54 replies to this topic

[krolmir]

So general word about Clan LBX Auto-cannon series, that I have heard, is that they will have a dual mode ammo function because Clans do not use, or even have Standard Class Auto-cannons. Which fits the BT lore, and seems pretty legit.

The general word about IS LBX Auto-cannon series, which for our timeline is only the LBX A/C 10, is that it will remain as it currently functions, shotgun blast only.

Which just gives the Clans that much more of an advantage, doesn't it?

What does LB-X stand for? Long Barrel-eXtended range, not shotgun spread only, nor does the Clan LBX only fit this class of architecture.

PGI justifies this by saying they do not wish to make the Standard A/C series useless by giving the IS LBX this ability, but I got bad news for PGI, your going to have too. At least if there is any truth to the Community Warfare Model that has been put forward to even start to work.

The IS Mechs will need every advantage available to them for IS vs Clan matches. IS pilots will be required to chose a lesser weapon than Clan pilots? With the exception of the LBX-10 all IS LBX cannons are bigger, heavier, or both. The Real advantage of the LBX series in increased range with all cannon calibers. The LBX-10 getting this buff would make it an Ideal Medium Mech big punch weapon. A little smaller, a little lighter, and a little more range, really goes a long way for smaller tonnage chassis' that need those kind of benefits.

Technology marches on in the MechWarrior Universe, and PGI should embrace that fact if they expect real longevity from this title, after all variety is the spice of life.

So who's with me on this?

[Ultimax]

krolmir, on 17 May 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

So general word about Clan LBX Auto-cannon series, that I have heard, is that they will have a dual mode ammo function because Clans do not use, or even have Standard Class Auto-cannons. Which fits the BT lore, and seems pretty legit.

The general word about IS LBX Auto-cannon series, which for our timeline is only the LBX A/C 10, is that it will remain as it currently functions, shotgun blast only.

Which just gives the Clans that much more of an advantage, doesn't it?

What does LB-X stand for? Long Barrel-eXtended range, not shotgun spread only, nor does the Clan LBX only fit this class of architecture.

PGI justifies this by saying they do not wish to make the Standard A/C series useless by giving the IS LBX this ability, but I got bad news for PGI, your going to have too. At least if there is any truth to the Community Warfare Model that has been put forward to even start to work.

The IS Mechs will need every advantage available to them for IS vs Clan matches. IS pilots will be required to chose a lesser weapon than Clan pilots? With the exception of the LBX-10 all IS LBX cannons are bigger, heavier, or both. The Real advantage of the LBX series in increased range with all cannon calibers. The LBX-10 getting this buff would make it an Ideal Medium Mech big punch weapon. A little smaller, a little lighter, and a little more range, really goes a long way for smaller tonnage chassis' that need those kind of benefits.

Technology marches on in the MechWarrior Universe, and PGI should embrace that fact if they expect real longevity from this title, after all variety is the spice of life.

So who's with me on this?

Honestly if IS only gets that treatment to their LB10X I would be happy.

Yes it would obsolete the "AC 10" - but since this would be the new AC 10 that has stats the AC 10 should already have, does it really matter?

[Davers]

I don't think technology will be advancing much past the Clans. I doubt we will see RACs or the like.

[Joseph Mallan]

krolmir, on 17 May 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

So general word about Clan LBX Auto-cannon series, that I have heard, is that they will have a dual mode ammo function because Clans do not use, or even have Standard Class Auto-cannons. Which fits the BT lore, and seems pretty legit.

The general word about IS LBX Auto-cannon series, which for our timeline is only the LBX A/C 10, is that it will remain as it currently functions, shotgun blast only.

Which just gives the Clans that much more of an advantage, doesn't it?

What does LB-X stand for? Long Barrel-eXtended range, not shotgun spread only, nor does the Clan LBX only fit this class of architecture.

PGI justifies this by saying they do not wish to make the Standard A/C series useless by giving the IS LBX this ability, but I got bad news for PGI, your going to have too. At least if there is any truth to the Community Warfare Model that has been put forward to even start to work.

The IS Mechs will need every advantage available to them for IS vs Clan matches. IS pilots will be required to chose a lesser weapon than Clan pilots? With the exception of the LBX-10 all IS LBX cannons are bigger, heavier, or both. The Real advantage of the LBX series in increased range with all cannon calibers. The LBX-10 getting this buff would make it an Ideal Medium Mech big punch weapon. A little smaller, a little lighter, and a little more range, really goes a long way for smaller tonnage chassis' that need those kind of benefits.

