109 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 07:29 PM, said:

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 I'm uploading a video now, post it soon enough, proving that video you cling so desperately to as proof is way out of date.

I just made and posted a video. Ball's in your court.

[Escef]

Wintersdark, on 10 March 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

Lie? Isn't that getting a little out of hand?

You tell me, you're on the side doing it. That or you buy into outdated data so strongly that you feel the need to belittle those that use, heaven's to mergatroid, recent data. As soon as YouTube straightens itself out, I'll show you what twin LBX do to a Commando at 100 meters. Something that's already been thrown in my face. If you had posted the Cicada video earlier I could have independently verified (or disproven) that as well.

[Zordicron]

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.

Why would I be using a DDC with LBX and SRM beyond short range? If you pilot the Atlas correctly, your targets will be within optimal range easily. And you will blow them to bits.

I also like how the "bad" examples are shooting the weapon at lights, where even the smallest spread will cause the dmg to be minimized. Try it with streaks. how many Streak SRM does it take to kill a cicada? Or regular SRM. Or non- artemis/tag etc LRM?

All the examples simply come down to "non pinpoint alphastrike weapons are bad".

part of playing LBX loadouts is NOT killing the enemy, not after it's threat has been neutralized. triple LBX illya sees stalker: starts to shoot its face, stalker decideds it doesnt like not being able to see through cloud of black smoke, turns. LBX illya blows side torso off, removes AC20 and half the lasers from Misery. NOW is when you change targets to Misery's pal trying to help him out, and blow his side torso out, because MIsery has been reduced to very slow zombie cent with two ML. Your team will finish it, or not, it doesnt matter unless you ignore it shooting you for 3 minutes.

You dont fight spiders with a triple LBX loadout. There is the mindless no skill hoarde of streak boats to do that, or that one crazy guy in his trollmando that did 500 dmg by the end of match with 10 assists and a kill by legging that spider. What you fight, is the biggest fatlas threat you can find, and blow it to pieces and leave it to the scavengers. I mean really, blowing the side torso out of a stalker or atlas really isnt very hard. It also doesnt matter what you bring very much if you get the drop on someone in the back.

Atlas: Interception Successful. AC20 is nice, but twin LBX is cooler and shoots more often, and I get more ammo to do it with, and for all intensive purposes, when you intercept successfully, small laser range is all you need.

[Wintersdark]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

You tell me, you're on the side doing it. That or you buy into outdated data so strongly that you feel the need to belittle those that use, heaven's to mergatroid, recent data. As soon as YouTube straightens itself out, I'll show you what twin LBX do to a Commando at 100 meters. Something that's already been thrown in my face. If you had posted the Cicada video earlier I could have independently verified (or disproven) that as well.

Independently verified? Disproven? Seriously? Are you actually arguing that I somehow gamed that? Note that at the beginning, the Cicada is undamaged. Look at the posting time, the glass effect - I just made that video minutes ago. I'm not some wizard of video editing to have faked the 22 rounds of LBX ammo required to punch through the Cicada's 22 armor CT.

Note that 2 AC10's would have killed that Cicada in 2 volleys.


Yes, at 100m, you'll wreck a commando pretty quick. The first encounter I have in that video is vs. the -1B commando. At 210m, (remember, I'm arguing the LB-X is worthless outside of 270m). 6 shots - 12 shells, 120 damage to destroy. It has 16 CT armor.

Do you not see how 6 "10 damage" shots vs. 16 armor+structure is a tremendous waste?

How about vs. the Atlas later? Where all the pellets actually hit the torso? 17 shots (34 rounds) to punch through it's 96 armor CT.

Here's the full romp, uneditted save for re-encoding to 720p for speedy upload:

[Roland]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

You tell me, you're on the side doing it. That or you buy into outdated data so strongly that you feel the need to belittle those that use, heaven's to mergatroid, recent data. As soon as YouTube straightens itself out, I'll show you what twin LBX do to a Commando at 100 meters. Something that's already been thrown in my face. If you had posted the Cicada video earlier I could have independently verified (or disproven) that as well.

