342 replies to this topic

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Deathlike, on 30 April 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

LBX10 build for now:
SHD-2D

Try this Shadowhawk. I was having a moderate amount of success with it back when the Shawks were new and shiny.

SHD- 2xPPC, LBX10@2

I'm quite sure I had this on the 5M instead, so swap the arms, but I'm lazy and just opened your new 2D link and rebuilt it there. I actually forgot they included the new variants.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 30 April 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Well, I'm going to throw an LB10x on my victor to see how it works.

But from past experience, it simply isn't worth it for the most part. Rather large CoF at 300M, same cooldown as an AC10, little less heat, one less ton.

But I'll try it none the less.

Best thing to do would be to get everyone into a private match and do real testing, which myself and sigil will try doing tonight. Anyone else is free to join us. Testing can also be just dueling LB10x VS AC10 or UAC, or true testing such as CoF at range.

Again, read the posts, first. I don't think anyone is saying if you can take one, an AC10, LBX or AC20, take the LB-X.......
Unless it synergizes well with the rest of your build. I don't find, usually a single, SRM rack, LBX, MG OR UAC to be the worth of tu.rd, in most cases. Even the PPC, IMO is of limited utility, solo. I do find when paired, or otherwise used en masse, or with certain other weapon groups, they can work amazingly better than expected.

Honestly, I have never used a single LB-X terribly well, though it works OK in my Wolverine (seems to stack better with the triple SRM4 than the UAC did......yet my SHAD-2D2 stacks a single UAC very well with 4x SSRMs) and my previous attempts in the VTR, honestly didn't wow me. But, I have also been looking for a new use for my 9B, so I think I will take Napes399's advice and try this VTR-9B

And see how it works. TBH; with bigger Assaults anyhow, I have had mixed results because I find you need good twist and maneuvering to use them real well. VTR is a little gimped, but still a lot more mobile than most Assaults, so worth a shot. The La Malinche build I settled on does use an LB-X (mostly because I could not use an XL, and the High Torso mount for an ER PPC with a standard AC10) and it seems to work well, but slow, with the paired LPL in the arms. But that mech is certainly a non-optimal grinding brawler that relies more on outlasting the opponent (which with a 380XL for speed, huge arms and surprising mobility considering how atrocious all other Banshees move, it usually can do quite handily), rather than outgunning them. I can only imagine how well it might actually have worked if it had kept the JJs they initially had in it.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 April 2014 - 12:25 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 30 April 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Well, I'm going to throw an LB10x on my victor to see how it works.

But from past experience, it simply isn't worth it for the most part. Rather large CoF at 300M, same cooldown as an AC10, little less heat, one less ton.

But I'll try it none the less.

Best thing to do would be to get everyone into a private match and do real testing, which myself and sigil will try doing tonight. Anyone else is free to join us. Testing can also be just dueling LB10x VS AC10 or UAC, or true testing such as CoF at range.

Thing is, does private match provide "real" testing? It creates an artificial, "dueling" environment, which is NOT what we play in during a match. Nor has anyone claimed it to be able to topple the Meta in an organized 12 man. The only "real" test, is to use it as most promoting it in this post have, in the knuckle dragging, gutter fighting of PUG matches. During sheer unadulterated, cat herding chaos.

There is a reason, as I have stated, and as is fact, that Things don't go from the lab, to the front. However theory crafted something is, it needs testing in actual "intended use" environments. On paper, a shotgun should be avoided by a military, because it's limitations significantly limit it's realm of use. Yet when used in the right environment, it can greatly exceed the "Meta" approved m4 carbine (Tunnel and cave fighting, building clearing, etc). Doesn't make the shotgun a "viable" all purpose weapon, but it does have it's rather useful niche.

mwhighlander, on 30 April 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

Try this Shadowhawk. I was having a moderate amount of success with it back when the Shawks were new and shiny.

SHD- 2xPPC, LBX10@2

I'm quite sure I had this on the 5M instead, so swap the arms, but I'm lazy and just opened your new 2D link and rebuilt it there. I actually forgot they included the new variants.

