342 replies to this topic

[SweetJackal]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 April 2014 - 06:19 PM, said:

aaaaaaaand AC10 instantly obsoleted. Like in TT

On upping the pellet damage, I fully agree with you. Increasing the damage per pellet would have the LBX outperforming the AC/10.

What I would love to see is a maximum spread or a cylinder spread for the LBX instead of the Cone Spread we have now. This would have a simulated effect of Proxy Detonated Canister Rounds without going through the motions of coding it up and making it work outside of a 0-Lag environment.

Failing that, giving IS LBX the option of using Slug Rounds is also an option. This is a system being programmed for the Clans, so the problem of extra resources is negligible. An easy means of keeping it from making the AC/10 obsolete is to have every ton of LBX ammo being half slug and half cluster.

Hardly arbitrary, this simulates how multi-munition weapon systems mounted on modern vehicles are resupplied, to my knowledge. The M1A1 MBT can fire multiple types of munitions and even though SABOT rounds are the general purpose anti-tank munition I would doubt it is ever stocked with only that. Same thing can be said about light cannons found on Frigates, Destroyers and Cruisers.

In terms of gameplay balance and design it would force the usage of an LBX-AC/10 with both munition types in order to maintain it's gains in tonnage and crits. Being that an AC/10 with 1 ton of ammo would occupy the same commitment from a mech as an LBX-AC/10 with 2 Tons. Using an LBX exclusively for slug rounds would require double the commitment of tonnes and crits to ammo compared to the normal AC/10, which would be a pretty big tax for a minor range increase and heat reduction.

This means that a simple design gives more functionality and usage to the LBX-AC/10 without making it flat out better than an AC/10, using an LBX as a general combat weapon in place of the AC/10 would require a much higher investment into ammo.

Another means of setting them apart would be adding in special munitions. Like Caseless Rounds, halving the investment into ammo for the AC/10 at the cost of taking a Jam Chance, something we see on the UAC/5. Given that UACs and LBX, IIRC, cannot use specialty ammo at all it would allow performance increases of the specialty weapons without risking it completely overshadowing the standard models as they did in the TT.

Also, any comparison to an LBX firing faster than an AC/10 is complete bollocks and misinformation.

Edited by SuckyJack, 29 April 2014 - 07:29 PM.

[Lootee]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 April 2014 - 06:19 PM, said:

aaaaaaaand AC10 instantly obsoleted. Like in TT

There's nothing wrong with that. FASA realized the AC/10 was garbage. It weighed nearly as much as an AC/20 or Gauss Rifle. Only had the range of a weapon that weighed less than half as much as it did (Large Laser). Barely did any more damage than the laser and had explosive ammunition.

So they came up with the idea of a couple AC/10s (LBX and Ultra) that are actually worth using to replace the woefully subpar original. The LBX with the same range as a PPC, 4 tons lighter weight than a Gauss, less heat and two different kinds of ammunition made that class of weapon finally worth using.

If you want to toss the AC/10 a bone then add armor piercing, precision, high explosive alternate ammo types for the ordinary autocannons. But they were a bad weapon and LBX/Ultra was FASA's attempt to replace them with ones worth using.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Giving the LBX10 a slug round doesn't instantly make it better than an AC10.

For instance, the weapon velocity of the LBX10 slug could be slower than that of an AC10 (making the AC10 better at mid range or sniping), have more bullet drop or not be 100% accurate (since it IS a smooth bore weapon), or even have a recycle rate of 3 sec instead of the ac10's 2.5

Its not hard to include more features without invalidating older weapons, you just need common sense.

PanchoTortilla, on 29 April 2014 - 07:35 PM, said:

If you want to toss the AC/10 a bone then add armor piercing, precision, high explosive alternate ammo types for the ordinary autocannons. But they were a bad weapon and LBX/Ultra was FASA's attempt to replace them with ones worth using.

Oh god, what I could make in the mechlab if we had Caseless , AP or incendiary round for the AC10...

