342 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Oh, in other news, inspired by this thread to look at the LBX, here are some things I have discovered..

I haven't actually played the game since they officially announced they weren't going to let groups of greater than 4 people play together... at that point i basically went on strike. So it's been a while since I've played around much.

This was the first time I was really totally rebuilding mechs from the ground up since UI 2.0.

Let me tell you... UI 2.0 is FREAKING TERRIBLE. Like, oh my god, I want to kill myself terrible. After not dealing with it for a while, and having to rebuild a whole mech, the whole endeavor was just horrifically painful.

It's so bad that I'm really dissuaded from even bothering to play around with different configs to test out the LBX.

[Roland]

Seriously, I can't even deal with this garbage. It takes like a hundred clicks to do anything. This is so god awful.

[Sephlock]

And slowly the light is shed. Soon. Yes, soon.

[MischiefSC]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

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.




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

The problem though is that pinpoint damage is less total damage per time you pull the trigger because it's either hit or miss. A miss means nothing - a hit is pinpoint but unless you're a perfect shot it's not always pinpoint where you want it. That means your arm hits are, in many ways, wasted. CT on a Dragon... meh. It's not the side torso hit that's going to set him up for an easy kill.

Arty, Airstrikes and significant spread damage however is another issue. You push several members of the enemy team significantly closer to an armor breech where you really need them and you've impacted the odds.

Which is all pretty speculative. I recommend doing what we all did and buggering through the new UI and giving it a try. I just won a stand-off in my jag against a Banshee - which I absolutely could not do, without some luck, with an AC40 loadout. At close range 2xLB10X, 4MGs and 2MLs is the best brawler I've run in terms of total success (kills/wins) since the great SRM fix/nerf.

It's no threat to a poptart on Caustic from the other side of the Caldera. At 100m though it can, does and will kill him, regardless of his attempts to jump or twist, well before he gets through my armor. I suspect the near constant screen-shake has helped with this - I'm just not getting hit with any accuracy at close range. In my boomjag it was always a race to who got the pinpoint shot off first. Who looked back at the wrong time. In the LB10X model I twist when I want to/need to but if I keep pretty well on target I only run into trouble when outnumbered - which will always be the case.

[tayhimself]

@Roland and @Bishop - you guys are muddling your own good informative posts, with the pointless mudslinging. Don't!

I have LB10Xs on 2 Shadowhawks, the -2D and the -2D2. Both do better than the AC/10 because the AC/10 is too heavy, and I need the extra ton for a heatsink. I can't use a UAC/5 because it limits torso twisting and I am prone to staring at my opponent.

I have a 2 LB10X JM6-A with 4 streaks which is RNG heaven and does well. I'll run the data soon using the K2 with dual LB10X along with it for dual AC10 but I'll venture to say that for the majority of players, in pugs, the LB-10X is just fine.

[MischiefSC]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

Seriously, I can't even deal with this garbage. It takes like a hundred clicks to do anything. This is so god awful.

It only hurts and feels awkward the first few times. Find something to bite on, sing a comforting tune and eventually you won't even notice.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

Seriously, I can't even deal with this garbage. It takes like a hundred clicks to do anything. This is so god awful.

100 clicks? tell me what your trying to do and i will emulate it and see how many clicks it takes me. i keep rebuilding my cata-3D over and over again. As a matter of fact i changed it 10 times today. I dont have a problem with the UI 2.0 and speed. If you want i can help you with it, it takes me less than 30-a min to build a mech;Less than 100 clicks i will assure you.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 April 2014 - 05:26 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

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.




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

The Ac20 nerfs definitely have had an affect, as before the nerfs, my Boom was over 2.0 KDr...... had stabilized at about 2.67 for the longest time. The nerf significantly hurt the ability to respond at anything beyond danger close range with any certainty, as even perfect elad at range, a fast mech had plenty of time to shift course.

I noticed a similar, though much smaller down turn in my Ilya with it's ac10s,which had the projectile speed nerf at the same time.

[Deathlike]

I'll go over the major quote, point by point so I'm not misquoting or misinterpreting.

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2014 - 02:43 PM, said:

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?

In theory, sure. LBX for the most part since I first used them in Open Beta have dramatically changed. The outcome however, is still mediocre. One of the things I most remember about LBX is that is ALWAYS inflated my damage numbers. It never really resulted in more kills, more actual damage to the target, or more use than the UAC5 back at the time. Now, it's better, but it's still literally an RNG gamble. It's either I luckily kill him if his torso's exposed.. or it takes me another "dice roll", 2, or 3. That's not exactly what I call great progress.

Quote

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.

I'm not sure there's improved performance... although, it seems relatively better since I last used them (which was the spread reduction) so at best I would attribute performance through the "supposed" hitreg improvements (hasn't really changed SRMs for me though - it was the previous patch that improved it for sure). I loved LBX, but perhaps it is misplaced based on my love for in for MW4. LBX10s were actually useful (LBX20s were better, of course)... so I attribute my "care" for the aforementioned weapon to that. Now obviously MWO has a completely different mechanic than MW4 and that's fine. Hence, my comments come from the "natural bias" as wanting them good. I don't remember LBX10 in MW4 to be inherently OP... it is in my opinion that it is underpowered for the purposes of THIS GAME and NOT MW4.

