342 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 29 April 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

Totally agree and am tracking KDR. It's just a statistic that because of the variance in matches takes a lot to shake out effectively. Then again I've pinned myself to 80 drops. Statistically that should shake out outliers, my stats on this chassis haven't changed much since about 80 drops and this should give a reasonable comparison sample.

Really need to have some other people who don't actually normally roll LB10X and have rolled with AC5s and 10s plenty try this, or it is simply too subjective to be of a lot of use.

I'm trying to think of how to roll it myself. To be "purely" objective, either I need to ONLY use LBX on a build (which has it's own set of artificial conditions it imposes) or I need to replicate an effective build exactly, with the difference being ac10s, vs LB-x but that 2 tons of difference has to come from somewhere, be it support weapons, ammo, heatsinks, engine or armor, all of which can impact the viability of a build too.

[Vlad Ward]

tbh idk why these particular weapons are the ones being compared directly anyways.

The AC/10 is good to 500m. The LB-10X is good to 100. If you're someone who just doesn't shoot accurately past 100m (not a jab, this isn't uncommon), or who just doesn't like utilizing range, you'll probably get better personal results from the LB-10X.

Of course, comparing the LB-10 to other weapons of the same profile... 11 tons of LBX doing 10 damage a pop is a bit of a wash against 4 tons of SRM6 doing 12 damage a pop.

And another obvious note, trying to apply personal preferences to the general population is an even bigger wash.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 29 April 2014 - 04:31 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Vlad Ward, on 29 April 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

tbh idk why these particular weapons are the ones being compared directly anyways.

The AC/10 is good to 500m. The LB-10X is good to 100. If you're someone who just doesn't shoot accurately past 100m (not a jab, this isn't uncommon), or who just doesn't like utilizing range, you'll probably get better personal results from the LB-10X.

Of course, comparing the LB-10 to other weapons of the same profile... 11 tons of LBX doing 10 damage a pop is a bit of a wash against 4 tons of SRM6 doing 12 damage a pop.

And another obvious note, trying to apply personal preferences to the general population is an even bigger wash.

Well, the LBX actually does fire past 1000 meters too, and can be effective for suppression, or even hurting a mech, though almost any weapon past 1000 meters is far less effective. I've killed mechs at that range with them, and more usefully, on average, suppressed a lot of people to free up my team to maneuver. SRM6 is a lot lighter, but also has a hard capped horribad range, spreads even worse than an LB-X even at close range and runs hotter.

I think comparing weapons in general can be a bit fallacious, past certain basic standards of effectiveness, as there are usually features of each that counter the other. (in most cases..... Flamers.... flamers are still just BAD, lol, though I do use one on my Cicada to blind and essentially "stunlock" Noobs that would otherwise corner and kill me))

[3rdworld]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 April 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

I'm trying to think of how to roll it myself. To be "purely" objective, either I need to ONLY use LBX on a build (which has it's own set of artificial conditions it imposes) or I need to replicate an effective build exactly, with the difference being ac10s, vs LB-x but that 2 tons of difference has to come from somewhere, be it support weapons, ammo, heatsinks, engine or armor, all of which can impact the viability of a build too.

CTF with AC
CTF with LB

[Roland]

Vlad Ward, on 29 April 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

tbh idk why these particular weapons are the ones being compared directly anyways.

The AC/10 is good to 500m. The LB-10X is good to 100. If you're someone who just doesn't shoot accurately past 100m (not a jab, this isn't uncommon), or who just doesn't like utilizing range, you'll probably get better personal results from the LB-10X.

Of course, comparing the LB-10 to other weapons of the same profile... 11 tons of LBX doing 10 damage a pop is a bit of a wash against 4 tons of SRM6 doing 12 damage a pop.

And another obvious note, trying to apply personal preferences to the general population is an even bigger wash.

I would tend to agree with much of this, and is why the LBX has always ended up in the "do not use" pile, even for folks who couldn't aim well enough to hit with the AC10.

For instance, a common argument among some people is, "Well, with an LBX, I'll at least get SOME damage on the target!" But if that's your only requirement, then you're generally better off using a laser.. which will get SOME damage on the target even more easily... and will still be able to focus that damage with skill.

Or, as you say, SRM's tend to also compare against the LBX and generally beat it if you're just looking at scattering some damage around in a general direciton, since they can do similar damage for significantly lower weight.

In this thread, it was compared against the AC10 just because some folks seemed to think it compared favorably against the AC10.