Technology marches on in the MechWarrior Universe, and PGI should embrace that fact if they expect real longevity from this title, after all variety is the spice of life.

So who's with me on this?

My question and it is an honest one. Why the concern? Why do we need to worry about Standard ACs becoming obsolete? As it stands, If you don't have the funds you cannot buy an XL engine. Same thing with Weapons. If you don't have the cash you cannot get the good toys. That is WHY we play the game. To earn the cash to have the good gear.

As a fighting/combat game A standard Army doesn't get to have whatever gear they want. They get what they are given. As Mercs, you have to earn the cash to have the better gear. It is part of the whole "Leveling process".

[Bishop Steiner]

Actually, pretty sure the original LB-X stood for "Lubalin Ballistics, class X" (X being the roman numeral for 10, which coincidentally, or not, is the class of AC it represents).

Of course, over the 90s, FASA's right hand had zero clue what it's left hand was doing (see: King Crab AC20/Critical location issue, comparing original TRO to later iterations)

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 May 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Actually, pretty sure the original LB-X stood for "Lubalin Ballistics, class X" (X being the roman numeral for 10, which coincidentally, or not, is the class of AC it represents).

Of course, over the 90s, FASA's right hand had zero clue what it's left hand was doing (see: King Crab AC20/Critical location issue, comparing original TRO to later iterations)

LOL FASA had lots of Issues back in the 80s and 90s... Like in the original Print of the TRO3025... Hunchbacks had the IS of a ...65 ton Mech IIRC. So it could have more armor if you gave up the Lasers!

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 May 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

LOL FASA had lots of Issues back in the 80s and 90s... Like in the original Print of the TRO3025... Hunchbacks had the IS of a ...65 ton Mech IIRC. So it could have more armor if you gave up the Lasers!

true enough, but where not outright breaking the rules (I believe the original hatchetman had 14 SHS and a "free" hatchet, too) I feel the original documents show the "intent". Especially when half the "updates" where based off of equally poorly edited Record Sheets (original TRO 3025 and 3050 TRO had mechs like the Rifleman and Stalker showing full arm actuator sets.)

[Spheroid]

The longer range is not that usable with current autocannon velocities. I really only use my AC-10 under 400 meters.

LBX and AC-10 are easy to balance, you just tweak the cyclic rate slighty. I would recommend a 1-1.25 second difference.

I don't know why they would not try that approach, the UAC-5 and AC-5 once had different values.

Edited by Spheroid, 17 May 2014 - 11:56 AM.

[Zack Esseth]

Part of the ballance to the Clan AC's though is that they will fire in Burst Fire. It wasn't clear in the podcast with Paul weather the Burst Fire mechinism was for the Ultra only or for both. The way I heard it, it was for both. Also, the LB-10x has a shorter range than the AC-10 acording to Sarna. The LB-10x has a max of 18 and the AC-10 has a max of 20. The advantage of the LBX over the original AC was the ability to use special munitions like Armour peircing, incidiary, and such. Most of which don't exist right now.

Links to sarna.

Spoiler

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC-10
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/LB_10-X

[Spheroid]

@Zack: you are reading that wrong. Extreme range is an optional rule. AC-10 is 15 hexes vs. 18 for the LBX. The LBX has the same range bracket as the PPC.

Edited by Spheroid, 17 May 2014 - 11:59 AM.

[Zack Esseth]

Spheroid, on 17 May 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

@Zack: you are reading that wrong. Extreme range is an optional rule. AC-10 is 15 hexes vs. 18 for the LBX. The LBX has the same range bracket as the PPC.

Ok, then it does have more range. But it is suposed to be a more advanced gun. Thanks for clairifing extreme ranges though, I never got to play true table top, just the Wiz Kidz Clicks game.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 May 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Actually, pretty sure the original LB-X stood for "Lubalin Ballistics, class X" (X being the roman numeral for 10, which coincidentally, or not, is the class of AC it represents).