I think he just made the video of the Cicada.. like, tonight, specifically to post in this thread.

Not sure how you are gonna disprove it. But I eagerly await seeing it.

Like I said, my own personal, recent experience has been testing against the cataphract, which I posted here.

That was done on Jan 14th, and I do not believe the LBX10 has had any changes at all since then.

There, you can see the current spread at 300m:

And I also provided a test of how many shots from the LBX vs the AC10 it took to kill the Cataphract from 300m.. 21 shots with the LBX, vs. 10 with the AC10.

Like I said.. I don't think the LBX has changed at all since that test was done.

[Wintersdark]

Eldagore, on 10 March 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

I also like how the "bad" examples are shooting the weapon at lights, where even the smallest spread will cause the dmg to be minimized. Try it with streaks. how many Streak SRM does it take to kill a cicada? Or regular SRM. Or non- artemis/tag etc LRM?

All the examples simply come down to "non pinpoint alphastrike weapons are bad".

Well, they are.

SRM's shouldn't be, because they should frontload a LOT of damage for low tonnage. Their hitreg is god-awful, though, so they don't work well.

SSRM's are still kind of crappy weapons, only really effective against lights. And then, for players who for whatever reason have a hard time hitting lights with other weapons. Also, at least SSRM's *HIT* things, something that SRM's for many players just don't do reliably. Missile hit detection is awful right now. SSRM's, at least, have a viable niche where they're one of the best weapons for a specific role.

LRM's are terrible, unless your opponents are morons or you've got an overwhelming number of them (and even then...)

Quote

part of playing LBX loadouts is NOT killing the enemy, not after it's threat has been neutralized. triple LBX illya sees stalker: starts to shoot its face, stalker decideds it doesnt like not being able to see through cloud of black smoke, turns. LBX illya blows side torso off, removes AC20 and half the lasers from Misery. NOW is when you change targets to Misery's pal trying to help him out, and blow his side torso out, because MIsery has been reduced to very slow zombie cent with two ML. Your team will finish it, or not, it doesnt matter unless you ignore it shooting you for 3 minutes.

No.

No, no no. Sure, you can abandon a neutralized target, that's all well and good.

But the LBX is flat out worse at neutralizing a target than any other primary ballistic. Regular AC10's (again, the next worst option) do more damage.

Quote

You dont fight spiders with a triple LBX loadout. There is the mindless no skill hoarde of streak boats to do that, or that one crazy guy in his trollmando that did 500 dmg by the end of match with 10 assists and a kill by legging that spider. What you fight, is the biggest fatlas threat you can find, and blow it to pieces and leave it to the scavengers. I mean really, blowing the side torso out of a stalker or atlas really isnt very hard. It also doesnt matter what you bring very much if you get the drop on someone in the back.

Of course you're not fighting spiders. But the Fatlas? Look at my video above. 17 shots (34 rounds) to kill it. Sure, you could have neutralized it at ~28. That's at extreme close range. In a fraction of that time, the Fatlas's AC20 has already torn off your side torso, because he's landing ALL his damage right there. The Atlas sporting a pair of AC5's or UAC5's would do the same - disarming the LBX atlas loooong before those LBX's are doing enough focussed damage to do the same.

[Roland]

Eldagore, on 10 March 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

Why would I be using a DDC with LBX and SRM beyond short range?

Because your mech is slow as ****, and can't dictate range in an engagement.

It's generally always a bad idea to rely entirely on a short range weapons in a mech which cannot control range, as you basically are dependent upon your enemies being too stupid to realize that all they need to do is move a short distance away from you and stay at range to negate all of your firepower.

