122 replies to this topic

[Chagatay]

Personally, I think they should just make it do a crap ton more damage to unarmored sections (like 1.5x or maybe even 2.0x per pellet and change it back to normal crit mechanics). A weapon that while sucky for the first part of the match becomes increasingly lethal as the match goes on.


LBX = shotgun
Shotgun v armor = Weak
Shotgun v unarmored = Ouchie

Edited by Chagatay, 11 January 2015 - 04:42 PM.

[kenyzed]

Wintersdark, on 11 January 2015 - 04:32 PM, said:

In terms of AC10's, the IS AC10 is vastly superior to the LBX in 99% of situations - this is not a subjective opinion but an objective, mathematically provable fact. The LBX is still a 10 damage autocannon and will still hurt things - it's not worthless, it's just not as good.

Reading your post got me thinking about math. As an anecdote, I have always felt I performed better with LB-X 10 than with the AC10. I decided to use my own weapon stats to see if I could shed any light on this using very simple math. I have no argument about how crits or front loaded damage work, I feel it is quite true that AC10s are vastly superior to LBX 10s assuming you hit every time you fire. I, of course, have terrible aim. So how does hit rate affect how useful or effective the weapons are? My hit rate with AC10s is 50.77%. My hit rate with LBX10s is 69.19%. My averaged damage per hit is 10.1 with the AC10 and 7.435 with the LBX. That means in one hundred shots I would deal 513.2 damage with the AC10, compared to 514.4 with the LBX. These values are very close together. I don't know how to mathematically weight the value of superior pinpoint damage versus less weight/ less critical slots. Likewise I can't quantify the psychological effect on my gameplay of successfully hitting an opponent more frequently. So I still won't say for sure whether one is totally better than the other. But I will say I don't think it is as cut and dried as 'one of these is totally always better than the other', unless you have perfect aim.

Edited by kenyzed, 11 January 2015 - 04:59 PM.

[Lily from animove]

Wintersdark, on 31 December 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

Quite simply put, the LBX is worse, in almost every situation, by a huge margin. Critical hits are grossly misunderstood by the player base at large, and you should never take a weapon because of "crit seeking".



The LBX is superior, very slightly, in one very specific situation. That is: you are within 100 meters, your target has no armor on your target component, and you're not concerned with actually destroying particular items. In this very specific circumstance,where all the pellets will impact the target unarmored component, then the LBX will do on average slightly higher structural damage done.

If you hope to destroy items, an AC10 is better. If you want to use it past 100m,or against targets with armor, an AC10 is better.

As you start matches beyond 100m and against Mechs with armor, the advantages of the AC10 push it far beyond the LBX, even if you're using it both at range and close.

Note that this is discussing the IS weapons, clan weapons are more complex.

lbx does 20 damage, the ac only 10. another quite big difference, especially sicne one ac 20 fits in an atlas, but 2 lbx 10

[Wintersdark]

Lily from animove, on 11 January 2015 - 05:28 PM, said:

lbx does 20 damage, the ac only 10. another quite big difference, especially sicne one ac 20 fits in an atlas, but 2 lbx 10

lbx does 10 damage. It gets bonus crit damage, but it's basic damage to armour or structure remains the same.

[InspectorG]

Vlad Striker, on 02 January 2015 - 04:58 AM, said:

LB10-x much better AC10 to hunt down fast light mechs. Pellets travels faster and cover wider zone.
Standart tactics - strip armor with missles or lasers and finish off with LBX.

Light pilots fear Dual Gauss and Dual AC5+, Dual ERPPC, laser vomit FAR more than LBX.

A locust can take a LBX20 at range beyond @150m. AC20, no cuz you lost a leg or a ST.

LBX would be viable if crits worked like Battletech, where ANY hit to an open component rolled on the crit table.

MWO components have HP as do equipment, usually 10hp.

Why rely on luck getting 'crits' with 2 damage pellets when you can remove the whole component with one big hit?

If LBX really worked well, comps would be using it. They dont.

Go to the testing grounds with an LBX20, River City has a lightly armored Cicada near the back bridge. Shoot it at 200m.