[Bhael Fire]

Vlad Ward, on 29 April 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

Of course, comparing the LB-10 to other weapons of the same profile... 11 tons of LBX doing 10 damage a pop is a bit of a wash against 4 tons of SRM6 doing 12 damage a pop.

Well, the spread pattern widens a lot faster with SRMs, so that 12 points severely decays after point blank range...whereas the blast pattern of an LB-X stays relatively tight in comparison...and has a faster recycle time, faster travel speed, and runs a lot cooler.

So, it's not a wash at all; a single LB-10X outclasses a single SRM/6.

[Roland]

Quote

Well, the LBX actually does fire past 1000 meters too, and can be effective for suppression, or even hurting a mech, though almost any weapon past 1000 meters is far less effective

Oh come now... When someone fires LBX at me from anything beyond a few hundred meters, I just laugh at them.. And then either proceed to ignore them (since they aren't doing anything to me) or kill them quickly and move on.

At that range, the LBX is spreading damage all over the place, while most other weapons will be able to focus damage on a single location.. thus killing the LBX mech before it can really do anything useful at all other than make all of the target's armor yellow maybe.

Bhael Fire, on 29 April 2014 - 04:39 PM, said:

So, it's not a wash at all; a single LB-10X outclasses a single SRM/6.

A single LBX10 weighs 11 tons, while a single SRM6 weighs 3.

[3rdworld]

Vlad Ward, on 29 April 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

tbh idk why these particular weapons are the ones being compared directly anyways.

The AC/10 is good to 500m. The LB-10X is good to 100. If you're someone who just doesn't shoot accurately past 100m (not a jab, this isn't uncommon), or who just doesn't like utilizing range, you'll probably get better personal results from the LB-10X.

Of course, comparing the LB-10 to other weapons of the same profile... 11 tons of LBX doing 10 damage a pop is a bit of a wash against 4 tons of SRM6 doing 12 damage a pop.

And another obvious note, trying to apply personal preferences to the general population is an even bigger wash.

I compare weapons based on what you would use in lieu of another.

For me I compare the LB to the 10 & the UAC, they are the other "10" damage ballistic weapons.

Edited by 3rdworld, 29 April 2014 - 04:43 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

3rdworld, on 29 April 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

CTF with AC
CTF with LB

Yeah, not sure I like that test bed, no offense. I think it would be better to test Dual LB vs Dual AC10, but part of what I mentioned is also, complimentary weapons. LBX is a brawlers weapon, where the PPC is often ineffective. So while the ac10/ Dual PPC works well together, they are not, in my mind complementary to the LBX, hence part of the dilemma, as to maximize the one weapon, you have to do it at the expense, of the other, largely. I don't think either option really gives an accurate view, as the more logical pairing with the LBX would be LPL, but then we get into another can of worms because of the LPL and PPC debate.

And that is a bit of the issue.... to really maximize the "niche" of the LB-X you have to brawl, but to artificially constrain the ac10 to brawling also skews the value of the data. Finding a middle of the road build that allows each ballistic to be used to it's own strengths is the key.

Maybe if I try it with Ilya like so......
ILYA ac10 (my usual hunter loadout.... works very well for me) vs
ILYA MUROMETS LB-X

though forcing a barndoor mech with an XL into Brawling Conditions, IDK how THAT will skew results, either.

GAH. I am probably over thinking things.



And as noted earlier, I think a good chunk of the effectiveness I found in that Jager build in MischiefSC's OP comes from the complimentary, or symbiotic, crit stacking capability of the LB-X with the MGs...............

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Josef Nader, on 29 April 2014 - 03:21 PM, said:

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.

Joself, i usually put most of your posts in the looney pile, but this is actually by far the BEST argument for the LBX.

Absolutely correct, the start of the matches are always sniper fests to get in as much damage as possible without getting shot at by the other 12 guys on the "Red" team.

However, as a match progresses, anyone who has any awareness can tell that matches always devolve into a late game brawl and battle royals to clean up whatevers left. Should a game be close, and there's no super-star snipers left running around amok on the outskirt picking off stragglers, then yes the LBX in this instance does become rather good.

However, going back to Mech Theory Paper Warrior, the only advantage the LBX has is a faster rate of fire and slightly higher internal crit system that requires a mech already be damage. The problem again that comes up is that a mech must be <150M to get all 10 damage on a single exposed location, which won't always happen. So at best 7-9 damage (a good average) damage on the exposed component, and if any crits ~10 damage still. On the other hand, an AC10 will always do that 10 damage, and considering the palltry amount of HP on internals, the AC10 will probably be just as effective at killing off the component.