I am toying with trying this should I cbill buy a SHD-2D

[SethAbercromby]

CCC Dober, on 30 April 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

Guys, don't waste your time testing isolated weapons in duels. The LBX10 is a weapon with a steadily increasing threat potential the more damage the target has sustained. It will suck in a straight up comparison with the AC10 because it works best in tandem with other weapons that weaken the armor enough to exploit.

What you need to do instead is mix the AC10 and LBX10 with complementary weapons (on the same Mech) and see which one achieves the best results in their optimum fighting ranges. This is how you test them the way they are meant to be used. Otherwise its apples to oranges and the comparison has no value in typical combat situations.

The mixing I agree with but you cannot lab test a weapon reliably. Someone already stated here somewhere that the American M-16 was superior in a lab test but proved to be vastly inferior on the field compared to the AK-47 because it suffered from weather and environment conditions and was prone to breakdowns, while the AK was extremely resistant to the environment and more reliable.

The only way to really test the LBs is on the field against supposedly superior weapon loadouts. If there is a noticeable trend of the LB loadouts losing against AC10 loadouts, it can be considered inferior. Lab testing always favors pinpoint damage and FLD, which why the LB is considered inferior in the first place.

Edited by SethAbercromby, 30 April 2014 - 12:56 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

SethAbercromby, on 30 April 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

The mixing I agree with but you cannot lab test a weapon reliably. Someone already stated here somewhere that the American M-16 was superior in a lab test but proved to be vastly inferior on the field compared to the AK-47 because it suffered from weather and environment conditions and was prone to breakdowns, while the AK was extremely resistant to the environment and more reliable.

The only way to really test the LBs is on the field against supposedly superior weapon loadouts. If there is a noticeable trend of the LB loadouts losing against AC10 loadouts, it can be considered inferior. Lab testing always favors pinpoint damage and FLD, which why the LB is considered inferior in the first place.

"Someone" agrees

[CCC Dober]

Yeah, things like that happen from time to time Bishop. Accidentally, I can assure you

But he has a point that steering clear of pure 'lab results' is preferable. I thought it was a given, going by the Atlas example I've used earlier. Solo pug drops of course, as premades tend to influence your results (because the latter have more focus fire and targets die faster). My bad, should have been more specific. Good catch anyway =)

Edited by CCC Dober, 30 April 2014 - 01:14 PM.

[General Taskeen]

It will be marvelous once the utterly useless IS Paul-BX-2 Arrives in the game at some distant time in the game's future. Originally a sniper autocannon (all LB-X are essentially 'sniper' AC's), which will shoot two pellets with enormous spread with 1 damage per pellet.

[Roland]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

believe what you will. I don't intend to waste anymore time or breath on the matter. I will just keep wasting the OpFor with my completely useless weaponry. Because I'm just magic like that.

Honestly, your best course of action would just be to present concrete evidence to support your case.

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

Last Poptart I faced


Amazing how not superior they are when they don't have 2-3 buddies with them.

The Mac Truck is the pop-tart, right?

I'm just screwing with ya man. I'd definitely welcome seeing some good concrete evidence of the LBX's effectiveness.

[CCC Dober]

Roland, what are you waiting for? Scared to find out that LBX do what they do best at close range? Performance anxiety? Worried about your precious stats? Yeah, that must be it. C'mon man, don't be such a *****. Do some actual science

[Roland]

CCC Dober, on 30 April 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

Roland, what are you waiting for? Scared to find out that LBX do what they do best at close range? Performance anxiety? Worried about your precious stats? Yeah, that must be it. C'mon man, don't be such a *****. Do some actual science

I've run tests previously, in prior cases where others suggested that the LBX were good... but after testing, they were consistently inferior to other options.

At this point, since some folks are so convinced that they are really good, I'm just hoping that they will conduct the necessary testing to actually prove their beliefs, rather than just using anecdotal evidence of specific games where they did well.

In the past, I was the guy who did testing... at some point, maybe some other folks can actually help do some of it, especially since they are so convinced of the LBX's utility. Especially since they'll be much more inclined to believe the results of their own testing.