...please don't remind me of what a good mechwarrior game could be

Edited by mwhighlander, 29 April 2014 - 07:37 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 29 April 2014 - 06:20 PM, said:

Well, you could do what they did in TT, and give the AC10 different types of ammo.

eventually, but that was a pretty sorry way to try to fix it, and most of the ammo either made ZERO sense, or was not very good.

[Felicitatem Parco]

So... the question is:

Dual LBX-AC/10, or 3xAC/5...?

2 tons difference, but they both take up 12 slots and will fit in a single side torso (sans XL).

[Divine Retribution]

mwhighlander, on 29 April 2014 - 05:38 PM, said:

Kudos! Two valid reasons today on reasons to use the LBX. Assists and very late game cleanup.

+1 for finding something the LBX can do well!

Though not optimal, the LBX is useful throughout most of a match. The only times that it really isn't useful are during long range engagements and while everything is fresh, which isn't long after initial contact at medium and close ranges. I don't run my LBX build as a "just survive until the game is almost over" mech. I run it as a "get point blank to anything carrying PPCs or LRMs, add to focused fire, exploit the spread damage from LRMs, exploit the spread damage during public games from fire that is focused on a target, but not necessarily focused on a component, and create a weakness using the pinpoint capability of the 4 ML to exploit with the LBXs" mech. Again single impact weapons would perform better for finishing off damaged components, but the LBX still has use.

Anyway..

The LBX should be a direct upgrade to the standard AC that is capable of firing slugs, which is reflected in the cost. PGI doesn't want to make the standard AC obsolete, but I think it can simply be another sink such as the SHS -> DHS upgrade. If PGI never intends the LBX to be a viable upgrade of the AC, the cost of the LBX should reflect its mediocrity.

Increasing the damage per pellet of the LBX would increase its usefulness, but serves to mask the flawed convergence mechanic. Fixed weapons (torso mounted and arm mounted with an absence of a lower arm actuator), well, aren't. Players are comfortable knowing that weapons will pass through the reticle at whatever range the reticle is fixed on at the moment (not factoring in ballistics drop), but fixed weapons shouldn't behave this way. Players should need to compensate for the fixed aim point of the fixed weapons on their mechs, but lowest common denominator and all that.... so a per pellet damage increase or possibly dropping the heat per shot even lower would both be simple solutions that PGI might implement. The damage is a direct buff; lowering heat to 1 per shot is an indirect buff enabling LBX builds to use hotter backup weapons more often.

MischiefSC, on 29 April 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

I'm averaging 7.9 damage/hit - close to PPC performance. 14% higher hit rate and a higher overall damage/match I take it on.

That's for me anyway. How about others?

My LBX damage/hit is nowhere near my PPC damage per hit because of the spread. PPC can do full damage to one component (+ crit damage), not all LBX pellets will hit and crit an exposed component. That's the major issue of the LBX (not the best at its own fringe job), which seems to be reflected in my stats.

For comparison (using new stats only):

LBX: 2,434 fired, 1,999 hit (82.13% accuracy), 14,517 damage (7.26 damage/hit).
PPC: 8,260 fired, 5,163 hit (62.51% accuracy), 52,526 damage (10.17 damage/hit).

Accuracy isn't exact though (but probably fairly close), I goof off with the PPCs from time to time (under 90m friendly fire on teammates on comms, victory chainfire into space, etc).

Edited by Divine Retribution, 29 April 2014 - 08:17 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

The LBX-AC/10 weighs less and takes up less space -> It must be inferior to the AC/10, or else they did it wrong.

I think we can (read: should) all agree on that. Cost is not a factor in determining battlefield worthiness, only space, tons, and hardpoints determine how much effectiveness something should have on the field. A Large Laser weighs more and takes up more space than a Medium Laser, therefore a Large Laser should be better than a Medium Laser in a 1-to-1 comparison of battlefield effectiveness. The LBX-AC/10 weighs less and takes up less space than a AC/10, therefore it should be less combat-worthy on a 1-to-1 scale, as well.

