73 replies to this topic

[Xeno Phalcon]

I sold all of my IS weapons so had to use a clan LBX10 for this, fundamentally its the same for spread purposes...I think.


242 meters, spread isnt terrible, about what you can expect from a ASRM6, maybe a little tighter.


now



at 468 the spread is much nastier (Though it has multiple 'patterns' it can go out in, in this test i got one of the worst a four corner spread)

------------
For IS mechs a lbx10 isnt a horrible weapon, but for the clans UAC is just plain better (though lbx2/5 sound amazing, boom boom boom!) all around, UAC10 even has the same effective range.

[Void Angel]

Ovion, on 18 July 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

Nope.

Check Smurfy (pulled directly from the game files), in game (hover stats), and in combat (mount one, find a target at 1500-1600M and watch the reticule go red).

Durrr, reading is hard - I was looking at the Klan stats. Thanks for the correction!

[Void Angel]

Vassago Rain, on 18 July 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

No, the LBX is simply bad.

Despite firing faster, you have almost zero killing power. I play twin LBX in my 'fun' DDC, and AC20 in my main DDC. You can't even compare the two.

That claim is counter-intuitive to both the math of the weapon and it's mechanics as applied to close-in brawling. You're gonna have to show me the math.

[Kmieciu]

With the advent of clan mechs you have to ask yourself a question: what are the IS mechs good at? Are they good for spreading damage? Nope. Because clan mechs do it better. A clan mech can brawl with an UAC10 and will probably be more accurate than IS LBX10, while having the option to go double DPS.
With UAC10 you at least have a chance of being pinpoint. All it takes is an the enemy to stand still for 0,64 seconds, and you can be pinpoint from 540 meters away. At point blank LBX has an advantage against clan UAC, but then again it is completely outclassed by clan/IS SRMs.
TL:DR For close range use SRMs+Medium lasers, for medium range PPCs+(U)AC5s, Long range: Gauss/LRM when the enemy is NARCed.

Edited by Kmieciu, 20 July 2014 - 11:43 PM.

[Tarriss Halcyon]

Kmieciu, on 20 July 2014 - 11:42 PM, said:

With the advent of clan mechs you have to ask yourself a question: what are the IS mechs good at? Are they good for spreading damage? Nope. Because clan mechs do it better. A clan mech can brawl with an UAC10 and will probably be more accurate than IS LBX10, while having the option to go double DPS.
With UAC10 you at least have a chance of being pinpoint. All it takes is an the enemy to stand still for 0,64 seconds, and you can be pinpoint from 540 meters away. At point blank LBX has an advantage against clan UAC, but then again it is completely outclassed by clan/IS SRMs.
TL:DR For close range use SRMs+Medium lasers, for medium range PPCs+(U)AC5s, Long range: Gauss/LRM when the enemy is NARCed.

Until you realize that C-LBX is going to have a switching mode, allowing it to be both an LB AND a standard autocannon. Then you have both the pinpoint of the slugs and the critseeker scattershots.

[Kmieciu]

Tarriss Halcyon, on 21 July 2014 - 02:05 AM, said:

Until you realize that C-LBX is going to have a switching mode, allowing it to be both an LB AND a standard autocannon. Then you have both the pinpoint of the slugs and the critseeker scattershots.

Until you relize that C-LBX is going to be burst fire. Are you one of those people who gimp themselves by mounting the C-AC instead of cUAC?

[Tarriss Halcyon]

Kmieciu, on 21 July 2014 - 02:33 AM, said:

Until you relize that C-LBX is going to be burst fire. Are you one of those people who gimp themselves by mounting the C-AC instead of cUAC?

Nope, I still use C-LBX on my Dire Wolves because I've found that the LBX is far more effective at stopping damaged targets and psychological warfare than the UAC. Don't get me wrong, the C-UAC is effective, and I use it on quite a few mechs, but even my Nova-S build of two C-LB2X and four ER Mediums is fun for me.

I would never touch a C-AC, because everything it does, an LBX or UAC could do better.

[Obscillesk]

I run a quad Mlas twin LBX jager 6s that does great. Its very much a brawler, and the 'oh ****' factor of an LBX20 salvo to the face is enough to keep peoples heads down. I do run an XL, but its also my only non-mastered mech that I regularly top 400 damage with (peak around 750). While I had fun running a quad ac5 build, I did twice as good with a quad ac2 build, but the lbx is the most fun for damage, and it falls roughly between the two (I think those both ran with 2 mlas).

edit: read a lot of people who apparently deny that you can get hit registry with the lbx out to 1400. Thats where a lot of my assist money comes from while we're closing range. And while yes, an AC10 will put all its damage on target, it will also put all its damage into the cliffside over your targets' left shoulder.

Edited by Obscillesk, 28 July 2014 - 02:01 PM.

[Bigbacon]

I use LBX on my Ember, at close range it is enough to nearly be an AC10 that fits.

[SethAbercromby]

I'm using an LB on my Misery in tandem with an ASRM6 launcher. Add 4 MLas and a PPC into the mix, and you've got a lethal brawling machine. My personal habit is to set the 4 MLas into chainfire for continous laser damage, whith the LB10 and ASRM6 pounding in the armor. The PPC adds some more range and Pinpoint damage into the build.

[focuspark]

Tarriss Halcyon, on 23 July 2014 - 12:22 AM, said:

I would never touch a C-AC, because everything it does, an LBX or UAC could do better.

Yeah, exactly. I really do not understand the developer mentality on creating a completely mediocre weapon class like the cAC.

