109 replies to this topic

[Kenyon Burguess]

450 meters IIRC, is the line where 4 LBX10 transforms into 4 machineguns in damage. its too easy for other mechs to hover outside that range and safely bring an assault down. I imagine a simple 4 ac/5 build would work better...or a mix of the two.

[Escef]

Wintersdark, on 10 March 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

Gotta admit, I choked on my coffee right here.


Seriously, though... The LB-X Atlas is a perfect example of a mech that misleads people into thinking it's good. Yes, you can get massive DPS output, and pull huge damage numbers. You'll even pull huge damage numbers against skilled opponents.

You'll lose, though. Because you're splatting that damage all over their mechs, while they can largely ignore the teensie tiny little pellets hitting them everywhere for quite a while.

And you're packing those into a huge, appallingly slow monstrosity. It's trivial to stay out of real threat range. Medium lasers, SRM's (lol@hit detection), LB-X? Effectively a 270m hardcap on range. Outside that, you're just not really accomplishing much.

Don't get me wrong. LB-X's are fun. I run them in my D-DC a lot simply because it's a blast to blow shit up. Lots of 800-1000pt damage games. But it's still bad.

Wow, you barely even looked at the build. That's the best argument you have? Being ignorant? Holy crap, you and Roland both. Go cry to your mommies that someone got results using stuff you don't like, maybe she'll bake you some cookies or something.

[Escef]

Geist Null, on 10 March 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

450 meters IIRC, is the line where 4 LBX10 transforms into 4 machineguns in damage. its too easy for other mechs to hover outside that range and safely bring an assault down. I imagine a simple 4 ac/5 build would work better...or a mix of the two.

LB10X does full damage out to 540. With a DPS of 4 per cannon you'd have to miss with 75% of the pellets, the spread isn't that inaccurate at that range. Once you move out to around 700 or so, though, yeah, you're probably better off throwing profanities at them in chat, might do more damage.

[Kodiak Jorgensson]

Hoffenstein, on 10 March 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

If I'm correct about this, you should be able to run around with a Mauler using 4 LB-10 Autocannons. Let the LB nerf whining commence! Also, you should have a standard engine this way, so it'll be tough! I may just have a new favourite when this thing comes out.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Annihilator is a much better choice, 100 tons hardpoints spread across the mech so you can easily cripple it.not to mention its stock config is 4 lb10s

[Wintersdark]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

Wow, you barely even looked at the build. That's the best argument you have? Being ignorant? Holy crap, you and Roland both. Go cry to your mommies that someone got results using stuff you don't like, maybe she'll bake you some cookies or something.

What? Ignorant? How do you figure? I'll admit, I mistook the SSRM's for SRM's - most make these builds with SRM's, after all. 2 SSRM2's are hardly going to change this at all.

Otherwise, mediums, LBX's, (S)SRM's. Just like I said. And yes, appallingly slow: All atlas's are appallingly slow. That's not a problem when you can reach effectively past 270m, but your D doesn't. Oh, sure, you'll get damage out further, but you won't actually threaten anyone that far out.

While the LBX does full damage out to 540, you will NOT hit will all pellets out at that range, and the pellets that do hit are splattering all over your target. Sure, you'll do, say, 15 damage to him. Spread at about 3 damage per component.

My argument is simple: The spread causes that vast majority of the damage to be effectively wasted.

Edited by Wintersdark, 10 March 2014 - 07:05 PM.

[Roland]

Wintersdark, on 10 March 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

Seriously, though... The LB-X Atlas is a perfect example of a mech that misleads people into thinking it's good.
...
Don't get me wrong. LB-X's are fun. I run them in my D-DC a lot simply because it's a blast to blow shit up. Lots of 800-1000pt damage games. But it's still bad.

Exactly... The LBX weapon is totally awesome in every way... except the one that matters, and that's killing mechs.

It sounds awesome, the weapon looks cool when it's fired. It FEELS like it's laying down the beat.

But it's not.

Swap 2 LBX10 for 2 U/AC5's and you have a flat-out better mech, because you can just pound that damage directly where it needs to go, instead of spraying it all over creation.

The final damage numbers may even be lower... but that's because mechwarrior isn't won by who does the most damage. It's won by who kills the most mechs.

Geist Null, on 10 March 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

450 meters IIRC, is the line where 4 LBX10 transforms into 4 machineguns in damage. its too easy for other mechs to hover outside that range and safely bring an assault down. I imagine a simple 4 ac/5 build would work better...or a mix of the two.

Way closer than that.. Someone made a video of them shooting a commando with 3 LBX at basically point blank range, and it took something ridiculous like 55 shots to kill it. A totally stationary commando at point blank range.

[FupDup]

Roland, on 10 March 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

Damnit Roland you beat me to it!

[Wintersdark]

Roland, on 10 March 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

Way closer than that.. Someone made a video of them shooting a commando with 3 LBX at basically point blank range, and it took something ridiculous like 55 shots to kill it. A totally stationary commando at point blank range.

