342 replies to this topic

[Vlad Ward]

Oh, there are multiple conversations going. Yay.

Re Khobai: I'd support a 100% increase in IS values, bringing it back into line with the old TT Armor/IS ratios.

It's not that I particularly care about maintaining TT authenticity mind you, but that is the ratio that critical hits were originally developed around. When your IS is only 33% of your total health instead of 50%, criticals happen less often overall and thus become less important.

Though this will never happen because TTK changes of that scale would wipe out years worth of weapon balancing and no one on the design team is going to get that through the pipeline.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 30 April 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

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.

Dual AC/20 are also heavier and bulkier...

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 30 April 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

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.

What does it matter if dual AC20 is better at close range.... it requires 6 more tons, has twice the ammo consumption and 8 more critical space. Only what, 2 mechs can viably carry 2x AC20, and none can carry it in one location.

The only thing the LB-X NEEDS to be better than at close range, is the AC10, which it is essentially been turned into a shotgun version of. And conversely, the ac10 should be better at range and focused damage, which it already is. To even be talking about the ac20 in comparison is pointless.

Increasing damage per pellet (something Roland has been espousing for a long time, and while not my favorite solution, is a realistic one) accomplishes that, and is I would imagine a heck of a lot more linear improvement than the crit system. I would be fine with the current crit capability if I could get extra damage capability in the first place.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 April 2014 - 03:33 PM.

[Roland]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

thing is, no asked you to. Believe it or not, most of us don't care.

Then maybe you shouldn't be posting in a thread about testing LBX10 utility.

Quote

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".

Again, maybe this kind of discussion just isn't for you, if you aren't actually interested in having an objective discussion.

I mean, ok.. you just want to say, "I LIKE LBX. IT GOOD." That's fine dude. You've said it. The end. You can go now.

Some folks may be interested in having some objective data.

I realize I'm being a bit terse here, but you're kind of being a jackass, so I'm throwing it back in your face a bit in the hopes you'll calm down and stop being so defensive.

Quote

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

I've performed testing before... And frankly, I don't think it's really worth my time to perform them again. I'd be interested in seeing data collected by others.

I'm, of course, not demanding that others do such testing. But such a thing really would be a much more convincing argument.

Certainly, you can say that you don't care about making such an argument.. but the fact that you keep talking about how the LBX is good, it would seem that you do in fact care about making that argument.

Quote

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

Discussions of weapons utility are not moral judgements about you as a person.
You sound silly when you freak out like this, and get all ultra defensive, when people are merely talking about an objective measurement of weapons in a game.

[WVAnonymous]

I like LB10X. I won't use them, because they are too special purpose, but I like them.

And I'm immoral.




edit: I did see a triple LB10X Cataphract that looked like an absolute riot to run. Not wildly effective outside of River City, but a lot of fun.

Edited by WVAnonymous, 30 April 2014 - 03:50 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

Then maybe you shouldn't be posting in a thread about testing LBX10 utility.


Again, maybe this kind of discussion just isn't for you, if you aren't actually interested in having an objective discussion.

I mean, ok.. you just want to say, "I LIKE LBX. IT GOOD." That's fine dude. You've said it. The end. You can go now.

Some folks may be interested in having some objective data.

I realize I'm being a bit terse here, but you're kind of being a jackass, so I'm throwing it back in your face a bit in the hopes you'll calm down and stop being so defensive.


I've performed testing before... And frankly, I don't think it's really worth my time to perform them again. I'd be interested in seeing data collected by others.

I'm, of course, not demanding that others do such testing. But such a thing really would be a much more convincing argument.

Certainly, you can say that you don't care about making such an argument.. but the fact that you keep talking about how the LBX is good, it would seem that you do in fact care about making that argument.


Discussions of weapons utility are not moral judgements about you as a person.
You sound silly when you freak out like this, and get all ultra defensive, when people are merely talking about an objective measurement of weapons in a game.

Lol, you look even sillier when you overlook your own arrogance in your posts, and the read more into other peoples post than are there.

No one is freaking out. I on the other hand AM tired of listening to you pedantically trot out your same lack of "catalogued" arguments against people using them, while demanding that we need to do exactly what you have NOT done. We have provided every bit as conclusive data to support our position as you have to support yours.

Instead you descend like a plague of locusts to save us from ourselves...... as if anyone asked you to.

The OP is not some sort of Meta/Spreadsheet, and never claimed to be. You claim you are not here to judge, yet that is exactly the tone of your posts. In short, get over yourself.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 April 2014 - 03:53 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

I use and have a lot of fun with the LB10X.
I much prefer it to the AC10 due to lower tonnage, less crit slots, and greatly increased firing rating. When used in pairs all of these benefits stack up considerably. While not great at range, it makes up for it in CQC (<500m) where it absolutely shines. It's currently my brawling weapon of choice.

I run dual LB10X on my Cata3D with 4xMLs, and one on my Shawk with 3x SRM4. Both of these mechs work well for me up close. Working in tandem with my mate also using dual LB10X in his Jager, we can down mechs damn quick.

