223 replies to this topic

[Dymlos2003]

Deathlike, on 26 February 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

It's worthless when everything else is far more efficient.



There's literally no situation that another weapon can't do the same or better at lowered requirements with equal or better effectiveness. Sorry, I don't buy it.

My experience says otherwise so who is right? Just like I play mediums exclusively with some equipped LBXs and do better than most meta builds. Don't say my ELO is low cause it's not.

Who is right?

Edited by Dymlos2003, 26 February 2014 - 12:05 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

Dymlos2003, on 26 February 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Oh my... You really have no idea do you...

Here is what they're saying Dym:

Non-MG/Flamer/LB weapons have a base chance to crit of 25% (normal damage), 14% (double damage), and 3% (triple damage). You also have a 58% chance of NOT critting.

MG/Flamer/LB weapons have a base chance to crit of 39% (normal damage), 22% (double damage), and 7% (triple damage). This gives you a 32% chance of not critting.

When the LB hits, it hits with 1-10 pellets doing anywhere from 1 point of damage (within effective range) and 0.01 damage (max range). IF you luck up and get a pellet to crit with triple damage, you just did 3 points. You've got 10 rounds possible of hitting a location so, at best if you land all 10 in that location, you COULD do 30 points of damage. But, you'd need all 10 in there and you'd need all 10 to get a triple crit. In total, on that extremely rare case, you'd have one 10 points of damage to the Internal Structure, 30 points of damage to various components, and another 4.5% damage back ot the Internal Structure.

If, on the other hand, you'd have been using a PPC or AC10 and rolled a triple crit, you'd have done 10 damage to the internal structure, done 30 points of damage to a single component guaranteeing an item destruction, and another 4.5 damage to the internal structure. In either case, you're putting 10 damage in the location at which you aimed and you're guaranteed to destroy something IF you get even the bonus crit. You don't get that guarantee with the LB.

In the end, the LB is just bad.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Dymlos2003, on 26 February 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Oh my... You really have no idea do you...

The LB10-X can certainly crit. It's got higher crit rates and bonus crit damage that most other weapons don't have. The problem, as already stated, is that since it doesn't do crit damage in one big 10-point hit, it's not particularly likely to destroy any components that it actually crits, unless those components are fairly large and squishy. Furthermore, with the spread of the pellets, there's no guarantee that all of those pellets will hit the opened-up section you're shooting at, so it might not even be 10 chances to crit. It might just be 6 chances to crit, or 4, unless your target is just opened-up all over. Even then, it's far preferable to just kill the target outright than destroy his equipment, which is something that pinpoint weapons are far better at than.

I guess the 15% damage transfer to internal health is pretty ok, but every weapon gets that.

[Deathlike]

Dymlos2003, on 26 February 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

My experience says otherwise so who is right? Just like I play mediums exclusively with some equipped LBXs and do better than most meta builds. Don't say my ELO is low cause it's not.

Who is right?

The meta is always right, unfortunately.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Since it's being brought up, I thought I'd add this from a Guide available here:

Spoiler

It's a good guide too.

[Kaeb Odellas]

The LB-10X can do hella damage to internals, but you actually have to strip armor from that component first. That's something the LB10-X is inferior at compared to pinpoint weapons, since landing all pellets in one component is far tougher and requires the user to get up close.

EDIT: Basically, the LB-10X completely sucks 66% of the time, when enemy mechs are still protected by armor.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 26 February 2014 - 12:16 PM.

[Dymlos2003]

Kaeb Odellas, on 26 February 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

The LB-10X can do hella damage to internals, but you actually have to strip armor from that component first. That's something the LB10-X is inferior at compared to pinpoint weapons, since landing all pellets in one component is far tougher and requires the user to get up close.

EDIT: Basically, the LB-10X completely sucks 66% of the time, when enemy mechs are still protected by armor.

Yes it's a situational (Is that a word?) weapon. Just like SRMs but it doesn't suck 66% of the time cause you have other weapons with it. That's why building a balanced build is always great.

People just need to learn how to use it.