To be fair, they've narrowed the spread since then, but the reality is if you're not firing at a bulky assault mech (ideally another Atlas, a Battlemaster, or an Awesome), you're still sandblasting your target. Yeah, you'll do a lot of damage, and if you're ignored/targetted last, you'll get a lot of damage and maybe even kills, but you could have done so much better.

As Deathlike noted earlier, until the per-pellet damage is higher, the damage to your target component outside of 270m is laughable at best.

[Escef]

Wintersdark, on 10 March 2014 - 07:02 PM, said:

What? Ignorant? How do you figure? I'll admit, I mistook the SSRM's for SRM's - most make these builds with SRM's, after all. 2 SSRM2's are hardly going to change this at all.

Otherwise, mediums, LBX's, (S)SRM's. Just like I said. And yes, appallingly slow: All atlas's are appallingly slow. That's not a problem when you can reach effectively past 270m, but your D doesn't. Oh, sure, you'll get damage out further, but you won't actually threaten anyone that far out.

While the LBX does full damage out to 540, you will NOT hit will all pellets out at that range, and the pellets that do hit are splattering all over your target. Sure, you'll do, say, 15 damage to him. Spread at about 3 damage per component.

My argument is simple: The spread causes that vast majority of the damage to be effectively wasted.

Someone didn't see large lasers. No attention to detail. At all. You're a crappy analyst.

Look at those results I posted. Just look for a few seconds. My team was a Wolverine that did 990 with 5 kills and 3 assists, me in a mech you swear up and down is horrible with 717 damage, 4 kills, 3 assists, and a bunch of guys that didn't break 300 damage (most didn't even break 200). So, yeah, tell me how ineffective it was, no really, go ahead. Tell me about how the second best damage and third highest kills in the drop is so horrible.

I mean, no, you're right, I should be ashamed of myself for... doing well? Being one of 2 guys to carry the team? To the win, no less? Wait a second. Something about reality isn't jiving with your opinion. I'm trying to figure it out, but I'm having a hard time here... Could it be that you're {gasp!} wrong?

[Roland]

Oh, here's a more updated video of someone shooting a commando with LBX, from 100m.

At 100m, it only takes SIXTEEN ROUNDS TO KILL A STATIONARY COMMANDO.

You're right Escef, that's some quality stuff right there. The only reason folks think it's a trash tier weapon is because they aren't as pro as you.

Quote

Damnit Roland you beat me to it!

Steeringwheel underhive cat cannot be contained.

[Deathlike]

I'm not going to say that LBX should be classified like NARC or Flamers... because they are far better than that. Their utility however resembles more like Small Lasers or Small Pulse Lasers... limited utility.

LBX is at best compared to SSRMs in terms of damage. Streaks generate tons of filler damage, so it's great for padding C-bills. The easiest kills Streaks generate are towards light mechs, where the amount of armor those mechs are at a premium. When using Streaks vs Assaults, you're not going to expect a kill unless there are already massive holes in the armor to expose.

Unlike Streaks, LBX is woefully more random.. so even if you produce a 1000+ pt damage game, you're really doing something like 1/3 of that actual damage in LBX against the critical areas (and that's being generous).

The thing about numbers is understanding where the numbers come from. I make no claims (or whatever that word I'm looking for) for knowing that SSRM damage is largely filler, but compared to LBX, Streaks are a lot more effective for what I'm paying/using them for.

[Roland]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

Look at those results I posted. Just look for a few seconds. My team was a Wolverine that did 990 with 5 kills and 3 assists, me in a mech you swear up and down is horrible with 717 damage, 4 kills, 3 assists, and a bunch of guys that didn't break 300 damage (most didn't even break 200). So, yeah, tell me how ineffective it was, no really, go ahead. Tell me about how the second best damage and third highest kills in the drop is so horrible.

One non-terrible game does not a good mech make, dude.
I killed a daishi in MW4 by spamfiring a thousand flares at his head until the 0.1 damage from flares hitting his face finally added up and cockpitted him.

That didn't make flares a good weapon. It made him a terrible pilot.

[Roland]

Deathlike, on 10 March 2014 - 07:15 PM, said:

I'm not going to say that LBX should be classified like NARC or Flamers... because they are far better than that. Their utility however resembles more like Small Lasers or Small Pulse Lasers... limited utility.

Agreed. LBX is at least a semi-functional weapon.
It's not that it can't kill mechs.. it's just that it's far less effective than other alternatives. There are better things you can do with that tonnage.

Deathlike, on 10 March 2014 - 07:15 PM, said:

I make no claims (or whatever that word I'm looking for) for knowing that SSRM damage is largely filler, but compared to LBX, Streaks are a lot more effective for what I'm paying/using them for.

Again, agreed. LBX is in many ways like SRM's in how it deals damage... but it's terribly inefficient by comparison, because you're not talking about 9 tons of weapons for 3 SRM 6's, you're talking 21 tons of weapons for what is basically the same effect.