I don't have "numbers" to back me up, but I can tell you I tried dual AC5, UAC5, and single AC20's. None of them matched the LB10X for me in real world test.

[Roland]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

No one is freaking out.

You look like you're freaking out.

Quote

I on the other hand AM tired of listening to you pedantically trot out your same lack of "catalogued" arguments against people using them, while demanding that we need to do exactly what you have NOT done.

I've tested them in the past. In the past, when people made specific claims such as the size of spread patterns, I even went to the trouble of doing additional testing right then, and presented concrete and indisputable evidence of their error.

Now, the reality is, those tests were done in the past, and as such, I am willing to recognize that perhaps things have changed, and that they are now more competitive weapons.

However, I'm not really interested in using the LBX for a large number of games to gather the data again.

You are misinterpretting my suggestion for data collection as some kind of challenge to your honor, when in reality it's an honest interest in seeing you prove your case. I would genuinely like to see such data and analyze it, but I'm not really interested enough in the LBX to bother gathering data for it again.. because frankly, I'm not really thinking that it's changed much.

Perhaps at some point I'll care enough to test it myself.... But I'm not sure why you are opposed to testing it, since you apparently like using the weapon any way. That's why I suggested you gather it... not because I think you can't.

Quote

We have provided every bit as conclusive data to support our position as you have to support yours.

But you're actually using the weapon, so you have the ability to easily gather data on its utility.

Quote

Instead you descend like a plague of locusts to save us from ourselves...... as if anyone asked you to.

Mischief originally made a post questioning the utility of the LBX, so I presented him with my ideas of the types of concrete testing which could be conducted to validate his "feeling" that they had become better.

And apparently, he seemed to appreciate it, since he's apparently working on testing them.

Quote

You claim you are not here to judge, yet that is exactly the tone of your posts.

You are imagining that tone, because you get defensive when objective measurements of weapons are discussed. I have no idea why that is, but it is apparently the case.

Troutmonkey, on 30 April 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

I much prefer it to the AC10 due to lower tonnage, less crit slots, and greatly increased firing rating.

Both the AC10 and the LBX10 have a 2.5 second cool-down. They don't have an increased fire rate.
(unless you mean something else when you say "firing rating")

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

You look like you're freaking out.


You are imagining that tone, because you get defensive when objective measurements of weapons are discussed. I have no idea why that is, but it is apparently the case.

And apparently, you are imagining things too. As for tone, no, yours is pretty consistently condescending. But there is a huge difference between someone freaking out, and someone simply being tired of watching you trot out the same reply 90 times, to everything. You want proof, well yay! How about giving people time to gather it before continueing to downplay things? (especially as you conveniently ignore 90% of my posts which have been very objective, and some even in agreement with you on the bloody subject)

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 April 2014 - 04:34 PM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

Both the AC10 and the LBX10 have a 2.5 second cool-down. They don't have an increased fire rate.
(unless you mean something else when you say "firing rating")

Actually, the LBX does in fact have a faster firing rating of 2 as opposed to the AC10's 2.5 second recycle.

Even then, that's a merely 20% faster to try and make up for RNG pellet spread.



Also, I want to throw out that using the LBX's because they are fun weapons are 100% a legitimate reason to be using them. In which case, then yes all the proof they LBX's are average at best weapons is entirely irrelevant since you are playing the game to a different purpose and goal.

However, if you are looking to play the game with any type of competitive edge where you want to optimize the living sh!t out of your mech builds and squeeze every drop of performance out of your weapon builds, then leave the LBX aside, as there are more efficient ways of killing mechs.

Edited by mwhighlander, 30 April 2014 - 04:44 PM.

[Roland]

mwhighlander, on 30 April 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

Actually, the LBX does in fact have a faster firing rating of 2 as opposed to the AC10's 2.5 second recycle.

Even then, that's a merely 20% faster to try and make up for RNG pellet spread.

According to both smurfy and the stats in the game itself, they're both 2.5.

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

And apparently, you are imagining things too. As for tone, no, yours is pretty consistently condescending. But there is a huge difference between someone freaking out, and someone simply being tired of watching you trot out the same reply 90 times, to everything. You want proof, well yay! How about giving people time to gather it before continueing to downplay things? (especially as you conveniently ignore 90% of my posts which have been very objective, and some even in agreement with you on the bloody subject)

Bishop, what makes you think that I'm downplaying something and not giving people time to gather the data?

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

According to both smurfy and the stats in the game itself, they're both 2.5.


Bishop, what makes you think that I'm downplaying something and not giving people time to gather the data?

WHAT?! Did Paul ninja nerf the LBX10's recently?! This wasn't always the case!

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

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.

More posts like this would go a long way to dispelling the appearance of pomposity.

mwhighlander, on 30 April 2014 - 04:46 PM, said:

WHAT?! Did Paul ninja nerf the LBX10's recently?! This wasn't always the case!

been that way a Looooooong time, tbh. I can't remember when they weren't. (despite my "love" of the LB-X.......)