(edit - Also, Heat... but with the ACs it's not too much a factor outside of the AC/2.)

Edited by Prosperity Park, 29 April 2014 - 08:16 PM.

[Divine Retribution]

Prosperity Park, on 29 April 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

The LBX-AC/10 weighs less and takes up less space -> It must be inferior to the AC/10, or else they did it wrong.

Except that the LBX was simply an improved AC capable of firing cluster rounds. The materials used in creating a better AC is why the cost of the LBX is so much higher than standard ACs, hence my line of thought that the LBX should simply be a direct upgrade from the standard AC. 1.5 million cbills to upgrade SHS to DHS, 400k cbills (minus standard AC/10 resale value) to upgrade from an AC/10 to an LBX/10. Other LBX calibers may eventually show up. I don't usually care much about canon, but I'm not a fan of denying a primary reason why something exists.

New technology eventually makes old technology obsolete, I don't see why it should be different here.

Edited by Divine Retribution, 29 April 2014 - 08:30 PM.

[Sephlock]

LBXes are great for killstealing fire support.

[El Bandito]

MischiefSC, on 29 April 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

It's actually not bad. Not bad at all. Better than a standard AC10. Bishop Steiner proposed running a 2xLB10X, 4xMG and 2xML Jag DD for kicks as a troll build.

Shockingly, it kicks ass. Not a little; a lot. Performing better than AC40 on the same build.

To be an ass about it, I proposed that build before him, in this thread. I called it the Hyena Jager.

http://mwomercs.com/...ilds-that-work/

Edited by El Bandito, 29 April 2014 - 08:55 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

El Bandito, on 29 April 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:

To be an ass about it, I proposed that build before him, in this thread. I called it the Hyena Jager.

http://mwomercs.com/...ilds-that-work/

similar, but not identical. Slasers weak. Mlasers useful. But no, never read your post. Glad small minds think alike though! (afterall, it is not meta, so it has to be inferior!)

Divine Retribution, on 29 April 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

Except that the LBX was simply an improved AC capable of firing cluster rounds. The materials used in creating a better AC is why the cost of the LBX is so much higher than standard ACs, hence my line of thought that the LBX should simply be a direct upgrade from the standard AC. 1.5 million cbills to upgrade SHS to DHS, 400k cbills (minus standard AC/10 resale value) to upgrade from an AC/10 to an LBX/10. Other LBX calibers may eventually show up. I don't usually care much about canon, but I'm not a fan of denying a primary reason why something exists.

New technology eventually makes old technology obsolete, I don't see why it should be different here.

because unfortunately, "reality" and balance in games, especially FPS game seldom have anything in common. EVERYTHING has to actually have a reason. Maybe if they still had RnR, then it could work, though that opens a different can of worms.. So basically, we COULD do that to the LB-X, but then they need to remove the AC10 entirely.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 29 April 2014 - 09:25 PM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

The LBX felt weaker tonight, but my aim was really off with all the drastic changes to my FPS which messed with how fast my crosshairs moved ect....

still.... Not quite the same satisfying punch. I actually prefer SRMs now for that genuine blunderbuss effect of shredding someone's face.

[SweetJackal]

Prosperity Park, on 29 April 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

The LBX-AC/10 weighs less and takes up less space -> It must be inferior to the AC/10, or else they did it wrong.

I think we can (read: should) all agree on that.

Not quite. Also remember to include the ammo required to make it an effective weapon and there are other ways of putting in costs or downsides other than the investment the mech needs to make to use it or it's flat effectiveness in combat.

So, more complicated than your statement implies but it is truth.