Quote

I also like how the "bad" examples are shooting the weapon at lights, where even the smallest spread will cause the dmg to be minimized. Try it with streaks. how many Streak SRM does it take to kill a cicada? Or regular SRM. Or non- artemis/tag etc LRM?

But there are other weapons in the game which are actually GOOD. I mean, sure, if the only weapons in the game were SRM's, then the LBX wouldn't be so bad.. but there are tons of precision weapons in the game.

Quote

All the examples simply come down to "non pinpoint alphastrike weapons are bad".

Well, yeah. That's how the game works.

Quote

part of playing LBX loadouts is NOT killing the enemy, not after it's threat has been neutralized. triple LBX illya sees stalker: starts to shoot its face, stalker decideds it doesnt like not being able to see through cloud of black smoke, turns. LBX illya blows side torso off, removes AC20 and half the lasers from Misery.

Unless the misery pilot is just terrible, he's able to punch all of his damage onto a single location of your cataphract, so there's not really any way you're gonna concentrate your damage on his side torso faster than he can just crush you, unless he's just missing shots, or not shooting back at you.

Quote

NOW is when you change targets to Misery's pal trying to help him out, and blow his side torso out, because MIsery has been reduced to very slow zombie cent with two ML. Your team will finish it, or not, it doesnt matter unless you ignore it shooting you for 3 minutes.

It just sounds like all these mechs you are shooting at aren't actually shooting back for some reason.
Against good pilots, they are gonna shoot back and kill you.

Quote

I mean really, blowing the side torso out of a stalker or atlas really isnt very hard.

No, it's not.. but neither is shooting the side torso out of a cataphract.. especially when it's got LBX and can't actually hurt you from beyond 200m.

[Wintersdark]

Ok, for comparison.

2 AC5 vs. Stock Cicada, at 600ish meters. 5 shots, 10 shells, dead cicada.


2 LB-X AC10 vs. Stock Cicada at 350m. 11 shots, 22 shells, dead cicada.

[Escef]

Video is taking a long time to upload. However, I did verify that the Cicada does take 11 shots from twin LB10X to down at 350 meters. The Commando, however, which the video Roland posted shows taking 16 rounds to drop a Commando? Yeah, maybe that was the case over a year ago, when it was made. I did it at the same range with 3 double taps and a single. 7 rounds. Would it be faster if I used UAC5s or an AC20? Sure. But killing fast against a stationary target in the training grounds does not mean you can reproduce those results against a moving target. Mnay light jocks are paranoid of taking damage. You can have AC20s out the wazoo, if you aren't hitting with them than the light jock does not consider you a credible threat. You tag him once or twice with the spread from an LBX, which is much easier to do, and he takes you seriously, and finds someone that can't hit him as consistently.

Yes, it's an intimidation weapon and a sandblaster. And if you use it correctly you will get results from it. If you expect to kill lights at range with it, you are wrong. If you expect pinpoint damage, you are wrong. If you think the weapon is optimal, you are wrong. If you think the weapon is useless garbage, you are wrong. I mean, we've got guys that haven't used them in live matches in over a year, after repeated tweaks were made to them, that haven't reevaluated their stances in the slightest, and expect to be taken seriously. That's a no-go where I come from.

[no one]

Roland, on 10 March 2014 - 08:12 PM, said:

Wintersdark, on 10 March 2014 - 07:54 PM, said:

Guys, I admire that you keep fighting the good fight and all, but there are some people to whom no amount of empirical evidence will ever outweigh their original opinion, no matter how unsubstantiated.

That said, there IS one aspect in which the LB-10X beats SRMs hands down (aside from hit detection), and that's speed. SRMs move at less than half the velocity of the slowest ballistic weapon 300 m/s to the LB-10X's 1100 m/s. That's not to say the LB-10X is really a useful weapon, it's not, but at least it's something that has a fart's chance in hell of hitting anything with an engine. SRMs also suffer from AMS, high heat and from detonating at their maximum range instead of continuing along a ballistic flight path. Oh, and they spread damage.