Quote

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.

I will put the use of the LBX10 previously into context... it was trying to find the "right ballistic" for the Raven-4X (now kinda neutered when compared to something like the Ember). This was a brief experiment to find "low tonnage" and "productive" ballistic. I ended up with a UAC5. Mind you, lag shooting was still required, so it wasn't the easiest thing to play with.

In proper testing, I still use LBX in both roles (armored and exposed). My opinion with LBX vs armored hasn't changed... it's virtually irrelevant and the only reason to use it is because I've already fired off med lasers and streaks. The med lasers are still going to be the key tool for opening stuff (see why the Ember's so popular?)

While exposed, LBX does start to work better (as expected). Within "brawling range" (under 270m), the weapon becomes very much what some would fall "feast or famine". You get really lucky or you get some a small dent as a result. It's not something I would call "reliable" compared to every other direct fire weapon.

Quote

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)

I'm still in the camp that the AC10 is better, but only under VERY LIMITED circumstances where LBX10 is better. Although, I suspect you have to be something between facehugging and 90m to benefit. When you consider the general meta, this looks really bad. For brawling, it can be OK, but it's nowhere close where it needs to be "productive". Even being useful @ 135m (half of SRM's max range) would make an immense change.

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.

Normally, brawling synergy requires SRMs and while the effectiveness depends per person (primarily lag, but also playstyle), it's not yet the goto weapon. SRMs are the most efficient IMO to creating the "hole" that LBX would need to thrive in.

Quote

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?

Well, Roland has suggested recording said matches, so that the community at large could at least evaluate it. I don't think that's unreasonable, even though there will be a lot of subjective opinion to weed through. Mind you, I take most note of any "good weapon" when it makes a dent in my mech. This isn't usually the best analysis, but when it is "repeatable" over time, it's always been worth investigating... and what I would call "adapting". This is kinda also why I've used more airstrikes over that time. That buff DID make a major difference in how I viewed it.

Quote

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 really see it as a poptart weapon, unless you're planning to "jump" towards the target and initiate the brawl. I've used it in BOTH scenarios (exposed and not-exposed). I'm pretty much written off LBX vs unexposed internals (square peg vs circular hole).

Just understand that committing at least 13 tons (2tons of ammo) and 9 crits should produce better results than the general 2 ASRM4+ammo example that I've generally used. LBX does generate less heat than SRMs (which is nice), but the damage doesn't make up for the inconsistency over ASRMs in general.

Quote

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.)

In science, you need to have proof... something that can be demonstrated, repeated consistently over time. In many ways... this is required. Otherwise all "proof" dumbs down to "I'll believe it when I see it." In this instance, I don't entirely believe it.

Edited by Deathlike, 30 April 2014 - 05:36 PM.

[Roland]

MischiefSC, on 30 April 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

It only hurts and feels awkward the first few times. Find something to bite on, sing a comforting tune and eventually you won't even notice.

Honestly, I don't really care enough to bother putting myself through the pain of getting used to a terrible interface.

It's just plain BAD. It just takes so many clicks, and large mouse movements to do anything... and the information is just presented so terribly.

For instance.. Was building up a shadowhawk. Ok, let's put on some missiles.. Click a location. Click the missiles button... get presented with a bunch of totally useless pictures of missiles which mean nothing... I see the SRM2... and next to it the SRM6... but I need an SRM4 to put into the head. Why isn't it between the 2 and the 6? Oh, it's over to the left for some inexplicable reason. WTF? What is the rationale behind such ordering?

Up in the top left hand corner, there's what APPEARS to be two little buttons to let you shift between the "thumbnail" view (which is totally useless for this kind of thing), and an actual list view which would be infinitely better... but it doesn't work. Because.. reasons.

[Bishop Steiner]

BLOOD WOLF, on 30 April 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

100 clicks? tell me what your trying to do and i will emulate it and see how many clicks it takes me. i keep rebuilding my cata-3D over and over again. As a matter of fact i changed it 10 times today. I dont have a problem with the UI 2.0 and speed. If you want i can help you with it, it takes me less than 30-a min to build a mech;Less than 100 clicks i will assure you.

Eh, he may be exaggerating, but it is quite cumbersome, and it is initially very counter intuitive. Or did you miss the first week after UI2.0 where all the forum rage was directed at that very "problem"? (Which, like most things, turned out to be far less an issue, once people got over the "new and different", but it is still far from polished. Especially the inventory side)

[Deathlike]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

Seriously, I can't even deal with this garbage. It takes like a hundred clicks to do anything. This is so god awful.

ClickWarrior Online. The game within the game.

[Mystere]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

Eh, he may be exaggerating, but it is quite cumbersome, and it is initially very counter intuitive. Or did you miss the first week after UI2.0 where all the forum rage was directed at that very "problem"? (Which, like most things, turned out to be far less an issue, once people got over the "new and different", but it is still far from polished. Especially the inventory side)

Meh! After a 5 minute "orientation" (to put it ever so mildly), I'm used to it now. I just bit my lip instead of going to the forums. There was already enough crying I had neither the need nor the desire to join in.