Divine Retribution, on 29 April 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

Except that the LBX was simply an improved AC capable of firing cluster rounds. The materials used in creating a better AC is why the cost of the LBX is so much higher than standard ACs, hence my line of thought that the LBX should simply be a direct upgrade from the standard AC. 1.5 million cbills to upgrade SHS to DHS, 400k cbills (minus standard AC/10 resale value) to upgrade from an AC/10 to an LBX/10. Other LBX calibers may eventually show up. I don't usually care much about canon, but I'm not a fan of denying a primary reason why something exists.

New technology eventually makes old technology obsolete, I don't see why it should be different here.

Because art doesn't have to imitate life. Game design should be aimed at pruning the experience the game itself offers and not trying to mimic the situations in the real world.

Where things get complicated is game design differences between single and multiplayer and how those designs affect how the game is played.

In MWO we have strict player matching, 12 vs 12, in closed matches which means for a fair player environment that means that each of the 12 players must be given the opportunity to have an equal impact on the match. Which means creating an "Equal Yet Different" design for the game.

The question becomes, what sort of game to we get if we were to allow the LBX to be better in every way to it's regular AC counterparts without any cost? The simple answer is that players would use the LBX over the AC in the same caliber. Which limits meaningful player choice, creates an arms race (which is either a tax on builds or another grind) and we get situations where you have high tech players facing lower tech players, in other words players with higher numbers being matched against players with lower numbers.

While creating a situation where one player is just straight out better in terms of the numbers in the mechanics than other characters without costs or downsides attached to it is acceptable in a singleplayer game to the point this is called being a "Power Fantasy" it isn't so acceptable in multiplayer games as the players that are being forced to be fodder to that fantasy are other players. Such a design would create a negative player experience on the 'have nots' which means a stunted player growth or even bleeding players becomes a very real situation.

The problem behind having Economic Means being the balancing factor for otherwise flat out better equipment is that this is a Free To Play game and it offers means of boosting your economic gains by spending real money. That is, -IF- Repair And Rearm was still a thing and -IF- it was used to balance out flat out better equipment then we would be in a situation that promotes Paying For An Advantage in the form of Hero Mechs, Premium Time and C-Bills For MC as they would be the means of staying in your "Flat Out Better" builds while paying away the downsides to them, allowing you to continue to play them and face against players pushed out of their own "Flat Out Better" builds by those same economic means.

Which is what WoT pretty much designed their entire game around. It's extremely exploitative, anti-consumer delivery system designed as a game second and a system to separate you from your money first and that's as far as I am going to speak on that.

If the game was to make the LBX-AC/10 flat out better in every way to the AC/10 then -at best- we would have a mimic of the Single Heat Sink Vs Double Heat Sink situation.

Edited by SuckyJack, 29 April 2014 - 09:30 PM.

[vash021]

I dont know why but i always love troll builds they are fun to play with

[James DeGriz]

I don't think it's possible to objectively say whether an ac10 is better or worse than an LBX10 is it? Both weapons operate on a different philosophy of dealing their damage, and so whether you prefer one or the other is going to depend how you play. Scalpel or sand blaster?

Personally I love the LBX10, especially when it's paired with SRMs.

[Johnny Reb]

Regardless, they let us low spec players die! Closed beta did 30-40 , now lucky if I im lucky ( with cfg tweeks)15! I would be done, but love mechwarrior!

Guess I play more Dark Souls! Not paying a cent more...... Unless Urbie, but NO!

Edited by Johnny Reb, 29 April 2014 - 10:35 PM.

[Deathlike]

Weird MWO stat tracking @ work...

LB 10-X AC 2 156 131 83.97% 00:12:03 1,055

I've dropped into at least 5 matches with them... so whatever the stat guys are churning out... I'm not sure what they are counting... maybe wins?

Many losses occurred and I did have one very good game with them.

Right now 7k of 21.5k XP to master, and for now, it still sucks. I'd rather have the AC10 instead under many instances. In fact, it look like 4 LBX10 shots to the exposed back of an Atlas before I killed it. It took so damm long.. I would've been finished with an AC10 long before that. This distance was between 100 and 200m. That's just pain sad.