Now, considering that scenario where its a late, end game brawl, you have 2LBXs and you have to fight down a small handfull of damaged mechs, then yes the LBX is good in that case. But to be honest, the situation in which an LBX would shine... so would any other weapon.


It would just be better if PGI went the MW4 route and made LBX's do like 14 damage (1.4 damage a pellet) and be done with it. Its so easy, even Paul could do it. But we know how much he loaths openeing up an XML document and changing one number variable. Too much work, he might have to take another vacation to vent all that steam.


Edit: I remember a long time ago I was actually trying to make a rather fun build around doing something like this. I had a pair of PPC's and then LBX's with limited ammo I would try and save for late game mech sweeping. It was definately a fun build, but not my best performance build.

CTF-3D 2xPPC, 2xLB10@2

Edited by mwhighlander, 29 April 2014 - 04:58 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 29 April 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

Oh come now... When someone fires LBX at me from anything beyond a few hundred meters, I just laugh at them.. And then either proceed to ignore them (since they aren't doing anything to me) or kill them quickly and move on.

At that range, the LBX is spreading damage all over the place, while most other weapons will be able to focus damage on a single location.. thus killing the LBX mech before it can really do anything useful at all other than make all of the target's armor yellow maybe.


A single LBX10 weighs 11 tons, while a single SRM6 weighs 3.

Cool, and you represent the unwashed masses now? Because a veteran player is not fazed by suppression fire does not mean a dang thing, because once again, aside from in the Enlightened, Valhalla like Halls of High Elo Comp12, one has other players they are dealing with, that are not so amazingly unflappable as yourself. And believe it or not, a new guy in a GausssJager can kill you just as dead as a pro, if he feels comfortable lining up the shot. It's amazing what splashing an ac2, LB--X, er large, etc can do to dissipate that persons composure.

THIS would be an example of that high horse/antagonism mentioned several posts back, btw.

[Rebas Kradd]

Roland, on 29 April 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

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

Oh, get off your high horse and quit twisting my words. What I'm saying is that your methodology is flawed. 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. At lower ELOs, the meta builds and weapons become merely one of the "better" scoring builds, taking their turns right up there with some chassis and loadouts that would never be seen in competitive play. Is that possible merely because players at lower ELOs are more easily taken out? Partially. But if that were true, the meta builds would still dominate. 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 also don't judge every weapon side by side by KDR because not all weapons are meant to kill. Flamers and machine guns are meant to cause secondary effects in certain situations. LBX-10s are brawling weapons, MEANT to spread damage, and also work better as a light killing weapon than other autocannons. You're comparing a weapon to other weapons with a completely different purpose.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 29 April 2014 - 04:57 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

mwhighlander, on 29 April 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Joself, i usually put most of your posts in the looney pile, but this is actually by far the BEST argument for the LBX.

Absolutely correct, the start of the matches are always sniper fests to get in as much damage as possible without getting shot at by the other 12 guys on the "Red" team.

However, as a match progresses, anyone who has any awareness can tell that matches always devolve into a late game brawl and battle royals to clean up whatevers left. Should a game be close, and there's no super-star snipers left running around amok on the outskirt picking off stragglers, then yes the LBX in this instance does become rather good.

However, going back to Mech Theory Paper Warrior, the only advantage the LBX has is a faster rate of fire and slightly higher internal crit system that requires a mech already be damage. The problem again that comes up is that a mech must be <150M to get all 10 damage on a single exposed location, which won't always happen. So at best 7-9 damage (a good average) damage on the exposed component, and if any crits ~10 damage still. On the other hand, an AC10 will always do that 10 damage, and considering the palltry amount of HP on internals, the AC10 will probably be just as effective at killing off the component.

Now, considering that scenario where its a late, end game brawl, you have 2LBXs and you have to fight down a small handfull of damaged mechs, then yes the LBX is good in that case. But to be honest, the situation in which an LBX would shine... so would any other weapon.


It would just be better if PGI went the MW4 route and made LBX's do like 14 damage (1.4 damage a pellet) and be done with it. Its so easy, even Paul could do it. But we know how much he loaths openeing up an XML document and changing one number variable. Too much work, he might have to take another vacation to vent all that steam.

I don't disagree. But there is a world of difference between, could still use improvement, and something being garbage which is what your initial OP implied.

[Roland]

That was not a particularly antagonistic post on my part, I was just pointing out that LBX isn't doing anything against a target at long range.