[Trauglodyte]

The LB is really an odd ugly duckling weapon. There are people that use it and do well with it and there are others that suck at it. It is, at its very essence, the combination of an LRM10 and an ASRM6 but all without the lock on mechanism. It is such a square peg in a round hole that I, personally, don't know what to do with it. I really want to use it because 1) it sounds freaking awesome and 2) it has potential. The problem for me, though, is that I look at it withe mindset that I'd rather have SRMs than it because I can take a multitude of weapons that will work beyond 270m to cover yourself.

What is worse is that the primary benefit of the LB is being turned into a mockery because of the critical hit system currently in use. Because crit damage isn't capped, all weapons doing large sums of damage will, in the end, be better because, when they do crit, they instantly remove an item in the slot where the crit took place. FURTHERMORE, and lot of people forget this, 15% of all crit damage done goes back to the internal structure. So, let's look at some situations for the AC10 vs. the LB 10:

1) The AC10 doesn't crit vs. the LB crits with 3 of the pellets; AC does 10 damage vs. the LB's 10.45 damage
2) The AC10 doesn't crit vs. the LB crits with 6 of the pellets; AC does 10 damage vs. the LB's 10.9 damage
3) The AC10 crits vs. the LB crits with 10 pellets; both do 11.5 damage

In the final instance, the AC10 just removed every item in the game except for the AC20. The LB might, depending on how many items are in the location, end up removing something. What you're really hoping for is that you get a few mother load crits on the pellets. But, the situations listed above are all assuming that you're getting 100% of the 10 pellets in a location whose armor has been exposed. That means that you're firing within 300m which, again, goes back to the question: "Why take an LB if you can take SRMs?" I'm seriously trying because I've got a Jager A that is collecting dust since I bought the Firebrand.

At the end of the day, FOR ME, when I want something to punch a hole into a location that I have to aim for (note: not LRMs or streaks), I'm not going to take the LB. If I have a ballistic slot and I want something that has crit potential, I'm going to take a MG. The LB, because of how PGI has coded it, has turned it into an extremely heavy SRM with worse spread and less heat with a range that is nothing but a lie.

Now, before anyone (and don't you do it, Bishop) jumps me for it, I ran an LB setup over the weekend. It was a UAC5, LB, and some SRMs. I'm currently toying with a few options because of this thread:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f8800d85a01b640
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...298cf66ca7edda8
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...877855323f90612

But, when I look at it all from an analytical stand point and mull over the famous Jimmy Hoffa question of, "What is to be lost and what is to be gained?", I'm left wondering why, other than the fun **** and giggles aspect.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 30 April 2014 - 01:57 PM.

[Deathlike]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

As I said, I am done wasting my time, so now I am wasting everyone else's. I have no need to rehash what has been printed by myself, MischiefSC and dozens of others on here. Continue to dismiss it as ad hominem, or however you like, but FACT is in the doing. We have all been doing and posting about it. You, Roland and others keep posting to tell us how wrong and misguided we are.

Roland and many others have been primarily saying "there are better options available". That's the general message. That implies that the LBX itself needs some help before we change our tune..

Quote

So, since it is essentially blowing down to several people who could give a leaky drizzle less what the MetaLords think, posting "Hey, we have been having a lot of fun and success running build-X, it has been surprisingly effective, in fact WE HAVE BEEN DOING BETTER IN IT, OBJECTIVELY SEEN BY IMPROVED MATCH PERFORMANCES (or in my case, simply much more consistent in it)" only to have the inevitable descent of the MetaVultures to any topic that would dare say something non MetaApproved could have a place, and then summarily tell us how we are BADs, misguided and wrong, can't say I exactly see where you are coming from.

My match performances TODAY have been better with the LBX. Unfortunately, it's not actually translating into kills... just more increased "damage" (most likely crit based). I could post you 2 or 3 good games I had with them, and yet I felt like I was using Streaks. Padding damage numbers and getting usually no kills with them unless my target is some light mech. At least with Streaks, I know what I'm getting into. LBX is my unholy RNG monster.