Wintersdark, while you're making videos, could I trouble you to do one or two for SRMs at some ranges?

[Roland]

Quote

Yeah, maybe that was the case over a year ago, when it was made. I did it at the same range with 3 double taps and a single. 7 rounds.

You understand that's still terrible though, right?

Quote

But killing fast against a stationary target in the training grounds does not mean you can reproduce those results against a moving target.

Indeed. In an actual match the LBX are absolutely useless against a light mech. You won't do any significant damage to him at all.

Quote

You can have AC20s out the wazoo, if you aren't hitting with them than the light jock does not consider you a credible threat. You tag him once or twice with the spread from an LBX, which is much easier to do, and he takes you seriously, and finds someone that can't hit him as consistently.

I drive a light mech quite often.

I can tell you that I have never, ever taken an LBX mech seriously. They are of absolutely no consequence to my light mechs. They can be safely ignored.

They hit me, but the damage is so insignificant that I know it isn't going to do ANYTHING to me. I simply stay at 300m and pick them apart, and their weapons are like BB guns. Maybe a third of the damage hits, and it's spread over the entirety of my mech. It's doing like ONE damage each to three different sections.

The LBX is easily one of the least effective weapons in the entire game against light mechs.. and this comes from a light mech pilot.

The only people who would be intimidated by it are folks who don't really understand that it's not doing real damage to them.

[Escef]

Roland, on 10 March 2014 - 08:40 PM, said:

Indeed. In an actual match the LBX are absolutely useless against a light mech. You won't do any significant damage to him at all.

I drive a light mech quite often.

You drive a light mech, but think there's such a thing as insignificant damage to a light?

Sure, why not?

[no one]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

You drive a light mech, but think there's such a thing as insignificant damage to a light?

Well let me put it this way -

If I'm in my Locust, and there's an LB-10X 'Mech 300 meters to my right and a bump in the ground ahead of me. . .

I slow down to take the bump.
Leg damage is serious business.

Edited by no one, 10 March 2014 - 08:50 PM.

[Roland]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

You drive a light mech, but think there's such a thing as insignificant damage to a light?

Sure, why not?

Believe it or not, even to my light mechs, one damage to each of three different panels? Yeah, not really significant.

It's effectively the same as someone just sweeping a medium laser over my mech.. In reality, it's generally LESS damaging.

Like I said, when I'm in a light mech, LBX mechs are easily the least threatening mechs on the field to me. I do not take them seriously at all, and I have yet to regret that decision by being surprised by them harming me.

[Wintersdark]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 08:33 PM, said:

Video is taking a long time to upload. However, I did verify that the Cicada does take 11 shots from twin LB10X to down at 350 meters. The Commando, however, which the video Roland posted shows taking 16 rounds to drop a Commando? Yeah, maybe that was the case over a year ago, when it was made. I did it at the same range with 3 double taps and a single. 7 rounds.

Errr, but that's still awful. I mean, really really bad. 3 doubletaps and a single to drop a STOCK (underarmored!) commando at 100m!

Quote

Would it be faster if I used UAC5s or an AC20? Sure. But killing fast against a stationary target in the training grounds does not mean you can reproduce those results against a moving target.

It would be faster with any other primary ballistic. AC2, AC5, AC10, AC20, or Gauss.

Quote

Mnay light jocks are paranoid of taking damage. You can have AC20s out the wazoo, if you aren't hitting with them than the light jock does not consider you a credible threat. You tag him once or twice with the spread from an LBX, which is much easier to do, and he takes you seriously, and finds someone that can't hit him as consistently.

Well, this is where Roland's pic earlier comes in. This is only if the light pilot is absolutely terrible, because a smart light pilot knows: It's physically impossible for many of those LBX pellets to actually hit him. Most will miss, because the spread is larger than his whole mech. He's MUCH safer dancing with an LBX Atlas than an AC20 atlas, as a hit with an AC20 will ***k him up. An IDEAL hit with LB-X's is going to be equivalent to a 4MG spider splattering him randomly for a couple seconds.

