342 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Rebas Kradd, on 29 April 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

Oh, get off your high horse and quit twisting my words. What I'm saying is that your methodology is flawed.

No, your analysis of it is flawed.

Quote

You don't judge weapons by their success purely at high ELOs, because player behavior (i.e. the unwillingness to try any method except the most direct) becomes a lurking variable that you're not accounting for.

Nothing of the methodology I presented here has anything to do with a specific Elo bracket.

Quote

I see plenty of matches that don't get dominated by meta builds or even meta chassis, despite their presence, so the theory doesn't hold up all the way.

You are specifically talking about playing in matches with less experienced, less skilled players (and before you get your panties in a bunch, this is YOUR description, not me slighting you in some way, so don't bother feigning insult).

In a situation as you describe there, the explanation for why so called "meta builds" don't dominate could easily be explained simply by the fact that such players may not understand the game well enough to have developed competitive builds yet... and against other non-competitive builds, non-competitive builds become competitive. All weapons have some degree of killing power. Being able to kill a target with a weapon isn't how you measure its effectiveness. You measure its effectiveness based upon its killing power compared to other weapons.

Quote

You also don't judge every weapon side by side by KDR because not all weapons are meant to kill.

All good weapons are meant to kill, and weapons which aren't tend to be poor weapons.

Quote

Flamers and machine guns are meant to cause secondary effects in certain situations.

Such as the flamer you mention here. It's not meant to kill, but its intended effect also tends to not be useful... since, in their fear of creating stunlocks, the devs neutered the flamer such that it can't really do much at all.
(honestly though, if you think the flamer is even remotely useful, I don't know what to tell you, because you are definitely playing a totally different game)

Quote

LBX-10s are brawling weapons, MEANT to spread damage,

There is nothing about brawling which equates to "meant to spread damage". Spreading damage does not benefit brawling. I have no idea how you have arrive at such a misconception.

Quote

and also work better as a light killing weapon than other autocannons.

*sighs*
Please stop repeating this idiocy. This has been clearly disproven a million times now. LBX are not good at killing light mechs. Indeed, they are one of the single WORST weapons in the game against light mechs.. And I say this as someone who drives light mechs A LOT. The LBX is a total joke against light's, and no light pilot who is even remotely competent is afraid of them. Light pilots laugh at LBX, because:
1) Against small chassis, even at point blank range LBX can't focus their damage on a single location
2) Light mechs can pretty trivially move outside the effective range of LBX, such that the damage spread ends up hitting them with a trivial amount of damage.

If you are trying to use LBX against lights because you aren't good enough to land AC shots on them, then you would be better served using lasers. They are much more effective against light mechs than LBX (although the best weapons against lights are large FLD alpha strikes, because they'll tear through a light mech quickly, breeching their armor in one shot, and killing them in the next).

Quote

You're comparing a weapon to other weapons with a completely different purpose.

No, you're imaging some other purpose besides killing mechs actually exists in this game.
There's really one one other purpose, which could potentially be juggling an opponent with weapons rock.. but PGI tends to nerf most of those things pretty quickly (because they are "unfun"). You can still pull it off with chainfired LRM's though, so that could be seen as a weapon which may have some other purpose.

But your description here is just nonsense. The point of the LBX is to kill mechs.. It's just not particularly good at it. (barring someone demonstrating that it is in fact good at it, which I'm still open to evidence of)

Don't go trying to create some imaginary world where, even if the LBX is shown to be bad, is secretly good because it's doing "other things".

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 April 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

and yet, my results have been counter that. I find reliable , crit seeking damage, still far more focused than ASRMs are capable of, with lower heat, generally better ammo consumption (better projectile speed meaning more hits on target) and the ability to do some work at ranges beyond 270meters, combined with a 1.5 second faster cooldown, and less heat, makes the LB-X in this brawler scenario work better for me. The SRM may, for whatever reasons, suit YOU better.

I still argue this. Say you had the choice of a single LBX10 or 2ASRM6's. Two tons each of ammo.