[SethAbercromby]

focuspark, on 29 July 2014 - 07:18 AM, said:

Yeah, exactly. I really do not understand the developer mentality on creating a completely mediocre weapon class like the cAC.

I think the CACs would have a proper place if they were a ton lighter than the other two weapons. CLBs will get interchangebale ammunition which would justify the extra ton and CUACs have the double tap function.

Edited by SethAbercromby, 31 July 2014 - 04:02 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

'Clan AC's are in the game right now explicitly to be LB-Xs with shell ammunition instead of cluster rounds. The whole reason they exist is so that you can choose between those firing modes now instead of later.

Once the LB-X cannon can switch ammo modes the 'Clan AC' (which isn't even a thing, the Clan weapons are only LB-X or Ultra, no third type) will be going away.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 01 August 2014 - 01:22 AM.

[focuspark]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 01 August 2014 - 01:22 AM, said:

'Clan AC's are in the game right now explicitly to be LB-Xs with shell ammunition instead of cluster rounds. The whole reason they exist is so that you can choose between those firing modes now instead of later.

Once the LB-X cannon can switch ammo modes the 'Clan AC' (which isn't even a thing, the Clan weapons are only LB-X or Ultra, no third type) will be going away.

Even then, why would you switch to "shell mode" if it's stream shots anyways? It's simply a lesser uAC (and bigger?).

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Lower weapon heat, higher range.

Light (2 and 5 rating) Clan LB-X have longer range profile than Clan UAC, and heavy (10 and 20 rating) Clan LB-X generate significantly less heat than Clan UAC per shot. This is true even when using the shell ammo instead of the cluster rounds.

Inner Sphere LB-X autocannon are all longer range than their standard and Ultra companions, and the 10-X and 20-X both run less hot than the UAC equivalents (per shot, again) by an even greater margin than the Clan LB-X autocannon. Again, this is true regardless of cluster or shell rounds. Additionally, the Inner Sphere LB-X autocannon, while heavier than the Inner Sphere UACs (LB-10X aside) are all smaller in terms of critical hit slots.

Also, you really shouldn't be comparing half of the LB-X function to all of the UAC function. The option to choose between standard and cluster rounds with the LB-X is roughly equivalent to the option to choose between firing normally and double-tapping on the UACs.

The LB-X ability to swap between cluster and shell munitions obliterates the main complaint most players that dislike LB-X autocannon have against the weapon type to begin with- that they're relatively weak when the target still has armor. Being able to swap ammo means firing shells when the target has armor you need to break through with more punch to one spot (like a UAC being fired without using the jam-inducing extra shots) and then switching over to cluster rounds as soon as the armor is gone, so that you can detonate ammo, break weapons, and do improved overall damage (which the UAC doesn't have the option to do).


As for 'bigger', I don't know why the Inner Sphere LB 10-X is the only LB-X autocannon that is both smaller and lighter than its standard autocannon equivalent. Best guess says that way back when, FASA realized after introducing the IS LB10-X that making LB-X cannon all lighter and smaller would obviate the standard autocannon entirely and then failed to retroactively make the LB-10X bigger/heavier (or perhaps opted not to correct that for the sake of not having to redesign everything that already had an LB-10X).

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 01 August 2014 - 12:57 PM.

[Koniving]

Vallin Shae, on 14 July 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

I was wondering because I'm kind of new to he game. Is the LB 10-X AC a really good weapon or should I take an Ac/10 or maybe even a AC/20 ?

AC/20 is clearly superior if you can get in close.

If heat is an issue for your mech, the LB is superior by far (it's colder). The LB also keeps its damage even out to range -- but the drawback is the farther away the target is the more your shot will spread out. (some mechs noticeably spread less than others; particularly 'older' mechs whose models do not change or update. Test it).

If heat is not an issue, you will want to use the AC/10 instead.

[Nidalap Live]

Another thing to consider when choosing between AC/10 and LBX-10 is that the AC/10 isn't so bad at destroying components itself. Most components have 10hp, which means that an AC/10 to a stripped area will usually completely destroy something. So while an AC/10 isn't quite as deadly after armor is stripped as an LBX, it's deadlier than most weapons and has more utility before the armor is stripped than the LBX does.

[SethAbercromby]

However, if you've ever used an LB against open components, you'll see just how much more effective it is in that scenario. It's an awesome weapon when used in combination with weapons that are more effective against armor, or if used on a Light or Medium skirmisher that specializes in hunting crippled targets.

[DoomEngine]

Ovion, on 17 July 2014 - 12:06 AM, said:

It's a devastating weapon overall, you just sandblast the enemy to death. : D

Logged in just to like this, lol

[Gralzeim]

As others have said, situational weapon (cleaning up damaged enemies), but it excels at that particular niche because of its crit chances vs. exposed internals and chance per pellet for straight bonus damage. (each pellet has a 14% chance to do 2 damage instead of 1, a 8% chance to do 4 damage instead of 1, and a 3% chance to do 6 damage instead of 1).

The reason it's lighter and smaller than the standard AC/10 is because it was intended in lore (and probably tabletop) as a pure upgrade/replacement for the AC/10, since it can do almost everything a AC/10 can do, but better (except fire specialty ammunition like armor piercing etc).

As for the canister/slug mode switching, if PGI does decide to implement that, it would make the AC/10 obsolete (though, 'making stock loadouts obsolete' isn't a new thing, due to many not having double heat sinks or endo steel internals). Would be nice though, and I have heard rumors that they might be looking into implementing the dual nature of the LBX family. Probably a fever dream, though. Like my dream of seeing the RAC/2 and 5, and IS Omnimechs.

Edited by Gralzeim, 02 August 2014 - 02:54 PM.