342 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

I've used 2xAC10s plenty of times. I always tried 10Xs and found them to be crap

Agreed. AC10s do everything LB10Xs do, and do it better. AC10s even crit better.

[Gyrok]

Roland, on 29 April 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

Again, this isn't really a scientific measurement of the weapon... But I'll point out something here, since lots of folks say this.

Two LBX10 is 22 tons of weaponry, not including ammo.

22 tons of weapons is supposed to pretty much wreck faces. That's a massive investment of tonnage.

What you need to do is compare that to other things you can do with 22 tons, and see if it's actually better.

The question is, is the 22 tons of LBX equal to 24 tons of AC10. If so...then the LBX is a better option to save tonnage. If the 24 tons of AC10 is better, then the LBX should be roughly equal and is broken.

[Bhael Fire]

The LB-10X has been a good brawling weapon for some time now; it's cool, fires rapidly, and is lighter than a standard AC/10. Not to mention it's just a really freaking fun weapon to shot.

However, I still get better results with my dual AC/10 builds.

[3rdworld]

It is close to being good....Close but it isn't good yet.

Been running a CTF with 2PPCs & LBX10 for a while now. Fun, can insta-kill many mechs if your lucky. But I wouldn't call it better than its autocannon brethren.

67 matches with the mech, and I have to say, it is a ton of fun, but not meta viable yet.

A small buff to fire rate would help.

Making the pattern uniform and more predictable would be nice as well.

Double the number of "shots" in the LBX and make each one .5 damage. That would increase the chance for those mega damage crits and make the pattern easier to predict and more uniform.

[Bishop Steiner]

You know I am already in it..... and loving it, and loving it even more when the L33Ts tell us it's crap and the only reason we can do good is PUGs are Bads, thus our good is really just not-as-Bad.

[MischiefSC]

So to get a better example I've swapped out the 3xAC5, 2xPPC on my Banshee 3E for 2LL, 1ERLL and 2xLB10X. Same engine, etc. I've got 178 matches in my 3E with the same build almost the whole time and thus my stats for it have changed little for the last 40 or so matches and it's thus 'seated' pretty well.

It's an exact trade in tonnage. The LLs traded for the PPCs is something I could have done with the AC5s but for synergy sake I did better with the PPCs.

So I'll see if I do better or worse with the LBXs and Lasers.

I'm telling you though, my impression is that the LB10Xs have recently gotten better. Not phenomenal, but better. Good enough to be a viable AC10 option. That I can fit 2 LB10X in a side torso and can not do so with AC10s is another perk. The issue becomes 'is it worth the tonnage'.

Still a bit skeptical. I've always disliked the 10X, but willing to give it a re-evaluation. A lot of backend stuff has changed.

[Vlad Ward]

I feel like this may be one of those cases of enjoying something more because it's different and having that enthusiasm and fun-having-ness bleed into match results (Hi btw!).

Via Spreadsheet Warrior magic, the absolute upper limit on performance for the LB-10X puts it roughly on par with the AC-10, and it only drops off with range. Add to that the fact that the AC/10 is a notoriously weak class of Autocannon in its own right, and the LB-10X doesn't have much ground to stand on.

That said, who cares about meta tryharding in random matches? People don't even "max out" on meta in RHOD any more. Shit's not fun. You do you. If it feels right and all that.

[SethAbercromby]

Roland, on 29 April 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

Beyond that, you'd at least want to record the specific statistics for the test set... Exactly the shots fired, kills, deaths, etc. Because a lot of folks have made claims that their mechs were really great. I have no doubt that in their minds, they really believed them to be great.. but then when they presented their actual statistics for those mechs, their K/D ratios in them were abysmal... While they perhaps remembered the highlights, the actual overall numbers indicated that their mechs were performing very poorly.