I mean, sure, if someone happens to notice they're getting hit, and also doesn't notice that their armor isn't really changing at all... and panics... then I guess that's something? But you can't rely on your opponent being a fool. (and really, what you are describing there is foolish behavior)

[Vlad Ward]

Once you start talking about player behavior at different ELO levels, the conversation isn't really about weapons any more.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 April 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

I don't disagree. But there is a world of difference between, could still use improvement, and something being garbage which is what your initial OP implied.

Well lets put it this way, for the tonnage, and if the 3D had 4x Missile instead of 2x Ballistic, I would any day pick 4x SRM6 over 2LBX10's. The issues for me is even for using it as a point blank weapon, there are still better alternatives like SRMs even with hit detection that would be better bang for the ton.

Everything comes down to performance/tonnage.

[3rdworld]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 April 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

Yeah, not sure I like that test bed, no offense. I think it would be better to test Dual LB vs Dual AC10, but part of what I mentioned is also, complimentary weapons. LBX is a brawlers weapon, where the PPC is often ineffective. So while the ac10/ Dual PPC works well together, they are not, in my mind complementary to the LBX, hence part of the dilemma, as to maximize the one weapon, you have to do it at the expense, of the other, largely. I don't think either option really gives an accurate view, as the more logical pairing with the LBX would be LPL, but then we get into another can of worms because of the LPL and PPC debate.

And that is a bit of the issue.... to really maximize the "niche" of the LB-X you have to brawl, but to artificially constrain the ac10 to brawling also skews the value of the data. Finding a middle of the road build that allows each ballistic to be used to it's own strengths is the key.

Maybe if I try it with Ilya like so......
ILYA ac10 (my usual hunter loadout.... works very well for me) vs
ILYA MUROMETS LB-X

though forcing a barndoor mech with an XL into Brawling Conditions, IDK how THAT will skew results, either.

GAH. I am probably over thinking things.



And as noted earlier, I think a good chunk of the effectiveness I found in that Jager build in MischiefSC's OP comes from the complimentary, or symbiotic, crit stacking capability of the LB-X with the MGs...............

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.

[Bishop Steiner]

Vlad Ward, on 29 April 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

Once you start talking about player behavior at different ELO levels, the conversation isn't really about weapons any more.

actually, it is, as it effect use and viability. I don't flinch when shot by an ac2, you likely don't either, we assess, and react accordingly, either twisting, ignoring to shoot back, or pulling to cover, depending on damage status. Many other players panic, same as many panic when they get the LRM alarm. That in turn does affect the usefulness of a weapon.

If all people were uberskilled, or just very experienced, comp players, etc, then you would be correct, but the vast majority of players actually are not, and thus, the ability to change tactics, break morale and such, while not as easily measured, are undeniably there. Artillery, IRL, was not terribly efficient, for most of the 20th century. But as a morale breaker and area denial weapon it far exceeded it's KDr. Same as I often don't consider it a waste of an art strike in game, even if I don't score a hit, if I still redirect the opponent, and have him reacting to me.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

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

You also don't judge every weapon side by side by KDR because not all weapons are meant to kill. Flamers and machine guns are meant to cause secondary effects in certain situations. LBX-10s are brawling weapons, MEANT to spread damage, and also work better as a light killing weapon than other autocannons. You're comparing a weapon to other weapons with a completely different purpose.

Now, before you start attacking people I'd just like to point things out here.

Machine guns in packs of 4 (like on the Firestarter, or that new Raven) are in fact meant to kill and will kill .
Flamers aren't meant to kill not by design, but because their weapon mechanic is actually broken. They were nerfed in CB when they didn't generate heat so having a bunch of them will instantly spike your heat to an absurd number. Stack on top of ludicrously short range, laughable damage and exponetially higher heat (meaning you can't use other weapons at all unlike machine guns) AND to top it off, generate far more heat on your mech than the guy you're shooting, PLUS cannot raise the heat of a target past 90%....

...I know a lot of people give the LBX flak (ha, get it?) but serisouly, the flamer is straight up non-functional. The LBX is just vastly underpowered. Serious difference between non-functional and non-optimal.

Edited by mwhighlander, 29 April 2014 - 07:42 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

mwhighlander, on 29 April 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

Well lets put it this way, for the tonnage, and if the 3D had 4x Missile instead of 2x Ballistic, I would any day pick 4x SRM6 over 2LBX10's. The issues for me is even for using it as a point blank weapon, there are still better alternatives like SRMs even with hit detection that would be better bang for the ton.

Everything comes down to performance/tonnage.

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.