Quote

Fact. I am using them on certain builds, with certain weapon combinations and getting BETTER results than when running the "approved" builds. End of the day, I really don't give a crap if I have the Forums Overlords approval on it.

If you really believe in the numbers, then congrats. I have been saying that numbers don't always tell the entire story. I could collect ~200 damage by arty and have died no less than 2 minutes into the match. If you truly believe that LBX is working, good for you. However, I'm also saying that you need to understand what those numbers are. Most of the time, people don't really think about the numbers they are generating. I have asked previously for stat info after matches (for your own personal reference). I guess such things are Lostech.

Let me reiterate the MG example. PRIOR to MGs getting that massive crit damage converting to actual internal damage buff... people have ACTUALLY said those damage numbers were PROOF POSITIVE that the MG was working well for them. This was a weapon at the time that I had stated "tickled me". There were Spider-5Ks that tried to troll me, and I could vigorously IGNORE THEM in combat while their teammates died. That's how BAD they were. This wasn't some figment of my imagination.

I will use another heavily used RNG based weapon as an example... the almighty Streak.

As PGI has described before (not sure where anymore) that Streaks follow a RNG-based system, giving weights to each part of a mech's body (where the head is not even considered a target - if it gets hit, it's because you moved into the missile) and this was applied across the board to all mechs (although BJs were noted to take it CT, due to whatever PGI messed up... I wonder why...). Mind you, Streaks actually work BETTER on some mechs due to mech geometry... like Jenners. For a mech that's kinda like 66% CT, Streaks tend to core out Jenners a lot more than say a Firestarter or even a Raven... just based on that alone. Now, this doesn't mean Jenners necessarily need a "nosejob" or something like that.... it's just an inherent issue with the chassis. I still think Streaks needs to be working differently (because they strip light mechs faster than any other weapon, despite the natural scatter of the weapon and the speed/direction of the target vs the missile).

I trust Streaks to work the way they do, by their own design. If I boat more Streaks, I will usually get one missile to make the decisive kill over a Jenner or CT-heavy mech. I cannot make the same confident statements for the LBX. I could only wish LBX would do something remotely close, but it simply does not do it. LBX and Streaks are not exactly the most fair or apt comparison and I clearly understand that... but the nature of the RNG works a lot more AGAINST the LBX than it does the Streak missile.


Look, I'm ALWAYS open to trying a revised weapon. It's just in my nature to WANT to love each and every weapon and use them where the situation benefits me. I EVEN GAVE THE PREVIOUSLY TERRIBLE WEAPON THE NARC A CHANCE! It's still a terrible weapon, but that has to do more with the state of ECM but more importantly hitreg. When a weapon doesn't fit a proper role or niche, I have mentioned them (pulse lasers and small lasers come to mind). If you're thinking I'm not open to change... whether it is the meta or the not-so-meta, you're wrong. I'm doing the ****ing best I can to express how much LBX is "not there yet" trying to convince the powers that be (or nerfhammer master) that there's still something to be done here. I'm not even sure he cares or cares to read it. If everything worked the way one has described it, would I not join your chorus of repeating the same thing? I probably would if that were the case, but unfortunately it isn't.

In my heart, I want to be convinced the LBX is in a good place. It is not, even when I am at facehugging range. I'm not sure how much facehugging I can do in the "face" of the meta, and try to keep myself together while playing this game. Being anti-meta is fun occasionally, and it's great to run undesirable chassis like the Commando... only to learn why it's a good or terrible mech. I post a lot about mechs and what they can and cannot do... whether I share in the opinions of some is up the reader to decide, but they still have to admit the counter-points that have existed about such things. It keeps things honest, even if you don't want to hear it.

I'm almost thinking I'm writing a plea for help, but anyways, don't just rail on me because I have a differing opinion. Rail on PGI for not taking a serious look into what the "meta" or "Elo" has been saying. They don't say it because it's fun to call terribad weapons bad (although, it's amusing at times). It simply means that certain weapons need to be looked at a bit more. What is exploration of things if we only believe what others have told us before? LBX is just simply not where it should be, and while we laugh @ MGs being bad... it hasn't stopped 12-mans fielding Embers... because they are the best platform. It doesn't mean that MGs are THAT awesome though... but they serve a role (particularly in that chassis) that isn't filled by better alternatives.