LBX10@2 = 13tons, 8 crits
2xASRM6@2 = 10 tons, 8 crits

Now, what could you use that 3 extra tons for? Armor, speed, heatsinks, even more ammo, equipment, etc.

That is what I'm trying to get at. What is the best bang for the tonnage? Everytime you enter the mechlab, that is a real constraint. Considering even a single extra ton can make or break a build, that is why the LBX is not preferred, as well. For what it does and its role as a brawler weapon, its a HEAVY brawler weapon that could have its current role replaced by better* alternatives.

That is the "whatever reason" I am referring to.

Now if they buffed the LBX10 to 1.4 damage a pellet, then I would instantly say "Yes, the LBX is a great weapon for what it is meant to do and has a vey fufilling role as a staple brawler weapon"

However, until that is the case, I will converse with you that it is at best a mediocre weapon that not everyone will enjoy using. It does however have a nice firework effect and I've also argued that the best reason to play this game is to have fun. If you enjoy using it, then who am I to argue not to use it? I am merely pointing out it short comings.

Edited by mwhighlander, 29 April 2014 - 05:23 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

3rdworld, on 29 April 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

Actually they synergize really well. As we all know the LBX is good once you get through armor. The PPCs are great for getting though a single locations armor, and are faster than the LBX. So lets say you have a red armor LT. I alpha, the PPCs clear the armor, the LBX puts all its punch into internals.

I am not joking when I tell you that a single alpha from the LBX CTF into the back CT has nearly killed an atlas in a single volley. I don't know the kind of armor he was running, but I got lucky on crits, and the atlas had red internals after a single shot.

You pointed out the problem running the dual LBXs, getting though armor. Personally I take the Ember approach to the LBX. Just how the ember runs 4 MLs to get through armor for the MGs, you can use 2 PPCs to get through armor to maximize the lbx.

yeah, but the Ember has 4 MGs to get at the gooey middle..... I would prefer a build that allows me to mess things up a bit too. That is why Mischief and myself were surprised by the Jager posted.... on paper it should not be effective, and when I built it, I wasn't really expecting it to be, I was bored. And then I went on my most consistent facewrecking spree since I started playing this game. Like I said, it has not topped my other builds in highest damage, or top number of kills, it has simply been more consistently effective, for me, than pretty much anything else I have run. Hence the reason I recommended it to MischiefSC, and hence his own run of similarly consistent (I think) success.

I love the great Screenshot match as much as the next guy, but if I have 2 mechs that are going to "stabilize" at 4.0 KDr, (which only time will tell, just blue sky number for demo purposes, lol) and I have one that I consistently seem to hit 500-600 damage, and 3-4 kills, to do so, and the other where I have peaks of 1100+ damage, and 7-8 kills, but also a lot more low damage, no kill matches, I think the less flashy but more consistent mech, wins, especially if it compliments the builds run by my teammates.

[InRev]

LB10X would be a lot more useful in a world in which:

1) Crits were based on a per-hit basis rather than weapons and equipment having health (ie: a single pellet would do the same crit damage as an AC/20)

2) TACs actually existed

Then the LB10X would be fearsome, and would make a weapon dedicated to "crit-seeking" much more useful.

As it is, and with the way the game focuses much more heavily on outright kills or immediate component destruction, it is extremely difficult to justify its weight and damage spread.

[Khobai]

Quote

got proof?

Cuzm see, pretty sure the LB-X gets a RNG damage multiplier added PER PELLET and increased Crit Chance to begin with, and oh...the ac10 does not.

Yes the proof is that items have 10 health and the AC10 does 10 crit damage. So on a x3 crit you destroy three items.

On a x3 crit with the LB10X you are unlikely to destroy even a single item.

[Divine Retribution]

Just my personal experience with the LBX. I don't take it to be competitive, I take it while I am goofing off (the standard PPC + ballistic builds bore me after a bit). It's fun and a easy way to pick up multiple assists at the start of a match. See a group of enemies 800+ meters outs, LBX pellets hit most of them, instant assists (provided my team wins).

Here's my stats with my primary LBX mech and with the weapon.