The thing is Escef, the point of pointing out the LBX is bad isn't to make you feel bad, or make fun of you.. It's to get them to buff the LBX into what it should be... a totally brutal infighting weapon.

Because the LBX is so useless at range, when up close it should absolutely OBLITERATE things, to make the tradeoff worth it. But that's not how it works currently. Even at close range it's still merely passable.

[Escef]

Roland, on 10 March 2014 - 07:13 PM, said:

Oh, here's a more updated video of someone shooting a commando with LBX, from 100m.

At 100m, it only takes SIXTEEN ROUNDS TO KILL A STATIONARY COMMANDO.

You're right Escef, that's some quality stuff right there. The only reason folks think it's a trash tier weapon is because they aren't as pro as you.

Yeah, man, how about you Google my username and the word "mediocre" and find out how often I have NOT laid claim to greatness? Your argument keeps falling more and more apart. I'm uploading a video now, post it soon enough, proving that video you cling so desperately to as proof is way out of date.

[Wintersdark]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

Someone didn't see large lasers. No attention to detail. At all. You're a crappy analyst.

I'm discussing your finished build, re:

Quote

With THIS. (I later dropped the larges to mediums, cut a ton of armor, upped the engine to a 350, added 2 more heat sinks, and popped in another ton of LB10X ammo. It was too damn slow.)

I'm discussing your build, not individual match performance. A sample size of one is completely useless: I can show similar results (and much better, in fact) with utterly ridiculous, stupid builds. You can have a good game with a bad build, that doesn't make the bad build good.

Quote

Look at those results I posted. Just look for a few seconds. My team was a Wolverine that did 990 with 5 kills and 3 assists, me in a mech you swear up and down is horrible with 717 damage, 4 kills, 3 assists, and a bunch of guys that didn't break 300 damage (most didn't even break 200). So, yeah, tell me how ineffective it was, no really, go ahead. Tell me about how the second best damage and third highest kills in the drop is so horrible.

Again, you can have a good game with a bad build; that doesn't make the bad build good.

Quote

I mean, no, you're right, I should be ashamed of myself for... doing well? Being one of 2 guys to carry the team? To the win, no less? Wait a second. Something about reality isn't jiving with your opinion. I'm trying to figure it out, but I'm having a hard time here... Could it be that you're {gasp!} wrong?

Why do you think I feel you should feel ashamed? Did I say that? You had a great match - good on you. This isn't personal at all.

So, what specifically do you feel I'm wrong about? At 350m, a LBX will hit every target component on a Cicada, and miss with ~3 pellets, assuming you've aimed center mass (otherwise you miss even more). This means your damage to target component is ~2. Maybe 3. 2 LBX's? 5ish at best.

A single AC5 is doing 5 damage to the target component too. With a 1.5s recycle. And less tonnage, space, and heat.

I want LB-X's to be good. But pushing this "I get big damage numbers so they're awesome!" thing ensures they won't ever be good. The reality is they are strictly, objectively worse than AC10's in every instance except at point blank range, where they are equal.

And AC10's are really not particularly great ballistics.

[Deathlike]

Here's a hint to what I think about LBX:

I see a tri-LBX10 Ilya or dual LBX10 Jager = Target Practice.

That's all that needs to be said.

At least I consider the Tri-UAC5 dakka to be a bigger threat... because shutting down = my death.

[Escef]

Wintersdark, on 10 March 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

This isn't personal at all.

Than why is it that you and Roland both seemed to feel the need to be insulting, condescending, and... What else? Oh, yeah! Lie!

[Wintersdark]

2 LB-X AC10 vs. Cicada at 350m.



Aimed center mass, 11 shots (22 shells, 220 damage) to kill. Against a stock Cicada. Its center torso has 22 armor.

Edited by Wintersdark, 10 March 2014 - 07:48 PM.

[Roland]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

Than why is it that you and Roland both seemed to feel the need to be insulting, condescending, and... What else? Oh, yeah! Lie!

I specifically said that the point of this wasn't to belittle you, but you're right... I did kind of make fun of you, but part of it is just that so many people have made the same argument before. It gets silly, so it inspires silliness.

For instance, quite recently we had a similar thread, and it resulted in me going through and doing a bunch of testing, showing exactly how crazy the spread is on the LBX currently.. because folks were saying, "Oh, it's way more narrow now!". And I showed that at 250m, the spread is the size of an entire cataphract.

There are just certain aspects of it which are demonstrably provable. And doing well in a single game doesn't really amount to the same kind of evidence.

[Wintersdark]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

Than why is it that you and Roland both seemed to feel the need to be insulting, condescending, and... What else? Oh, yeah! Lie!

Lie? Isn't that getting a little out of hand? You could argue that I was wrong (see video above, however), but lie? Why would I bother lying? Where am I being insulting? If I was (and I suppose it's possible, I'm bad at internets sometimes) I apologize.

I've just said the build is bad, and one of the features of it is that it generates numbers that make it look good. This doesn't mean the player with the build is bad, nor does it mean he's stupid, or whatever else. It's very easy to see the big numbers and be all HULK SMASH!!