I'm just trying too hard...

mwhighlander, on 30 April 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

Try this Shadowhawk. I was having a moderate amount of success with it back when the Shawks were new and shiny.

SHD- 2xPPC, LBX10@2

I'm quite sure I had this on the 5M instead, so swap the arms, but I'm lazy and just opened your new 2D link and rebuilt it there. I actually forgot they included the new variants.

Semi-meta approved? Just stop. Don't make the Shadowhawk cry.

Edited by Deathlike, 30 April 2014 - 02:14 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

If PGI would just bite the bullet and give the LBX-AC10 increased damage per pellet then a lot of problems with it would simply go away and it'd definitively have its own place in MWO.

[Bishop Steiner]

Deathlike, on 30 April 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

If you really believe in the numbers, then congrats. I have been saying that numbers don't always tell the entire story.

Still missing the point, but I can understand that as this Thread continues to expand.

I have seen an increase in damage, KDr and average kills per match. While the numbers we have available are far from enough to give the full picture, seeing an improvement in ALL measurable areas would seem to indicate improvement, yes?

Thus the hypothesis proposed in the OP, by a person who is not an LB-X fan, and supported by another person who is NOT an LB-X fan (myself, believe it or not, I have no agenda. I have generally also not used LB-X), that for whatever reason (as yet not ascertained) that for players running certain builds, with synergistic weaponry, and with certain play styles, what started as a fun troll build seems to have given demonstrably improved performance.

At no point did the OP, or myself ever say the LB-X was better than ANYTHING, nor that it could not still use a buff. We did say, and have been proving through our gameplay, the only "Laboratory" we have, that the LB-X has actually proven shockingly viable, in some scenarios. (Much as LRMs and AC20s are violently viable in some scenarios, and utterly worthless in others). It OP and myself have been running a specific build on a Jagermech. The LB-X and the 4MG seem to have acted as significant force multipliers to each other's strong points, as it is running far better than expected.

Some like Khobai, have gone out of the way to thump the "ac10 better, every way, every day" drum, yet my testing has not found that to be the case, at least in this sample, since running the JM6-DD with 2 ac10, 4 MG and 2 Mediums returned significantly lower results for me. Thus, be it from crit multipliers working in conjunction(?) or what, on this build, the LB-X has been better for me in results, and more to the point, so far, MORE CONSISTENT than the same mech running with 2 UAC, 2 AC10 or as a BoomJager. (I have had higher scoring matches with the Boom and the UAC, with more kills, but my averages in all areas are lower, indicating more matches with LESS damage and kills, too)

Thus, returning to the Hypothesis, that contrary to conventional wisdom, it might well be worth experimenting with and seeing if there are OTHER builds that demonstrate similar weapon synergy.

To which the MetaOverlords can now reply "well when I tested them I found them inferior". So if several veteran players have tested them, and found them to be very effective situationally, and several others tested and feel them ineffective, where does that leave us?

Is it possible one of the reasons some found them ineffective was because they were indeed trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and trying to force them to work in scenarios they wanted them to, instead of finding the scenarios that the weapon DID work well? (Again, a scenario MischiefSC can attest to with his difficulties with the Battlemaster. Since trying to use them in a different role, he seems to have found them much more successful). No, LB-X are not a terribly good poptart weapon, nor do I think they work well solo, or am I personally fond of them in big slow mechs. But used on fast brawly types (The Ilya, IMO loses to much speed as a XXX), in numbers, and especially combined with other crit seeking weapons, several veteran players have catalogued and increase in their effectiveness.

I don't know how much more spelled out I can make it. (And no, unless I get a day home sick, I doubt I am going to upload and post every end of match screen to "prove it". In fact, perhaps it would be better to NOT prove it. So that I can continue to enjoy me weapons in peace.)

[Roland]

Quote

Thus, returning to the Hypothesis, that contrary to conventional wisdom, it might well be worth experimenting with and seeing if there are OTHER builds that demonstrate similar weapon synergy.