You have to consider that K/D none of the stats tracked are really empiric evidence for 'Mech performance. The statistics favor front-loaded damage and don't and cannot take play style into consideration. My Misery for example is a great example of a 'Mech that can perform incredibly well on the field but not in dealing the most damage or getting the most kills but by being a huge bullet magnet for the team and is effective at softening enemies up. With LBX, ASRM6, 4ML and one LPL, it can generate a lot of suppressive fire and soften up the enemies while pressuring them with projectiles that cause quite some screen-shake and will make enemies focus you as direct aggressor more. I often die around the 250 damage mark (and often before I had the chance to do any)but the enemies I've engaged until them will have suffered severe damage from the teammates that had the opportunity to move in and take them apart. The W/L ratio of my Misery is among the best of my 'Mechs (1.14) but it's survival rate is terrible (90% death rate) at an average of 182,8 damage per match. That being said, I am by no means a good player and the number of total games I played will reflect that, but I do think there is some connection between my Misery, my habit of moving into enemy lines in a reckless push to give my team the opportunity for a sweep and willingness to sacrifice more than a side torso to win. Not that I always succeed in my plans.

I will do a performance comparison at some point ad replace the LB with an AC10. If I perform substantially better, the LB is inferior. If I see no notable improvement, they are equal and both viable options for a front line fire supporter. If I perform worse... well then this whole discussion is turned on its tail.

[Josef Nader]

The AC/10 is a constant performance weapon. Its just as valuable at the start of the match as it is at the end of the match.

The LBX is an escalating weapon. It gets -significantly- more dangerous as the match wears on and armor opens up. Its starts off terribad, but near the end of the match it can be a nightmare to face. Between its high RoF and bonus damage against internals, its fantastic at finishing off exposed components with alarming speed.

[Bishop Steiner]

mwhighlander, on 29 April 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

500 damage is nothing to write home about.

And that part of having double LBX is the reason why you had elevated damage numbers. LBX spread their damage around significantly so you end up having to deal more damage out (which is far less effective/efficient) to get the same number of kills or component destructions.

Its placebo effect. If you enjoy 2xLBX10's you should really try double 10's instead.

Might wanna park that Highhorse, brother man. Go through and figure the average damage for all your mechs. If you are averaging over 500 damage per match, well, you are indeed the man.

As for placebo, BS answer, sorry. I run ac10s as my favorite ballistic, and I don't think LB-X is "better". It IS different, and with a different approach and style, can be very effective. And there are for a fact, multipliers. Once the mech is cracked, having the LBxs and MGs are indeed have their crit multiplying effect, and mechs go boom. That effect has been proven time and again with the 4MG ember, for instance, which just trashes guts, once they are exposed.

That said, no, at range, they are far less effective than ac10s, as you might hit slightly more often, but the damage is too spread to be effective, overall (yeah, I got a kill at 1000+ with a snap shot from the LB-X, but it was simply the mech was in that bad of shape, and 1-2 pellets just hit the right area.... so I don't base my play on repeating that). At brawly ranges, combined with other similar weapons, I have seen mechs literally disintegrate once they are cracked open. And that is the difference. AC10s still crack people open better, but I lay in AC10 shells for quite some time on a cracked atlas or stalker to core out the IS. Usually in seconds, the LBXs pop them.

I'm pretty convinced half of the "Pros" problem with LB-X is not the weapon itself (which is supposed to be, by PGIs outlook, slightly inferior in straight combat, as it is lighter, cooler and less crits, if it was "better" who would use the ac10 at all?), but kind of like MischiefSC's (former) issue with the Battlemaster, he kept trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.

The AC10 is an effective, well balanced, all around damage dealer.
LBX (PGI version) is less effective in straight focused damage, but lighter, smaller, cooler and destroys internals.

Believe it or not, the latter just works better for some peoples fighting style, whether you approve of it or not. What I have found is I have not had the "Highs" I get out of my dual ac10 Ilya, but I have had much more consistent matches. And it might not impress you, but dang near anyone else I drop with, be it House Steiner, Clan Ghost Bear, some of my Marik buds, etc, will happily take a guy dropping 500 damage and 2 kills a match. Not everyone has to be the Gym CLass Hero.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 29 April 2014 - 05:21 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 29 April 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

Agreed. AC10s do everything LB10Xs do, and do it better. AC10s even crit better.