Edited by Mystere, 30 April 2014 - 05:52 PM.

[Roland]

To be clear, this isn't the first time I used 2.0. I used it when it first came out. But at that time, I want really building tons of new mechs, so my interactions were limited to fairly small tweaks and modules.

Today though, I was looking through a bunch of different chassis, finding something suitable to build a lbx mech with... And the whole experience just sucks. It's just a flat downgrade from the old interface.

All operations take more clicks and mouse movements... And what do we get in return? A hundred identical pictures of engines?

Does anyone actually want to see pictures of engines? Seriously, is there literally ANYone here who wants to see a hundred identical pictures of engines when selecting an engine?

[MischiefSC]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

To be clear, this isn't the first time I used 2.0. I used it when it first came out. But at that time, I want really building tons of new mechs, so my interactions were limited to fairly small tweaks and modules.

Today though, I was looking through a bunch of different chassis, finding something suitable to build a lbx mech with... And the whole experience just sucks. It's just a flat downgrade from the old interface.

All operations take more clicks and mouse movements... And what do we get in return? A hundred identical pictures of engines?

Does anyone actually want to see pictures of engines? Seriously, is there literally ANYone here who wants to see a hundred identical pictures of engines when selecting an engine?

You've dropped in matches with people who wouldn't know it was an engine without a picture.

Be honest.

You're not the 'target audience' of U.I. 2.0. You can use the forums.

[Roland]

That implies the picture would actually help some new player know what it was, but it doesn't. It's not like it looks like a real engine.

That screen real estate could be used to increase the font size of the information which is actually useful, and put all the engines on a single page and eliminate scrolling.

Regardless, this isn't the topic of the thread, sorry. It just came up because I used ui 2.0 for the first time in a while, and it reminded me of how terribly designed the interface is.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 30 April 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

You've dropped in matches with people who wouldn't know it was an engine without a picture.

Be honest.

You're not the 'target audience' of U.I. 2.0. You can use the forums.

Technically, you could just have two different engine pictures... one for XL, one for standard.

All you'd need to do is put a number of them.

Do we need to "put in more busy work for more pictures"?

[Oriius]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

That implies the picture would actually help some new player know what it was, but it doesn't. It's not like it looks like a real engine.

That screen real estate could be used to increase the font size of the information which is actually useful, and put all the engines on a single page and eliminate scrolling.

Regardless, this isn't the topic of the thread, sorry. It just came up because I used ui 2.0 for the first time in a while, and it reminded me of how terribly designed the interface is.

There are a few issues that need work asap, one of those is that UI, it is just shocking right now. I can't help but think of new players looking at it, yeah it isn't hard to figure out but wow it's just all over the place.

As for the Lbx has this not been hashed out like 3 times or more now? I do indeed recall the threads with all the testing.

In my opinion the weapon is viable, but not what I can call optimal.

The small pulse laser is viable in sense it isn't broken and you can do damage with them, but it sure as hell is not optimal when next to say the med laser. (speaking generally here, there might me some very specific setups that use spl's but they are not the norm it seems to me)

I'd love to see it get some changes it doesn't need much I don't think, but just that little push up.

[Ultimax]

I did some rudimentary (really, really rudimentary) testing in the testing grounds.


The target was the Atlas-dummy.

Range: 150m
Location: Center Torso

AC 5 required 30 shots (150 damage)
AC 10 required 15 shots (150 damage)
LB 10X required 22 shots (220 damage), with all of the spread damage hitting all 3 torso sections (but not arms)

I might do tests at 50 and 100m, and then load 2x each of those weapons and see if the shots to kill remain consistent (i.e. half the rounds I needed to fire).

(I'd probably need to do this 100x per loadout but I don't really have time or inclination for that).

Edited by Ultimatum X, 30 April 2014 - 09:12 PM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Ultimatum X, on 30 April 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:

I did some rudimentary (really, really rudimentary) testing in the testing grounds.


The target was the Atlas-dummy.

Range: 150m
Location: Center Torso

AC 5 required 30 shots (150 damage)
AC 10 required 15 shots (150 damage)
LB 10X required 22 shots (220 damage), with all of the spread damage hitting all 3 torso sections (but not arms)

I might do tests at 50 and 100m, and then load 2x each of those weapons and see if the shots to kill remain consistent (i.e. half the rounds I needed to fire).

(I'd probably need to do this 100x per loadout but I don't really have time or inclination for that).

Well that is just a reflection of the spread mechanic the LBX has.

This test is pointing out that with a pilot having 100% accuracy, the AC10 is strictly better in quickly destroying components.

As many have mentioned, those who are more likely to use the LBX10, don't have the sharpest grouping in terms of accuracy, so the cone mildly benefits them as it is easier to get SOME damage on target.

The LBX becomes progressively worse as pilot skill raises, and oddly enough becomes more effective as the fewer number of players in a game remain. Less players in a game tend to gravitate towards better brawling conditions and generally more beat up mechs with exposed internals for some bonus damage.

Edited by mwhighlander, 30 April 2014 - 10:01 PM.