Jager-S (2 LBX, 4 ML)

40 matches, 28-12 W-L (2.33 W/L ratio), 70-19 K-D (3.68 KDR), 20,052 damage (501.3 damage average/match).

LBX-10: 2,434 Fired, 1999 Hit, 82.13% accuracy, 14,517 damage done (7.26 damage/shot). Definitely not scientific. I fire at ranges up to about 1200m to ensure assists or for suppression, seriously engage with them at 600m or so.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Divine Retribution, on 29 April 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

LBX-10: 2,434 Fired, 1999 Hit, 82.13% accuracy, 14,517 damage done (7.26 damage/shot). Definitely not scientific. I fire at ranges up to about 1200m to ensure assists or for suppression, seriously engage with them at 600m or so.

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!

Edited by mwhighlander, 29 April 2014 - 05:38 PM.

[tayhimself]

@Roland - In general I agree that AC/10s are almost always better. But on exposed sections because half crit damage goes to internals, the LB-10X has a higher damage and dps than the AC/10 for less heat and tonnage. Or am I looking at this wrong?

[Roland]

The damage against internals is higher, but some factors end up mitigating that to an extent.

First, due to spread, all of the pellets are unlikely to hit the exposed internals, and will instead hit adjacent sections (or miss entirely).

Additionally, due to the way critical hits work in this game, as others have mentioned, the lbx actually ends up being worse at component destruction compared to weapons with larger damage. This stems from components having health, such that a critical hit isn't guaranteed to destroy a component.


A critical hit from a ppc or ac 10 will always destroy a component it crits. An lbx will not. While the lbx can potentially generate multiple crits, they will also spread across all components in that section, possibly failing to destroy Anyang of them.

On top of that, critical hits themselves have been nerfed. Ammo rarely explodes even if destroyed, and engine crits don't have any effect. And while they apparently had the ability to destroy actuators and such in earlier versions, they removed this feature. (According to koniving, you used to be able to disable actuators and cause things like maneuvering difficulties and aiming problems)

[Davers]

InRev, on 29 April 2014 - 05:28 PM, said:

LB10X would be a lot more useful in a world in which:

1) Crits were based on a per-hit basis rather than weapons and equipment having health (ie: a single pellet would do the same crit damage as an AC/20)

2) TACs actually existed

Then the LB10X would be fearsome, and would make a weapon dedicated to "crit-seeking" much more useful.

As it is, and with the way the game focuses much more heavily on outright kills or immediate component destruction, it is extremely difficult to justify its weight and damage spread.

Or if they had tripled structure instead of doubling armor.

[General Taskeen]

Or if they added Slugs and upped Cluster damage to 1.2 per pellet. Problem instantly solved.

Edited by General Taskeen, 29 April 2014 - 06:12 PM.

[Griggio]

I got bored with my laser Firebrand so for kicks I swapped it out for a duel LBX10, 4ML build a few days ago and I found it to be very enjoyable. It's definitely not the pew pew ERPPC/AC5 meta stomper, but factor in the team play element they are very good as a finisher for mechs with armor damage or anti-light support/defense.

For me they're most effective inside 400m where there is just the right amount of spread and you can limit your hits to 2 or 3 joining areas. Sadly once you get into long range fights you're pretty much useless even as a harasser.

Overall I think they are one of the few decently balanced weapons in the game right now and like everything in MWO put them into the hands of a decent pilot and they can hold their own quite well.

[Bishop Steiner]

General Taskeen, on 29 April 2014 - 06:12 PM, said:

Or if they added Slugs and upped Cluster damage to 1.2 per pellet. Problem instantly solved.

aaaaaaaand AC10 instantly obsoleted. Like in TT

[Khobai]

Quote

Or if they had tripled structure instead of doubling armor.

They can still increase internal structure. They seriously need to... especially with clan tech coming out soon.

Quote

aaaaaaaand AC10 instantly obsoleted. Like in TT

Its quite easy to balance them actually.

