks, then you are most likely not going to destroy anything.
By comparison, if an AC10 or PPC crits, it is GUARANTEED to destroy something.
Again, the crit mechanics in MWO basically prevent the LBX10 from being the crit seeker that it was in battletech.
It's actually terrible at destroying those things, since their fairly small hitboxes mean that in most cases you will never be able to land the majority of pellets on a section. The head, for instance... you are never going to land more than one pellet on the head, due simply to the inherent spread pattern of the gun, even at close range.
(and again, I have recently posted pictures showing exactly how large the spread pattern is at various ranges)
Nope.
At 350 meters, the spread pattern is larger than the entire body of a cataphract.

KD's are fine. Kind of a mute point since my mech builds change frequently enough to not have a 'pure' lbx mech. For instance, I recently started playing around with a 2xAC10, 1xAC5, 2xML Ilya. I've used the UAC5 Ilya and other builds as well (2x LBX, 2xLL, etc etc). I'm generally pushing a 1.9 KDR (almost exactly) on all the mechs which regularly use LBXs. But here you go:



ILYA MUROMETS 321 167 153 1.09 390 208 1.88 127,872 346,325 1 day 06:09:34
JAGERMECH JM6-DD 297 150 146 1.03 349 190 1.84 111,218 220,702 1 day 02:38:54
JAGERMECH JM6-S 225 128 95 1.35 259 137 1.89 76,920 176,838 20:17:36


SHADOW HAWK SHD-2D2 37 17 20 0.85 38 26 1.46 12,078 43,349 03:44:26
CATAPHRACT CTF-3D 215 110 104 1.06 185 129 1.43 63,445 150,053 19:31:22

The SHD and Phract only occasionally use LBXses - the 3d being a 'modified stock' build of 4xML, 1uac5, 1lbx. Because fun, that's why. THE Ilya is my best example, with probably over 200 games as triple LBX. The Jager DD was 2lbx4mg until recently being switched to 6mg. The Jager S was also 2xLBX, 4ML, 2MG for a good chunk of time (75 or so games?).

And no, I'm not forgetting about the components having to each receive a separate hit; I just don't care as much about critting specific internals. It's more like a nice bonus. Crit padding is a thing, sure. But destruction of heat sinks also going to take a portion of structure damage, which is my real goal.

If I get within 150m of someone (not very hard, tbh) and start spraying with 3 LBXs, that takes virtually zero time to start breaking the hell out of everything in a section.

Currently PPCs are 'the meta'. They have a 90m dead zone. LBXs do the best up close. I wait until the end of a match and close the gap. I periodically spray them from a distance to piss them off. And it works stunningly well. The screen juggle from the lbx is pretty rough and chain fired is brutal (2-3).

As to a ppc/ac10 hitting and crit-killling - that virtually never happens for exactly the same reason you're telling me that LBXs don't work. Because they often hit non-essential crit padded areas, which results in all of that crit damage going to one component, instead of several.

Shrug. To each their own. I'm not under the delusion I'll be able to sway YOUR opinion as I realize you're firmly entrenched in your position. But others should know that it is a functional weapon. Will I turn away additional buffs to it? Hell no. But it's a fantastic weapons when put in the right pair of hands. I won't even say skilled because lots of skilled players can't make it work. It just takes a different kind of mindset to make work, much like machine guns.

[Osric Lancaster]

Gevurah, on 21 February 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

*snip*

(seriously we don't need to fully quote the post directly above ours.)

I understand what you mean by "Up to", but it's statistically insignificant.

- 15% of critical damage dealt to an exposed 'Mech component will now be directly applied to the internal structure of that component.

Amusingly this actually means your damage per hit is an inflated value. So if we assumed you are hitting unarmored sections 100% of the time your 7.2 damage per hit would actually mean you're hitting with about 6.25 out of ten pellets on average. The real value is probably closer to 7.

Also you did not actually answer my question. Yes every weapon could be improved. That was not my question.
" Are you, or are you not against a damage increase on the LBX pellets? Why? Would it not give it a nicer niche as a brawler weapon? "
I'm not asking if you like it or think it's useful. I'm asking you if you think it is fulfilling it's intended niche when you personally are, demonstrably, doing both less critical and actual damage per hit with it than with the ac/10.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 21 February 2014 - 12:57 PM.