[Trauglodyte]

Dymlos2003, on 26 February 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

Yes it's a situational (Is that a word?) weapon. Just like SRMs but it doesn't suck 66% of the time cause you have other weapons with it. That's why building a balanced build is always great.

People just need to learn how to use it.

Well, then, how about this? A few weeks ago we were talking about the LB over on the Mech Loadout Board so I redid my 3D and dropped into the Testing Grounds. With a single LB 10-X, it took me 22 rounds, which amounts to 52.5 seconds of time, to core and destroy a stock Catapult from 270m. In those 22 shots fired, I hit every location on the Catapult. It wasn't moving and I wasn't moving. 22 shots fired accounts for 1.45 tons of ammo. Crit happy or not, how is that even remotely acceptable for a 12 ton (11 tons plus at least 1 ton of ammo) investment?

If it works for you, then that is great. But, can you imagine how much better you would be with a normal AC10?

[Mcgral18]

Dymlos2003, on 26 February 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

Yes it's a situational (Is that a word?) weapon. Just like SRMs but it doesn't suck 66% of the time cause you have other weapons with it. That's why building a balanced build is always great.

People just need to learn how to use it.

And you'd do much better with a frontloaded pinpoint armament, it's in the same boat as SRMs.

Why don't we stay on topic now, and discuss the LB10x in another thread. This is specific about the SRMs.

Now, would flight speed increase hit detection? AC2s hit en masse, 6 per second on tri-2 builds and they register and damage just fine. They are at 2k M/s, considerably faster.

[Dymlos2003]

Trauglodyte, on 26 February 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

Well, then, how about this? A few weeks ago we were talking about the LB over on the Mech Loadout Board so I redid my 3D and dropped into the Testing Grounds. With a single LB 10-X, it took me 22 rounds, which amounts to 52.5 seconds of time, to core and destroy a stock Catapult from 270m. In those 22 shots fired, I hit every location on the Catapult. It wasn't moving and I wasn't moving. 22 shots fired accounts for 1.45 tons of ammo. Crit happy or not, how is that even remotely acceptable for a 12 ton (11 tons plus at least 1 ton of ammo) investment?

If it works for you, then that is great. But, can you imagine how much better you would be with a normal AC10?

I don't like the ac10. Did you fire it alone? That's the flaw with your test.

[Varent]

Mcgral18, on 26 February 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

Now, would flight speed increase hit detection? .

When they changed flight speed and lowered it on the ac20 the hit detection went a little wonky.

Evidence suggests yes.

Testing would be needed.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Dymlos2003, on 26 February 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

Yes it's a situational (Is that a word?) weapon. Just like SRMs but it doesn't suck 66% of the time cause you have other weapons with it. That's why building a balanced build is always great.

People just need to learn how to use it.

Okay, sure, situational weapon. Fine. But if you spend one more ton and one more slot, you can bring an AC10, a weapon that can work almost as well as the LB-10X's "optimal" situation (after armor is stripped, and at small laser ranges), and also dramatically outperform the LB10-X in every other situation.

Hell, you can swap to an Ultra AC5, gain 2 tons and a slot, and do some serious damage in a hurry if the RNG gods favor you.

The LB10-X's extremely limited advantages are severely outweighed by its spread mechanic. Plus, they're ridiculously expensive, too. 800,000 Cbills is not a small number for a niche weapon.

[Trauglodyte]

Dymlos2003, on 26 February 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

I don't like the ac10. Did you fire it alone? That's the flaw with your test.

No, that isn't a flaw in my test. My test was to see how the LB worked in a vaccum. Are you suggesting that I invest more weight in more LBs? In either case, I'd still be better off with an AC10 or a UAC5 and other weapons. It doesn't matter what you pair with it, you'll always be better with any AC other than the LB. The end!

[Kaeb Odellas]

Dymlos2003, on 26 February 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

I don't like the ac10. Did you fire it alone? That's the flaw with your test.

What's your point here? Every other ballistic weapon can be fired alongside other weapons. In fact, that's what all the tryhards do with their 2AC5+2PPC builds.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong. I like the LB-10X, because it's a giant space shotgun and that is inherently awesome. However, I'm not going to pretend that they're effective just because I like them. I like Awesomes and Hunchbacks too. They're not very good!