Go back with an AC20, shoot it at 200m, tell me it didnt die faster with the AC20.

LBX , like flamers, have no role in MWO. They sound awesome. They are fun. But they are not viable.

Chagatay, on 11 January 2015 - 04:40 PM, said:

Personally, I think they should just make it do a crap ton more damage to unarmored sections (like 1.5x or maybe even 2.0x per pellet and change it back to normal crit mechanics). A weapon that while sucky for the first part of the match becomes increasingly lethal as the match goes on.


LBX = shotgun
Shotgun v armor = Weak
Shotgun v unarmored = Ouchie

It would be BRUTAL to unarmored components if crits worked like Battletech.
You hit an opened component with ANYTHING, something gets broken, no HP. Poof-gone.

THEN LBX would be good late match.

[Tim East]

InspectorG, on 11 January 2015 - 06:10 PM, said:

LBX , like flamers, have no role in MWO. They sound awesome. They are fun. But they are not viable.

A personal beef of mine with the people who balance this game as well. Flamers being able to overheat you without doing the same to enemies while doing literally the worst damage of anything in the game is pretty unbalanced, especially considering the mandatory ones on Adders. So much hate.

At least LBX is useable, if not great. Might as well mount flamers in an Atlas K for all the good either the weapons or chassis do.

Edited by Tim East, 12 January 2015 - 05:24 AM.

[Wintersdark]

InspectorG, on 11 January 2015 - 06:10 PM, said:

Light pilots fear Dual Gauss and Dual AC5+, Dual ERPPC, laser vomit FAR more than LBX.

A locust can take a LBX20 at range beyond @150m. AC20, no cuz you lost a leg or a ST.

LBX would be viable if crits worked like Battletech, where ANY hit to an open component rolled on the crit table.

MWO components have HP as do equipment, usually 10hp.

Why rely on luck getting 'crits' with 2 damage pellets when you can remove the whole component with one big hit?

If LBX really worked well, comps would be using it. They dont.

Go to the testing grounds with an LBX20, River City has a lightly armored Cicada near the back bridge. Shoot it at 200m.

Go back with an AC20, shoot it at 200m, tell me it didnt die faster with the AC20.

LBX , like flamers, have no role in MWO. They sound awesome. They are fun. But they are not viable.



It would be BRUTAL to unarmored components if crits worked like Battletech.
You hit an opened component with ANYTHING, something gets broken, no HP. Poof-gone.

THEN LBX would be good late match.

Exactly. Sadly, the actual experience in game is very different. If each pellet could destroy things? Those 10 pellets scattered all over a stripped mech, each destroying items... THAT would be awesome.

Tim East, on 11 January 2015 - 07:21 PM, said:

A personal beef of mine with the people who balance this game as well. Flamers being able to overheat your without doing the same to enemies while doing literally the worst damage of anything in the game is pretty unbalanced, especially considering the mandatory ones on Adders. So much hate.

At least LBX is useable, if not great. Might as well mount flamers in an Atlas K for all the good either the weapons or chassis do.

Indeed. The LBX is absolutely a viable weapon, it's just not a good one. It's usable: 10 damage is 10 damage, after all, even if most of it is splattered uselessly.

But flamers? They're very nearly actually useless. You can use two without overheating (chain fire two - the chaining prevents the exponential heat growth so they don't overheat you) but they still won't overheat enemy mechs even doing that, and they do laughably bad damage at extremely short range.

[Nightshade24]

LBX is as useless as Flamers?

Huh.. guess I should run flamers on my assaults then, Because all the assaults I run an LBX 10 on have no problems getting 1K damage....

[oldradagast]

Well, I have to just give up on the LBX-10, as much as I like it - at least in theory - from a fun perspective.

This evening, I took out a mech with one on it on the training grounds - Forest colony - and started shooting at that Commando from about 300m out.

It took 20 rounds to destroy it... that's 200 damage total thrown downrange to kill the center torso on a stock Commando.

Yes, yes - the LBX's optimal range is under that, but I don't always get to dictate ranges.