Quote

Yes, it's an intimidation weapon and a sandblaster. And if you use it correctly you will get results from it. If you expect to kill lights at range with it, you are wrong. If you expect pinpoint damage, you are wrong. If you think the weapon is optimal, you are wrong. If you think the weapon is useless garbage, you are wrong. I mean, we've got guys that haven't used them in live matches in over a year, after repeated tweaks were made to them, that haven't reevaluated their stances in the slightest, and expect to be taken seriously. That's a no-go where I come from.

Only bad pilots are intimidated by LB-X's. Sure, you don't use them against lights. Use them against Assaults. In every single case, every other primary ballistic is measurably superior, with the one debatable and highly specific situation of the AC10 vs. LB-X AC10 at <90m, where they are functionally identical.

As I said above, i use my LB-X's all the time. Because they're cool as hell. Boom! Smoke! Asplosions! I'm very familiar with how they work.

But I'm not married to any particular opinion; I can look at them objectively. They're just not as good as the other non-MG options, at absolutely everything.

And I'll repeat: I *WANT* them to be good. I like using them. I want them to be worse than an AC10 at range, but brutal when very close. I want them to have a good role. They just don't now, other than looking cool.

[Entail]

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.

I am sorry but the LBX is completely useless unless at point blank. The projectile mechanic functions like an srm, and again, only works at point blank. Especially won't work on light mechs. Every time I see a mech with an LBX on the field I deliberately
focus fire or chase it down because I know the returns are high and the risk low. LBX needs a
faster firing rate, less heat, higher straightforward damage, and possibly a new projectile mechanic to compete with the
normal AC10 or 2 AC5's.

[Wintersdark]

That's all the videos for tonight, though. It's bedtime for me.

I can't be any more clear than the 2AC5 vs. 2LBX AC10 videos above.

[Escef]

Roland, on 10 March 2014 - 08:52 PM, said:

Like I said, when I'm in a light mech, LBX mechs are easily the least threatening mechs on the field to me. I do not take them seriously at all, and I have yet to regret that decision by being surprised by them harming me.

And maybe that's why I've managed to get consistent results from it. Players listen to folks like you and ignore the fact that my twin LBX are backed up by 2 LLs, 2 MLs, and 4 Streak tubes. On top of those LBX I've got the guns of a high end medium on there as well.

Seriously, I've gotten pretty consistently good results from the mech. Not just damage, but kills as well. But you keep insisting that I shouldn't be able to do that. I'm not great at this game, I've been saying for some time that I'm positively mediocre.

So, if your powers of analysis are so great, you tell me what's happening here.

[Escef]

http://youtu.be/C5gAng9hDLo

Edited by Escef, 10 March 2014 - 09:28 PM.

[no one]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 08:58 PM, said:

And maybe that's why I've managed to get consistent results from it. Players listen to folks like you and ignore the fact that my twin LBX are backed up by 2 LLs, 2 MLs, and 4 Streak tubes. On top of those LBX I've got the guns of a high end medium on there as well.

So, if your powers of analysis are so great, you tell me what's happening here.

That you're doing good damage with the good and useful weapons you've paired with your sub-par weapons?

I can put a flamer on a 'Mech with an AC/20 and a LPL and wreck some 'Mechs but that does not make the flamer a good weapon.

Most likely what you're experiencing is a fringe benefit players that don't check the paper dolls of their opponents get when using the LB 10-X. That is, you have a higher chance of accidentally blowing off an almost-gone section of a severely damaged 'Mech when not aiming, because you're hitting several parts of that 'Mech a little. Thing is though, you could do the same thing, better with any other weapon better if you aimed at the damaged section.

Edited by no one, 10 March 2014 - 09:42 PM.