[Gevurah]

I thought I did answer you. I specifically said "I'd take a straight damage increase, sure. It'd probably improve the weapon, by my estimation since it's 100% of the time vs the last 20% or so where it's current niche is. My point is in it's current iteration it's very usable. Can it be improved? Absolutely. What weapon couldn't? "

As to demonstrably doing less, this is only accurate if you're working with absolute values. It's not entirely accurate.
1) On a damage per shot basis it's on an absolute value, less than an ac10. On a marginal level, it's approximate. 5.07 vs 5.39.
2) Shotgun style weapons generally don't tend to hit with every pellet. So doing 7.20 is not only acceptable, but seems appropriate. Sometimes it's more. Sometimes it's less. If we scaled it, it would very rapidly out-damage the AC10 on a per-shot basis. If they did get a nudge, it'd have to be a very small amount, say 1.05 or 1.1 pellet damage each.
3) Yes, I believe it fulfills it's current intended niche of crit-spamming, shotgun-style weapon.
4) Inflated value(s) - you'll note ALL of the other ac weapons (which also have similiar crit to structure damage transfer, just less chance to crit and bonus crit damage) are approximate. It is my opinion that crit damage is not properly modeled or recorded within the stats section. I'm fairly sure this is correct as well given I've not noticed any real change in my stats (which I've tracked via spreadsheet for almost a year and a half) since before/after the patch in question for ANY of the ac weapons. They've all stayed relatively the same-value wise.

Edited by Gevurah, 21 February 2014 - 01:06 PM.

[Varent]

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.

Lets break down some evidence and facts about the LBX incomparison to other AC.

The LBX weighs 11 tons and takes up 6 slots.

Lets compare this to other ac....

the ac10 weighs 12 tons and takes up 7 slots.

the ac5 weighs 8 tons and takes up 4 slots.

the ac 20 weights 14 tons and takes up 10 slots.

Generally you should be expected to do more damage per weight+size as long as you are fighting within an acceptable range for the weapon. The lbx is a spread weapon that generally will hit a nice soccer ball area on a mechs torso. On light mechs this area sometimes is too large and you may end up missing a little of it. Upside and downside of this some of your damage may not all get where you want it. However its easier to at least get some of your damage on fast movers. The LBX in comparison to its direct counterpart the normal ac10 also has many advantages over it directly. The Heat is less, the weight and size is less. And it has improved critical over it.

The general range of lbx tends to be close to srm range, the spread also is fairly similiar in just about every way when you compare srm with artemis at least.

So now lets break down what your getting for what weight...

To compare this I want to use a laser example.

A mediums laser does 5 damage at 270 meters for 4 heat. It weighs one ton. takes up one slot. A large laser does 9 damage at 450 meters for 7 heat. It weighs 5 tons. takes up 2 slots.

What you can see here is that for more weight and size you are gainint more performance for more heat. In this case an extreme change in weight. 4 tons extra in fact.

Now lets express this into the LBX vs ac10 comparison. For more weight... and size, you are gaining some range and more pinpoint damage as upposed to spread damage. And for some reason people dont find this fair?

I am failing to see how people can possibly understand this. Quite frankly compared to the lasers and many other ac having VAST differences in weight... for one less ton and one less slot you actually arent getting much less performance. In fact at brawling ranges (200 ish meters) you barely lose any damage at all.

But for some reason the LBX is still underpowered and needs change?

Now lets break this down into an even more easily understandable fashion. The idea of having different weapons that do different things.

If you want a high dps ac, you bring an ac2 or a uac5. If you want to jump snipe you bring an ac5, uac5, or ac10. If you want to brawl ad medium ranges, you bring an ac20, ac10, uac5, If you want to mess with lights, you can bring an lbx, if you want to brawl at close ranges you can bring an lbx or ac20. All of the ac have there places and uses in this game.

SRM are already a nice brawling weapon with similiar range, spread, and damage comparitively. The difference is you get more ammo with an lbx, have a tighter spread and can actually use it at large ranges in a pinch. It also has a higher crit rate and more ammo per ton.

But With this community people are probly going to complain no matter what and ignore actual numbers anyways. So whatever I guess.

[Khobai]

the LB10X is underpowered because pinpoint damage is undeniably better than spread damage. Also internal locations get destroyed so quickly that the LB10Xs bonus to internals and higher probability to crit simply dont make any appreciable difference. If mechs got a buff to internal structure the LB10X would be that much better.

[DocBach]

Khobai, on 21 February 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

the LB10X is underpowered because pinpoint damage is undeniably better than spread damage. Also internal locations get destroyed so quickly that the LB10Xs bonus to internals and higher probability to crit simply dont make any appreciable difference. If mechs got a buff to internal structure the LB10X would be that much better.

A lot of the guys I play with defend the LB-X with the whole "but it does CRITICALS!"

Who cares if it can take out a medium laser or heat sink when using a better weapon can just take off the whole side torso?

[Osric Lancaster]

Varent, on 21 February 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

But With this community people are probly going to complain no matter what and ignore actual numbers anyways. So whatever I guess.

You can just as easily dismiss someone's opinion by saying "With this community people are going to defend a weapon no matter what and ignore the actual numbers." We are discussing the finer points of the weapon, and while I think Gevurah is mistaken, I also think he's been doing a good job of arguing logically. I will reply to him now, give me a second to edit this post.

Gevurah, on 21 February 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

1) On a damage per shot basis it's on an absolute value, less than an ac10. On a marginal level, it's approximate. 5.07 vs 5.39.