Of course, over the 90s, FASA's right hand had zero clue what it's left hand was doing (see: King Crab AC20/Critical location issue, comparing original TRO to later iterations)

Indeed - the original designation (per the TRO 2750 entry for the Champion) of the weapon is "Lubalin Ballistics 10-X Autocannon" or "Lubalin LB 10-X Autocannon".
Though, the "X" is, IMO, probably closer to something like "series 10" (as opposed to the developmental non-starters that would have been series 1 through 9), such that the whole thing would read as "Lubalin Ballistics Class 10, Series 10 Autocannon" (and that the others would have been read as "Lubalin Ballistics Class 2, Series 10 Autocannon", "Lubalin Ballistics Class 5, Series 10 Autocannon", and "Lubalin Ballistics Class 20, Series 10 Autocannon", had Lubalin ever gotten around to developing them).

Interestingly, the TRO 2750 entry for the Crockett indicates that its armament includes a "Blankenburg LB 10-X Autocannon". The interesting part is that the Crockett apparently made its debut in 2735 & the Champion apparently made its debut in 2602, while the LB 10-X itself was stated as being invented in 2595 (40 years before the debut of the Crockett & 7 years before the debut of the Champion); that would seem to suggest that Lubalin eventually licensed construction of the weapon to other companies... after ensuring that the gun was so strongly associated with them that "LB" became a generic trademark associated with the weapon.

[Sephlock]

krolmir, on 17 May 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

So general word about Clan LBX Auto-cannon series, that I have heard, is that they will have a dual mode ammo function because Clans do not use, or even have Standard Class Auto-cannons. Which fits the BT lore, and seems pretty legit.

The general word about IS LBX Auto-cannon series, which for our timeline is only the LBX A/C 10, is that it will remain as it currently functions, shotgun blast only.

Which just gives the Clans that much more of an advantage, doesn't it?

What does LB-X stand for? Long Barrel-eXtended range, not shotgun spread only, nor does the Clan LBX only fit this class of architecture.

PGI justifies this by saying they do not wish to make the Standard A/C series useless by giving the IS LBX this ability, but I got bad news for PGI, your going to have too. At least if there is any truth to the Community Warfare Model that has been put forward to even start to work.

The IS Mechs will need every advantage available to them for IS vs Clan matches. IS pilots will be required to chose a lesser weapon than Clan pilots? With the exception of the LBX-10 all IS LBX cannons are bigger, heavier, or both. The Real advantage of the LBX series in increased range with all cannon calibers. The LBX-10 getting this buff would make it an Ideal Medium Mech big punch weapon. A little smaller, a little lighter, and a little more range, really goes a long way for smaller tonnage chassis' that need those kind of benefits.

Technology marches on in the MechWarrior Universe, and PGI should embrace that fact if they expect real longevity from this title, after all variety is the spice of life.

So who's with me on this?

Relax, they're just going to nerf Clan ultras. You know it's going to happen.

[Gas Guzzler]

Zack Esseth, on 17 May 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Part of the ballance to the Clan AC's though is that they will fire in Burst Fire. It wasn't clear in the podcast with Paul weather the Burst Fire mechinism was for the Ultra only or for both. The way I heard it, it was for both. Also, the LB-10x has a shorter range than the AC-10 acording to Sarna. The LB-10x has a max of 18 and the AC-10 has a max of 20. The advantage of the LBX over the original AC was the ability to use special munitions like Armour peircing, incidiary, and such. Most of which don't exist right now.

Links to sarna.

Spoiler

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC-10
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/LB_10-X

Well if the LBX switched to burst fire slug mode then it wouldn't make the AC10 obsolete so he wouldn't have said that the IS LB-10X having a slug ammo type would make the AC10 obsolete. I think based on that we can infer that the Ultras are the ones that get burst fire, and the LBs will behave like standard ACs now with slug ammo equipped.

[Koniving]

Zack Esseth, on 17 May 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Part of the ballance to the Clan AC's though is that they will fire in Burst Fire. It wasn't clear in the podcast with Paul weather the Burst Fire mechinism was for the Ultra only or for both. The way I heard it, it was for both. Also, the LB-10x has a shorter range than the AC-10 acording to Sarna. The LB-10x has a max of 18 and the AC-10 has a max of 20. The advantage of the LBX over the original AC was the ability to use special munitions like Armour peircing, incidiary, and such. Most of which don't exist right now.

Links to sarna.

Spoiler

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC-10
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/LB_10-X

You also got the special munitions wrong. LB could only use Cluster and standard. AC/10 could use all the specials.