Edit:
The only way I think would balance them is to "reduce the RNG effect with them". Clustering them together more would help AND increasing the damage per pellet...

However, I think some half-arsed idea could work (sadly)... but GUARANTEEING that 3 of the 10 pellets hit where the reticule is aiming at (it can be spread a little as needed). The purpose of aiming the LBX is to concentrate fire into a section, but it's really doing a crap job than ASRM4. If anything, I would say that an ASRM4+ASRM6 would do the same job of the LBX and then some (10 missiles, 2 damage each), because the concentration is pretty much like taking a huge blast to the section it directly hits. LBX is like running SRM12s (3 SRM4s or 2 SRM6s).. it's just not effective at all.

I'm pretty sure after playtesting it more... that my conclusion is no different from what I'm saying now. I'm getting into the proper range (under 200m) and no dice. It's just not killing anything unless the RNG gods work in my favor... and the RNG gods are working better for the UAC5 than the LBX10.

Edited by Deathlike, 29 April 2014 - 10:48 PM.

[MischiefSC]

So I've still got a lot of drops before I call anything viable (like I said, my goal is 80) but I'm noticing something.

My accuracy with LB10Xs is climbing with experience, as you'd expect. It's just shy of 80% right now. My damage per hit is around 7.9, but my damage per trigger pull is almost exactly 6 points.

The result is consistent damage whenever I have a target in range and in sight. I compare that to, say, PPCs, and I'm closer to 5 points per trigger pull on average. While the PPCs are pinpoint damage and my LB10X damage spreads I'm finding that less and less significant - especially if I've paired my LBs with lasers to help peel armor.

This gets explosively different when I look at, say, missiles. I do decent work with ASRM4s, but my damage per trigger-pull for them is 1.2 points. You scale that up for tonnage (*4) and you're still at 4.8 - less consistent, viable damage.

My KDR has slipped up a bit on my Banshee - 0.06. Not bad for a dozen matches against a weight of 187 matches to put it at its current location.

I'm not going to say it's 'better' yet, but I'm getting more a feel for what's changed.

It's hitting more reliably. No question, hands down, compared to what I used to get out of LB10Xs it's significant. When I look at my grandfathered stats for LB10X I'm more than a full point up. 1.04/trigger pull, or about 17%. Both grandfathered and current are running at 79% accuracy, the current stats are just putting up more damage.

More importantly with new hit detection I'm getting better registration on crits. Before, if front armor was exposed and back armor was intact (not uncommon) poor hit detection would push that pellet to the back armor instead of registering on a crit-producing internal location. Result is very, very consistent destruction of internals and damage multiplication against exposed components.

Again - it's not some dramatic improvement, but it's significant. ERPPCs got a 16% heat nerf and it took them from peak meta to trash. This isn't that....

but it is counting. Like any weapon it depends on the build, but I'm finding the LB10Xs to be solid performers now, where as before they were not. Lemme do another 12 matches and update stats and come back. I'd love it if someone else was doing something as specific, it'd help to compare range of stat shift - if other people are finding approximately 17% better performance with current stats vs archived, that's starting to move beyond anecdotal.

[Black Templar]

Imho the whole "crit-seeking" potential of the LB10-X is crap. I would never take a weapon which is spreading it's damage potential all over my target for a random chance of doing more damage. Other than that, I still want this weapon to be useful. So here are my suggestions.

Caliber 10 ACs need balancing in terms of range and damage. Current stats from smurfy

LB10-X AC
6 Slots
11t
10 Damage + random crits
2 Heat
2.5s Cooldown
540m optimal range
1620m maximum range

AC/10
7 Slots
12t
10 Damage
3 Heat
2.5s Cooldown
450m maximum optimal range
1350m maximum range

Why does the shotgun have greater range than the slug again? Shotguns are supposed to be close range heavy hitters. I would try the following balancing approach.