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

According to both smurfy and the stats in the game itself, they're both 2.5.


Bishop, what makes you think that I'm downplaying something and not giving people time to gather the data?

by every 3rd post (slight exaggeration) repeating the same stuff about them being inferior.

[Bishop Steiner]

BTW, aborted my attempt to data mine using the LB-X on the VTR-9B. As I suspected and stated, as a stand alone weapon, it does feel very unimpressive, and MGs in concert didn't help much (they usually need 4 to be worth anything themselves). But largely the agility nerfs to the VTR (egads) made the requisite hit and run style that allows my Wolverine or CN9-D to be moderately effective with it, simply is NOT possible with the Victor anymore.

Was averaging HALF the damage and less than half the kills I get out of my JM6-DD, leading me to a preliminary conclusion that SRMs are not a terribly synergistic weapon with LB-X.

Slow mech play time over for today, time to jump back in my Griffin for a bit.

(Even running a 360 XL. Thanks Paul, as current game play shows, Dragonslayer Poptart effectiveness, not affected, one iota. Victor Brawling effectiveness? VERY heavily affected. Thanks for nerfing another chassis from optimization as anything but a poptart!)

[Roland]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

More posts like this would go a long way to dispelling the appearance of pomposity.

In that post, I wasn't actually being sarcastic.
I was joking with you, and then specifically said that I genuinely was looking forward to your data, because I was genuinely looking forward to your data and didn't want you to think otherwise just because I made the joke about the truck hitting the car.

It wasn't meant to be like, "Hur hur, I look forward to you providing that data, because I know you can't!"

[MischiefSC]

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

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..




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.




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...






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

The thing with more damage though is that it creates opportunities for other people to get kills. Remember; just like with Elo, field performance is about shifting the odds in your favor. Dropping in a 4man doesn't guarantee a win - it just gives you an advantage that can be exploited. How well is situational and depends who's involved.

Before, I'd have told you LB10X are trash. Now, much like Streaks, I'm finding a place for it that gives up numbers and performance I find acceptable - which is to say on par with most pinpoint builds.

I'm not looking to compare it with a 2xUAC5,2xPPC Heavy Metal. I'll put my 2xLB10X, 4xMG, 2xML laser build up against any AC40 Jag though. It put up significantly better performance than my AC40 jag and I do just fine with the boomjag. As a short-range build it's giving me the best performance I've ever had.

That... that I find noteworthy.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

In that post, I wasn't actually being sarcastic.
I was joking with you, and then specifically said that I genuinely was looking forward to your data, because I was genuinely looking forward to your data and didn't want you to think otherwise just because I made the joke about the truck hitting the car.

It wasn't meant to be like, "Hur hur, I look forward to you providing that data, because I know you can't!"

hence my saying MORE posts of such nature would be appreciated, not LESS.

BTW, data set so far........

(The inevitable face stomps occured to help balance numbers downward. I believe I was on the winning team ONCE last night while in the Jager. Not sure things are great for testing til I know if MM is fixed? Had 2 PUG drops against full on comms 12 mans last night, possibly more. Needless to say.... data got just a little skewed those rounds, but included anyhow) It's amazing how fast 6 steamrolls or so can sway a small stat window, but even while small, how much harder it is to uptrend it again.


Current Build (32 matches)
Current KDr: 3.86
Average Match Damage: 540
Average Match Kills: 2.07

Old Build (465 matches, 75% as BoomJager, 20% 2x AC10/4x MG/2x ML approx 5% mixed builds)
Current KDr: 1.69
Average Match Damage: 334
Average Match Kills: 1.13

So, not enough match to fully stabilize the new build, nor am I sure about current test conditions. Virtually all matches run in the PUG queue (As I would agree neither build is optimized for 12 man in the current Meta) I do know the all or nothing nature of the BoomJager led to a lot of peaks and valleys in performance, as 5-700 damage w/ 4+ kills was not unusual.... but neither were complete crap matches.

(am curious what most people would find their average damage and kills per match really come to if they did the math)

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 April 2014 - 05:25 PM.

[Flak Kannon]

I've been keeping this a secret for a while.

My favorite Ilya build is (3)LBx10 & 3 Medium Lasers.

Shhh.... don't tell anyone....

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

hence my saying MORE posts of such nature would be appreciated, not LESS.

Alright you two. Hug and make up.

[Roland]

MischiefSC, on 30 April 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

The thing with more damage though is that it creates opportunities for other people to get kills.

Eh, not really though.
Doing less damage, but focusing it on a single location, is more effective for killing a mech... whether that kill is by you or by another player on your team. Breaching armor quickly and precisely is the best way to put a mech down.

Quote

I'm not looking to compare it with a 2xUAC5,2xPPC Heavy Metal. I'll put my 2xLB10X, 4xMG, 2xML laser build up against any AC40 Jag though. It put up significantly better performance than my AC40 jag and I do just fine with the boomjag. As a short-range build it's giving me the best performance I've ever had.

Could it potentially be due to the nerfs that the AC20 has suffered?