To which the MetaOverlords can now reply "well when I tested them I found them inferior". So if several veteran players have tested them, and found them to be very effective situationally, and several others tested and feel them ineffective, where does that leave us?

If they conducted actual tests and presented their data, then we would re-evaluate the weapon's utility.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

If they conducted actual tests and presented their data, then we would re-evaluate the weapon's utility.

thing is, no asked you to. Believe it or not, most of us don't care. Some of us DO care that every time we non Meta folk want to discuss something, we get to have your opinions rammed down our throats "for our own good".

(Am waiting to see your exhaustive spreadsheets to the contrary conclusion, if that is how you want to roll)

So please, leave this Thread to the Ghetto Rabble who don't know any better to enjoy, k thanks?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 April 2014 - 02:57 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

If PGI would just bite the bullet and give the LBX-AC10 increased damage per pellet then a lot of problems with it would simply go away and it'd definitively have its own place in MWO.

That doesnt really fix the LB10X though. Increasing damage means itll either be a worse version of the AC10 or if damage is increased too much itll become a better version of the AC10. Its still use one or the other and doesnt create a reason for both weapons to coexist.

A better way to balance weapons is it give each weapon its own unique niche. The niche for LBX autocannons is getting crits. They should be better at critting than any other weapon. And getting crits to disarm enemy mechs should be a viable alternative to just killing enemy mechs outright. Conversely the standard ACs would be better suited for punching armor, destroying internals, and killing enemy mechs.

Again the main problem with the LB10X is how downplayed critical hits are in MWO. Internal structure gets destroyed faster than items get critted and as a result crits simply dont matter as much as they should. The crit system needs to be fixed by increasing internal structure enough so that crits happen more frequently. Internal structure needs *at least* a 50% increase (which equates to a 17% overall survivability increase for mechs).

Edited by Khobai, 30 April 2014 - 03:06 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Khobai, on 30 April 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

That doesnt really fix the weapon though. Changing damage means itll either be a worse version of the AC10 or a better version of the AC10.

The best way to balance weapons is it give each weapon its own unique niche. The niche for LBX autocannons is getting crits. They should be better at that than any other weapon. And getting crits to disarm enemy mechs should be a viable alternative to just killing enemy mechs outright. Conversely the standard ACs would be better suited for punching armor, destroying internals, and killing enemy mechs.

But it does fix the issue. It means the LBX remains a worse version of the AC10 at range, and up close it is a better option, which is magnified against targets with stripped armor. It gives the LBX an actual function, albeit not the one it had on the TT.

[Vlad Ward]

I had this nice, long diatribe about how useless qualified or anecdotal data points are in constructing an argument that could be attributed to, well, anyone else on the planet.

Then it struck me that no one really cares and this thread is really just a repository for people to post their stories about that one time in that one place where they were awesome using something that "The Man" says is bad, which is like the ultimate rebel yell, sweet child of mine.

The difference between SpreadSheet Warriors and The UnderDogs always comes down to the same thing.

SpreadSheet Warriors believe that players should raise themselves up to the optimal performance values of weapons.

UnderDogs believe that weapons should be brought down and evaluated at their level.

No SSW is going to walk into a room expecting to use a baseline 50% accuracy rating on direct fire weapons (taken from a post a couple pages ago, not made up). Likewise, no Underdog is going to expect 90% accuracy either. They'll never agree on a conclusion because they work from fundamentally different premises.

[Khobai]

Quote

But it does fix the issue. It means the LBX remains a worse version of the AC10 at range, and up close it is a better option

But dual AC20 is still better than dual LB10X at close range. Unless you wanna make the LB10X better than the AC20 at close range too, which would just be silly.

The goal should be to make the LB10X completely different from standard autocannons. There is no need for it to perform the same function as an AC10 or AC20 since those weapons perform that function already. So whats needed is for the LB10X to perform an entirely new function: crit seeking.

Ive seen no argument for why MWO having a better crit system wouldnt benefit the game.

Edited by Khobai, 30 April 2014 - 03:17 PM.