Based on that painful test run - and subsequent tests with traditional guns that ripped through the Command like it was nothing - I cannot really go back to the LBX, despite the nice effects, cool shotgun effect, and lower weight and heat than an AC10. The only exception would be odd builds (2 LBX10's in a torso) or mechs with huge LBX quirks, like that Centurion.

Edited by oldradagast, 12 January 2015 - 04:27 PM.

[Punk Oblivion]

kenyzed, on 11 January 2015 - 04:57 PM, said:

Reading your post got me thinking about math. As an anecdote, I have always felt I performed better with LB-X 10 than with the AC10. I decided to use my own weapon stats to see if I could shed any light on this using very simple math. I have no argument about how crits or front loaded damage work, I feel it is quite true that AC10s are vastly superior to LBX 10s assuming you hit every time you fire. I, of course, have terrible aim. So how does hit rate affect how useful or effective the weapons are? My hit rate with AC10s is 50.77%. My hit rate with LBX10s is 69.19%. My averaged damage per hit is 10.1 with the AC10 and 7.435 with the LBX. That means in one hundred shots I would deal 513.2 damage with the AC10, compared to 514.4 with the LBX. These values are very close together. I don't know how to mathematically weight the value of superior pinpoint damage versus less weight/ less critical slots. Likewise I can't quantify the psychological effect on my gameplay of successfully hitting an opponent more frequently. So I still won't say for sure whether one is totally better than the other. But I will say I don't think it is as cut and dried as 'one of these is totally always better than the other', unless you have perfect aim.

I actually like this thinking. Of looking at your own stats and seeing which weapon you do better with!

LBX10: Shots fired:3960, acc:71.89%, damage done:19179
AC10: Shots fired:2636, acc:55.99%, damage done:14756

So even though my LBX10 accuracy is WAY higher. I do more damage with the AC10 over the course of a match.

LBX10= 4.54 damage per shot fired
AC10= 5.59 damage per shot fired

Edited by Punk Oblivion, 12 January 2015 - 11:48 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Punk Oblivion, on 12 January 2015 - 11:45 PM, said:

I actually like this thinking. Of looking at your own stats and seeing which weapon you do better with!

LBX10: Shots fired:3960, acc:71.89%, damage done:19179
AC10: Shots fired:2636, acc:55.99%, damage done:14756

So even though my LBX10 accuracy is WAY higher. I do more damage with the AC10 over the course of a match.

LBX10= 4.54 damage per shot fired
AC10= 5.59 damage per shot fired

What's more, a lot of that LB-X damage done is wasted/useless. Generally, damage done to arms may as well have not happened, for example. Put an LB-X shot center mass on a mech at 300m (very close range!) And many of those pellets are doing damage that makes your damage numbers go up but doesn't co tribute to killing or disabling your target.

Also: with an average of 5.59 damage per AC10 round, you're firing at targets way to far away.

[Wintersdark]

At that point, you'd probably be better off with an ac5.

[ShinVector]

InspectorG, on 11 January 2015 - 06:10 PM, said:

Light pilots fear Dual Gauss and Dual AC5+, Dual ERPPC, laser vomit FAR more than LBX.

Until I came across an LBX60 Direwolf.... Grrrr... Damn that guy.

[Masterrix]

The LBX is a great weapon for close range builds on agile mechs (70-100 kph), especially for mediums

I use LBXs on 3 Centurions along with SRMs and it is fun and effective

I also have a 2-LBX 4-MG Jager and I achieve more kills with it than with any other Jager-build


the LBX (+SRM)(+MG) is great for hunting down Lights, to finish wounded enemys and to support team-pushs from close range when enemy fire is focused on your Assaults

the LBX is garbage for mixed builds and slow mechs

the LBX demands for a specific role, be an agile close-range hunter/finisher/supporter

.

Edited by Masterrix, 13 January 2015 - 02:28 AM.