I'd also wager dollars to donuts you're not firing your LB-10X at long range. That's going to have an effect on your accuracy and damage with a weapon. Try pairing the LB10-X and ac/10 and seeing how the use of one effects or limits the use of the other.

Gevurah, on 21 February 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

2) Shotgun style weapons generally don't tend to hit with every pellet. So doing 7.20 is not only acceptable, but seems appropriate. Sometimes it's more. Sometimes it's less. If we scaled it, it would very rapidly out-damage the AC10 on a per-shot basis. If they did get a nudge, it'd have to be a very small amount, say 1.05 or 1.1 pellet damage each.

Yes it's a shotgun. So it is inherently worse at long ranges. LB10-X has a bit more reach than an ac/10 but won't ever do a reasonable amount of damage at that range. Therefore the weapon should, as a matter of balance, have some sort of advantage at close range. 1.05 might make your LB10-X match your ac/10 in terms of raw damage at the ranges you currently use it, but it isn't, in my opinion, enough to overcome the penalty of the weapon's damage spread. I would want 1.2 at a bare minimum. That's 12 damage if you get all the pellets on target, and about 8.64 damage on your average shot.

Gevurah, on 21 February 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

3) Yes, I believe it fulfills it's current intended niche of crit-spamming, shotgun-style weapon.

7.2 pellets hit on average doing on average 1.5x that in critical damage on average. If every pellet hits an unarmored section. That's 10.8 total critical damage on the ideal end of the spectrum. In the absolute ideal situation where all of that critical damage lands on one component then yes, you are correct. If you are hitting any number of unarmored sections greater than one with anything less than 78% of your average spread, you are wrong.

Gevurah, on 21 February 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

4)

Speculative. We kind of need word of god here.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 21 February 2014 - 04:16 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

A lot of the guys I play with defend the LB-X with the whole "but it does CRITICALS"!

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.

Quote

Yes it's a shotgun.

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.

Edited by Khobai, 21 February 2014 - 04:38 PM.

[Gevurah]

Osric Lancaster, on 21 February 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

stuff

Of course I'm using them at closer ranges. It's an LBX. It's not a precision weapon, by design. It's designed to operate at close range. So in that sense, it's an apples and oranges comparison.

Heck, even in MW4 it was a close range shotgun-style weapon. Granted, it sort of operated differently, but the basic principle was the same. And you definitely couldn't shoot much past 350m with it. I think max range on the LBXAC20 was 300m? LBXAC10's were only like 450m. can't recall exactly but even using it that far it was virtually useless. You typically had to close to 200m or less. I know this from my near exclusive use of the weapons during my years playing it.

We're at the point where I've given raw statistics and math to back up my points. Whether you choose to look at them or not is up to you. The LBX weighs less, takes up less slots, produces less heat, has a greater critical transfer damage to compensate for it's weaker overall damage. It's a shotgun, non precision weapon that does great at tearing down enemies once their armor is gone, and has the ability to partially hit it's enemies when a shot would normally miss. It has a similiar damage to shot profile as the AC10.

As to the critical damage issue on spreadsheets, yes, we do need the word of god. But having been theorycrafting my own data since around december 2012, I've seen my numbers enough to know that when that change was implemented, it made virtually NO effect on my stats as reported. However enemies definitely went down a lot faster than previous once their armor was stripped. I still do kill them rapidly. I also get a ton of money for the component kills and what not. So I have personal experience to back up my numbers.

The rest is speculative. Improving the damage and cutting the bonus to crit would help, certainly. It sounds to me like you want to make this weapon more useful at long ranges. To me, that seems kind of silly given the purpose of the gun in these games is primarily to be a shotgun-style alternative to standard AC's.

At this point I'm not sure what more can be said to dissuade. The numbers are plain to see, and my experience backs up the observations numerically. Do as you will from there.

[Osric Lancaster]

Gevurah, on 21 February 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Of course I'm using them at closer ranges. It's an LBX. It's not a precision weapon, by design. It's designed to operate at close range. So in that sense, it's an apples and oranges comparison.

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.

Gevurah, on 21 February 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Heck, even in MW4 it was a close range shotgun-style weapon. Granted, it sort of operated differently, but the basic principle was the same.

Interesting that you should bring up MW4. The MW4 LBXs had a higher damage per shot than their normal counterparts. 1.4 times the damage of a normal auto cannon for an ac/10, if I remember correctly.

Gevurah, on 21 February 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

It sounds to me like you want to make this weapon more useful at long ranges.

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.

Gevurah, on 21 February 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

We're at the point where I've given raw statistics and math to back up my points.

Have I not? What in my last post, specifically, is wrong and why?

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 21 February 2014 - 05:22 PM.

[Roland]

Varent, on 21 February 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

The lbx is a spread weapon that generally will hit a nice soccer ball area on a mechs torso. On light mechs this area sometimes is too large and you may end up missing a little of it.

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.

Quote

Heck, even in MW4 it was a close range shotgun-style weapon.

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.