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. So the ac10 focuses damage better. It most certainly is not better at critting. (And am willing to bet I use BOTH the ac10 and the LBX a heck of a lot more than you do, since the ac10 is the focus of almost every heavy and assault I run)

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 29 April 2014 - 03:33 PM.

[Roland]

All the talk in the world won't replace well structured empirical testing.

Record stats, including k/d ratio with lbx, then do the same with a comparable build using other weapons, and compare them. Ideally, keep video records for analysis.

Everything else is just smoke.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 29 April 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

All the talk in the world won't replace well structured empirical testing.

Record stats, including k/d ratio with lbx, then do the same with a comparable build using other weapons, and compare them. Ideally, keep video records for analysis.

Everything else is just smoke.

Including your guyses posts, eh?

[Roland]

The last time I did testing, the lbx was shown to be inferior, and I have never seen anyone present evidence to the contrary. Indeed, when advocates of the lbx have tried to present evidence, it has usually unintentionally supported the assertion that they are bad weapons.

I am willing to believe that something has changed, and your beliefs are correct, bishop. So do the tests if you like. Or don't.

I have no vested interest in the lbx being bad. I would like nothing more than for it to be a good weapon. It was one of my primary weapons in mechwarrior 4.

[Rebas Kradd]

Vlad Ward, on 29 April 2014 - 03:20 PM, said:

That said, who cares about meta tryharding in random matches?

Because that's the tryhards' only yardstick for evaluating balance: how a weapon handles at high ELO ranges. If anything has even the slightest perceived competitive advantage, the tryhards will jump on it and magnify it, thus creating perceived imbalance. They don't realize that there are basically three MWOs in existence, one for each ELO bucket, and that in the two lower buckets where players are taking non-meta builds all the time, the game is quite varied and interesting.

Certain people have a self-contradictory definition of balance. They want role warfare, yet fail to realize that role warfare will result in situations (roles) where certain weapons outperform others. That's why I just roll my eyes at the snide talk of "empirical" results.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 29 April 2014 - 03:43 PM.

[Shlkt]

Devs haven't mentioned this, but I wonder if the explosion-queue bug that was fixed today also affected LBX. It shoots lots of pellets, particularly if you're running more than one LBX. The same hit detection issues which plagued SRMs could have also been affecting LBX.

I still think it's a lousy weapon at long range, which is where a lot of fighting takes place, but the LBX does fill one niche in that you can fit two of them in a single side torso. If you want a lot of ballistics and you've only got 2 hardpoints to work with then it might be your best option.

A lancemate of mine runs 3x LBX in one of his 'Phracts and has lots of fun with it. He generally chain fires them, though, which would have mitigated the hit detection issues somewhat (assuming they even affect LBX in the first place).

[MischiefSC]

Roland, on 29 April 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

All the talk in the world won't replace well structured empirical testing.

Record stats, including k/d ratio with lbx, then do the same with a comparable build using other weapons, and compare them. Ideally, keep video records for analysis.

Everything else is just smoke.

KDR is situational and subjective. I'd give more credence to damage/shot, which is a good balance for the differences between improved accuracy created by spread vs FLD damage from the hit/miss dynamic of the AC10 ballistic.

The question is, how much difference? Also what change, if any, to win/loss and KDR for the chassis.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 29 April 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

The last time I did testing, the lbx was shown to be inferior, and I have never seen anyone present evidence to the contrary. Indeed, when advocates of the lbx have tried to present evidence, it has usually unintentionally supported the assertion that they are bad weapons.

I am willing to believe that something has changed, and your beliefs are correct, bishop. So do the tests if you like. Or don't.