1) let the LB10X fire both cluster and slug rounds. Make the LB10X cluster rounds better than the slug rounds at getting critical hits. Also increase internal structure so critical hits matter more. Lastly make it so the LB10X fires slug rounds much slower than the AC10 (like 3.25 instead of 2.5).

2) make the AC10 fire slugs faster than the LB10X so its better at punching armor. Also give the AC10 slugs better range than the LB10X slugs. That way theres still a reason to use the AC10 over the LB10X.

Done. LB10X is versatile. AC10 is specialized. Both are good at different things. Neither is useless.

Edited by Khobai, 29 April 2014 - 06:31 PM.

[Roland]

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

aaaaaaaand AC10 instantly obsoleted. Like in TT

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

[Deathlike]

I will look into it.

I'm running a mediocre Shadowhawk-2D build that uses an AC10. It's doing OK, but runs relatively hot (not enough DHS). It's barely doing anything for my K-D ratio (just above 1 at the moment).

I have not used LBX since... forever, so I'll see what it can do. I don't think the recent hitreg changes should have improved the situation that much (it has for SRMs prior to this patch), so I'll humor you guys for a bit. I've elited the Shadowhawk out already, so I have time to kill for its mastery.

With that said, LBX until this point for me is kinda like "missiles in general"... damage counter increases but a whole lot of not killing. A pair or 3 ASRM4s does actually kill stuff these days.. at least for me.

Also, LBX10 used to be like the MG, back when it "racked damage numbers" (aka kill components), but not actually core anything until that crit bonus damage conversion. So, it remains to be seen.

SHADOW HAWK SHD-2D 47 28 19 1.47 38 29 1.31 16,462 35,840 04:16:29

For stat tracking purposes, those are the #s for the 2D.

Edited by Deathlike, 29 April 2014 - 06:27 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

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

You could but then that makes the AC10 better than the LB10X IMO.

The purpose of the LB10X is to be versatile. So ideally only the LB10X should get different ammo types.

The purpose of the AC10 is to be specialized. So one ammo type makes sense.

[Roland]

Well, honestly, I think the real solution is to just make it such the LBX's damage per pellet is 1.4.. then it has a use. Crappy at range, but devastating up close.

[Khobai]

Quote

Well, honestly, I think the real solution is to just make it such the LBX's damage per pellet is 1.4.. then it has a use. Crappy at range, but devastating up close.

Maybe. But if the LB10X is turned into a damage weapon then how is that any different from the AC10? The whole point of the LB10X isnt to do damage... but rather to get crits.

The fact the LB10X is worse than the AC10 at getting crits is just plain wrong. Also the fact crits dont matter much in MWO, when crits mattered a ton in Battletech, is a huge flaw in the game that needs to be fixed. Again thats fixed by increasing internal structure.

[Roland]

Khobai, on 29 April 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

Maybe. But if the LB10X is turned into a damage weapon then how is that any different from the AC10?

Well, it would different from the AC10 in the situations in which it was useful.
At long range, the AC10 would be more useful.
At close range, the LBX would be more useful.

Currently, this is basically how it works, but the LBX's damage isn't really high enough to balance it against the AC10. It ends up being inferior to the AC10 in most situations, and then in a very small set of cases it's very slightly better.

Upping the damage would push that balance point out, so that you'd have two weapons which were both useful, for different types of fighting.

Quote

The whole point of the LB10X isnt to do damage... but rather to get crits.

Well, the crits really only work as a balancing mechanism if they are strong enough to have a significant impact... which would mean enabling all of the effects of crits.

So, turning back on actuator damage, and more importantly, making ammo actually explode every time its criticaly hit, and enabling engine crits.

And then, on top of that, you'd probably need to get rid of component health, and go with a more straight up critical hit mechanism... Under that kind of system, then the fact that the LBX is generating 10 times as many critical hits starts to have significant impact. But currently, it's just 10 micro-crits, which ends up being worse than fewer, large critical hits.

Ultimately, though, I think that stuff is gonna be too hard for PGI to balance... so I'd go with just upping the damage.

Or hell, up the damage in the short run, and then work on some more complex critical hit system in the background... but up the damage now, and you'd at least have a viable LBX for the time being.