LB10-X AC 2.0
Further tightened the spread.
Increased cockpit shake when target is hit by all 10 pellets.
6 Slots
11t
Critical Hit capabilities removed.
10 Damage to armored sections. 0.5 extra damage per pellet to exposed internal structure for a total of 15 damage against unarmored sections.
2 Heat
2.5s Cooldown
450m (maybe 500m) optimal range (down from 540m)
1000m maximum range (down from 1350m)

AC/10 2.0
7 Slots
12t
10 Damage
3 Heat
2.5s Cooldown
550m optimal range (up from 450m)
12000m maximum range (down from 1350m)

Further on the PGI could remove critical hits entirely and give the same internal structure damge bonus to Flamers, MGs and SSRM2s. This change would give players a reason to use these weapons other then having fun or trolling. However an adjustment in total internal structure HP could be necessary to balance that out.

On the spread of the LB10-X:

Shotguns work/are popular in other FPSs, because they deal good damage and targets have ONE healthpool: e.g. a target with 100 health can be dealt 100 damage to it's arm, dies and is no longer a threat. As we all know, this rule doesn't apply to MW:O. Mechs with their arms taken out and one leg can still oppose a threat. Pinpoint accurate damage will therefore always be superior in MW:O, since the TTK (time to kill) is less.
It is therefore almost necessary to further tighten the spread of LB10-X to make it a competitive weapon.

If you are interested in how critical hits really work, I suggest you read this thread:
http://mwomercs.com/...-a-brief-guide/

Edited by Black Templar, 30 April 2014 - 01:06 AM.

[Divine Retribution]

MischiefSC, on 30 April 2014 - 12:05 AM, said:

I'd love it if someone else was doing something as specific, it'd help to compare range of stat shift - if other people are finding approximately 17% better performance with current stats vs archived, that's starting to move beyond anecdotal.

Current stats for LBX: 82.13% accuracy, 7.26 damage per hit.
Archived stats for LBX: 79.54% accuracy, 7.42 damage per hit.

I'd say the differences are pretty minimal. It may be the additional partial hits since the stats reset increased my accuracy but lowered my damage per shot.

SuckyJack, on 29 April 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

If the game was to make the LBX-AC/10 flat out better in every way to the AC/10 then -at best- we would have a mimic of the Single Heat Sink Vs Double Heat Sink situation.

I think the AC/10 still has a faster projectile speed which assists in long range firing, though I'm too lazy to check and be sure. The AC/10 could be made more durable than the LBX, have slightly more ammo per ton than the LBX, or be given some other reason for players to bring it. Some things will outclass others, there is no way around that.

It's a practical impossibility to ensure that everything is equal. Just as SHS are worse in nearly every situation, so too should the AC/10. Players throw 1.5 million cbills down the sink, per mech, just to be remotely comparable to the opposition. 400k cbills is just too much for the 1 ton, 1 crit slot, and 1 less heat per shot (the last benefit could be easily removed) piece of equipment that is transferable between mechs? How long would it take to grind for that 400k, 4-5 matches? Hardly what I would consider an arms race. Would it make the AC/10 useless?

Even now this game has haves and have nots; some players are fairly new and still grinding towards building a mech that can stand a chance against veteran opponents. Those same players are already forced to fight against veteran players in their sub-optimal mechs as part of their grind. At the other end are players that have run out of things to spend cbills on. Many already spend 80k cbills a match on strikes because the cbills mean nothing. There are also modules that give slight weapons improvements for minimal negative consequences. Trial mechs can't equip these modules; new players can't afford these modules. Free to Play involves a grind to get what you want and what is considered the best, players wanting to avoid that grind is a portion of how F2P games make money.

There is no more RNR, so ongoing cost is not an issue. If RNR were still around, then I think it could be problematic as those using premium time could afford the repairs more easily, allowing them to continue using a clearly superior weapon when a F2Per might not. As it is, it is a piece of equipment that is obtainable by every player in the game. If the player is willing to share equipment between mechs, the cost of purchasing 2-3 is hardly unreasonable.