I have no vested interest in the lbx being bad. I would like nothing more than for it to be a good weapon. It was one of my primary weapons in mechwarrior 4.

the question I pose (as I am indeed recording my progress, since I was able to use the stat wipe as a clean break from the mechs previous stats) is are you really as open as you think, or do you let the LB-X not being what you WANT it to be, color your thinking (as I know from previous posts, that it not working like in TT or at least in the vicious MW4 shotgun manner, seems to be a big beef with you. If you recall, I too have spent months working on and proposing ways to "fix" it). Because believe it or not, the placebo thing MWHighlander talks about works both ways, and we can predispose ourselves to taking a jaundiced view, and not even know it.

At no point should the LBX be BETTER than the ac10, as a total combat system. What the testing needs to ask, is it a legitimate viable alternative, that might fulfil a different role from the ac10.

I cannot say I have enough testing to prove either yet, but so far, in my documented runs, an average damage of 600+ per match is 30% more than my dual ac10 Ily runs, and a 10/1 KDr with it is triple what my Ilya runs. I need a lot more matches to fully compare, and I expect both numbers to go down (after all x/1 KDr is highly misleading, and the more kills you get the faster it gets halved by a single death. So I try to track average kills per match, damage, component destruction, etc.)

We will see. But until then, I think the Peanut Gallery (and they know who they are) would also be advised to put up or shut up, scientifically, and stop attacking those who are willing to think outside the precious Meta-Box.

[Ultimax]

MischiefSC, on 29 April 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

which before were a waste of time against armored targets, will absolutely strip armor in about 3 or 4 salvos - normally from 2 locations. It's doing what I would expect 60-80 damage to do....

What I don't know is how much or little the MGs are involved in that; admittedly they're like l4 little firehoses going the moment someone gets to 240m from me....

3 Salvos of the 2x LB 10-X =

20 x 3 = 60 damage
2.5s CD = 7.5s

+ 4x MG @ 1 DPS each x 7.5s = 30 damage


So if you are firing 3 volleys of 2x LB10s and 4x MGs all at the same time that's around 90 damage you should be doing in 7.5s.


I use Small Pulse Lasers on...my Boar's Head...in the same manner. (He has 2x PPCs and an AC 20, don't worry I'm not a lunatic).

DPS is irrelevant for long range snipe fights.

Once you are in face hugging range, suddenly sustainable DPS means a lot since assaults and heavies can't exactly dance away from you at 100m.



So pouring constant MG or SPL DPS directly into their center torsos actually does something.

Bishop Steiner, on 29 April 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

Including your guyses posts, eh?

Bishop, to be fair to Roland in this thread he's not saying that LB 10X is bad, or that people saying they are good are bad, or any of that.

He's just emphasizing that methodical testing demonstrates more than anecdotes.


Now with the private, especially premium, queues there are more options for dedicated testing.


I might do some testing of my own, maybe this week or this weekend, in testing grounds to see how many shots it takes of X, Y or Z weapon to down a target dummy for example.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 29 April 2014 - 03:54 PM.

[Roland]

Rebas Kradd, on 29 April 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

Because that's the tryhards' only yardstick for evaluating balance: how a weapon handles at high ELO ranges.

That's because it's the correct way to evaluate weapon usage, since you're effectively evaluating the weapons at their maximum potential.

I mean, if someone is terrible and can't hit targets with direct damage weapons, then they won't be very effective with those weapons... but that really has very little to do with the weapons themselves.

Quote

Certain people have a self-contradictory definition of balance. They want role warfare, yet fail to realize that role warfare will result in situations (roles) where certain weapons outperform others.

If the situation was that certain weapons performed better in some situations, while performing worse in others, then that would be great. That would be a case of well balanced weapons.

However, in the past, that's not been the case in MWO. Certain weapons have been superior in many situations, while also being at least competitive in the rest of the situations. The LBX has fallen into the opposite of that category, being effectively useless in many situations, and really only rising to the level of "passable" in ideal situations.

Perhaps that has changed. The OP believes so. So I look forward to the results of testing.

Rebas Kradd, on 29 April 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

That's why I just roll my eyes at the snide talk of "empirical" results.

Empirical testing is how you find out real answers, rather than just imagined fantasies.

Some people don't like science. That's fine. But some of us like facts more than just faith.