[Strum Wealh]

Spheroid, on 17 May 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

The longer range is not that usable with current autocannon velocities. I really only use my AC-10 under 400 meters.

LBX and AC-10 are easy to balance, you just tweak the cyclic rate slighty. I would recommend a 1-1.25 second difference.

I don't know why they would not try that approach, the UAC-5 and AC-5 once had different values.

Personally, I think it'd be interesting to (re)implement both the Standard AC/10 and the slug-mode LB 10-X as burst fire weapons, which would then allow for both shells-per-burst & burst duration to serve as additional balance variables.

For example, the LB-X might have the same shells-per-burst count with a longer burst duration versus the standard AC/10 (e.g. both have a 3-shell burst, with a burst duration of 0.50s for the AC/10 (one shell at 0.20s increments - first at 0.00s, second at 0.20s, third at 0.40s) and a burst duration of 0.60s for the LB 10-X (one shell at 0.30s increments - first at 0.00s, second at 0.30s, third at 0.60s)); the result would be a greater tendency for the LB-X slug-mode shells to be dispersed over a larger area, reducing its capacity for concentrated damage relative to the Standard AC/10 (while still being more concentrated than the damage from a LB-X cluster round).
Alternatively, the LB-X might have the same burst duration with a greater shells-per-burst count versus the standard AC/10 (such that each individual LB-X slug-mode shell deals less damage than an individual Standard AC/10 shell, despite the overall per-burst damage being equal between the two).

[SweetJackal]

Believe it or not there is a way to set the IS LB-X-AC/10 to being able to fire slug or canister shot while not invalidating the original AC/10. How?

Force every ton of LBX ammo to be half canister and half slug. This would mean that to use an LB-X exclusively as an AC/10 you would be paying a tax in crits and tonnage for ammo. In return for this additional cost over the AC/10 you'd get a bit more range.

Or you could not make canister shot waste the extra range given by the LB-X by putting a maximum spread on the cone of fire from the LB-X or changing it from a cone of fire into a cylinder. Both of these would still force a spread of damage that is normal for LB-X while allowing all 10 pellets to hit in a good grouping even at it's extreme ranges. Both could simulate either a choke mechanism for the weapon or a proximity fuse canister shell that would detonate once close enough to the target.

Currently if the LB-X is used at or beyond it's optimum range then you only pepper the target with a few pellets.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 17 May 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

Indeed - the original designation (per the TRO 2750 entry for the Champion) of the weapon is "Lubalin Ballistics 10-X Autocannon" or "Lubalin LB 10-X Autocannon".
Though, the "X" is, IMO, probably closer to something like "series 10" (as opposed to the developmental non-starters that would have been series 1 through 9), such that the whole thing would read as "Lubalin Ballistics Class 10, Series 10 Autocannon" (and that the others would have been read as "Lubalin Ballistics Class 2, Series 10 Autocannon", "Lubalin Ballistics Class 5, Series 10 Autocannon", and "Lubalin Ballistics Class 20, Series 10 Autocannon", had Lubalin ever gotten around to developing them).

Interestingly, the TRO 2750 entry for the Crockett indicates that its armament includes a "Blankenburg LB 10-X Autocannon". The interesting part is that the Crockett apparently made its debut in 2735 & the Champion apparently made its debut in 2602, while the LB 10-X itself was stated as being invented in 2595 (40 years before the debut of the Crockett & 7 years before the debut of the Champion); that would seem to suggest that Lubalin eventually licensed construction of the weapon to other companies... after ensuring that the gun was so strongly associated with them that "LB" became a generic trademark associated with the weapon.

Yup. We've had the discussion on the nature of the "X" before, and of course, much is left to speculation, but I prefer Occam's Razor....... the simplest explanation of the facts available, are usually correct. Sadly, I doubt we'll ever see a "definitive" answer, but I really want to know where the "Long Barrel, eXtended Range stuff started....

[Khobai]

Or just make IS LBX fire slugs slower and shorter range than the IS AC10. And give AC10s an alternate ammo type that LB10Xs cant use. So they each get two ammo types.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 17 May 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

Or just make IS LBX fire slugs slower and shorter range than the IS AC10. And give AC10s an alternate ammo type that LB10Xs cant use. So they each get two ammo types.

I've always said make the solid slug slower and maybe do 8 damage instead of 10.... still be pretty effective, if the RoF and heat are untouched. Especially since it's 8 focused vs (maybe) 10 spread.