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 26 February 2014 - 12:39 PM.

[Deathlike]

LBXs is simply a waste. It suffers from the behavior of "death of a 1000 cuts". LBX is like trying to torture the opponent. Keep stripping them of weapons and armor until they die a slow humiliating death... because it's not short and to the point. LBX is great for padding damage stats... not kills.

The MG in its current mediocre state technically does a better job than the LBX. For at least 1 ton (2 MGs minimum) plus ammo, you can literally do the LBX's job generally better. The MG is simply a better crit monster than the LBX (and I'm not exactly happy with the MGs either). Despite the lame Cone of Fire that the MG has, you can focus damage a lot better. The 4 MG Embers are lot more threatening than an Ember containing an LBX10... and that doesn't even begin to show the tonnage disparity and a whole host of differences.

If you think you're doing well in an LBX, then you're probably doing a bad job with the AC10. It's that simple.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 February 2014 - 12:43 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Josef Nader, on 26 February 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

You learn very quickly when you're developing games that the best thing to do when it comes to balance is to ignore your community entirely and balance around actual gameplay metrics.

Agreed, but only provided that metrics being used are accurate and applicable to the situation one tries to balance.

Quote

Statistics don't lie, and they don't get buttmad because the way they want to play is getting shut down by another style of play that they perceive as too powerful. PGI learned early on not to balance around it's community, but to balance around statistics

As a game deveoper you should know that balancing around statistics is only good when you can't use exact math. It's really a last resort sort of thing. I.e. you have to do it this way in your average MMORPG because you can't reliably weigh a crowd control skill vs. a direct damage skill, but in games like MWO where we have nothing but DD "skills" (no buffs, no heals, no CC, no debuffs, no utility skills, literally nothing but damaging attacks) there's no reason to balance around statistics at all - you would increase margin of error and over complicate the balancing scheme for no reason whatsoever.

Quote

and the game has been getting better with every balance patch.

This part is a complete load of bull and we both know it. Decreasing the variety on the batlefield never makes a game any better.

[Dymlos2003]

I guess every weapon should be pillows and should fire exactly the same and do nothing different.

The LBX does what I needs to do. From my playstyle with that build it does it's job very effectively.

[Koniving]

You could simply chain fire your SRMs or aim slightly ahead of the target. Hit registration becomes much better.

Splash damage is still in effect, they couldn't remove it. That's been said several times. The current splash range is .5 meters. On certain mechs this is epic deadly, on others it's barely noticed.

Personally, what I've noticed is that MWO's SRMs are essentially MRMs. Dumbfired, zero guidance missiles that just spread.

Fact is, SRMs by tech manual state that SRMs are hardlocked. SRMs by lore are heat guided. In both cases, they are NOT affected by ECM anyway. According to NARC in the tech manual, NARC can draw SRMs. According to lore, NARC not only draws SRMs but makes them into "rabid piranhas" that "fight with each other" to reach the target first.

So why not simply make them guided? The guided missiles have no problem hitting targets and registering.

Guided but not locked.

[Deathlike]

Koniving, on 26 February 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

So why not simply make them guided? The guided missiles have no problem hitting targets and registering.

The thing about making them "guided" is that there is a legitimate fear they become similar to the Lurmapocalypse or old Streak (CT coring) menace that happened before. There were plenty of nuances of oddities that have been demonstrated by missiles before like, making sharp turns at the last moment... the potential of really nasty behavior is not what we'd need (unless, NARC was given such an ability to a limited degree, not SRMs themselves).

[Dymlos2003]

Deathlike, on 26 February 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

The thing about making them "guided" is that there is a legitimate fear they become similar to the Lurmapocalypse or old Streak (CT coring) menace that happened before. There were plenty of nuances of oddities that have been demonstrated by missiles before like, making sharp turns at the last moment... the potential of really nasty behavior is not what we'd need (unless, NARC was given such an ability to a limited degree, not SRMs themselves).

just make the srms follow your crosshair