[Nightshade24]

Masterrix, on 13 January 2015 - 02:16 AM, said:

The LBX is a great weapon for close range builds on agile mechs (70-100 kph), especially for mediums

I use LBXs on 3 Centurions along with SRMs and it is fun and effective

I also have a 2-LBX 4-MG Jager and I achieve more kills with it than with any other Jager-build


the LBX (+SRM)(+MG) is great for hunting down Lights, to finish wounded enemys and to support team-pushs from close range when enemy fire is focused on your Assaults

the LBX is garbage for mixed builds and slow mechs

the LBX demands for a specific role, be an agile close-range hunter/finisher/supporter

.

Well the 2 x LBX 10 build on the Atlas with 3 SRM 6's, ECM, and a few medium lasers wants to disagree with you.

[mad kat]

As others have said it's more situational. I'm a fan of the LB-10X especially when combined with machine-guns in the latter half of the match once a few holes have appeared your enemy's components just fall off.

It's lighter,less aim critical, can get assists with even a badly aimed shot, reach out a reasonable distance too. But against armour it's naff it works well as a supressive weapon early game and against lights.

But the AC10 is a pretty decent all round weapon also good at punching decent size holes in the enemy with respectable range and accuracy.

Edited by mad kat, 13 January 2015 - 05:18 AM.

[Wintersdark]

mad kat, on 13 January 2015 - 05:02 AM, said:

As others have said it's more situational. I'm a fan of the LB-10X especially when combined with machine-guns in the latter half of the match once a few holes have appeared your enemy's components just fall off.

It's lighter,less aim critical, can get assists with even a badly aimed shot, reach out a reasonable distance too. But against armour it's naff it works well as a supressive weapon early game and against lights.

But the AC10 is a pretty decent all round weapon also good at punching decent size holes in the enemy with respectable range and accuracy.

See, there's so much of this. People say these things, but it's nothing but fluff. Care to specify exactly what situation the LBX is better in, and exactly why? With real numbers, as opposed to wishes and ignorance?

Every single person supporting the LBX here, every single one, hasn't had any hard evidence to support it. Not any. Just misunderstanding and ignorance.

Technically, it's situational, sure. It's marginally better inside 100m, against targets with no armor there. That's a very specific situation, and it's substantially worse everywhere else.

[Wintersdark]

Nightshade24, on 13 January 2015 - 04:12 AM, said:

Well the 2 x LBX 10 build on the Atlas with 3 SRM 6's, ECM, and a few medium lasers wants to disagree with you.

It's a bad build. People think it's a good build because it gets large damage numbers, but it only gets large damage numbers because it's grossly inefficient and requires far more damage done to disable a target. An AC20 is flat out better and substantially lighter, and smaller, as is a pair of AC5's (not an ideal loadout mind you, but still better than 2xLBX10). Putting 20 damage in one spot is vastly better than 20 damage splattered all over your target, even if you're dropping those 20 damage splatters faster. And the AC20's effective range is still significantly longer than the LBX's which are utterly useless at 300m, where the AC20 is still doing nearly 20 damage to what you want to hit.

[Errinovar]

Honestly I don't know but I do know I got my ace of spades in a 2 LB10X, 2MG, 4ML JM-S. If you support it the LBX is an effective weapon, but you can't expect to do a lot if you try to run it without something to peel off the armor first.

[Wintersdark]

Masterrix, on 13 January 2015 - 02:16 AM, said:

The LBX is a great weapon for close range builds on agile mechs (70-100 kph), especially for mediums

Why exactly? Again, with numbers. In what way is the LBX better?

Quote

I use LBXs on 3 Centurions along with SRMs and it is fun and effective

It's freakishly good on the CN9-D and ON1-M. With 40% cooldown buffs, that certainly makes up for it's crappiness elsewhere. Outside of those two mechs, it's not good at all.

With that said, as I've mentioned several other times in this thread: Use what makes you happy. It's a game, and it's meant to be fun. The LBX is terrible compared to a regular AC, but it's still pushing 10 damage at your opponents, even if much of that damage is wasted. But if you really like using it, use it.

Just don't kid yourself about how it works.

Quote

I also have a 2-LBX 4-MG Jager and I achieve more kills with it than with any other Jager-build

Do you actually understand why? You'd get more kills with 2 AC10's and 4MG (*note: I do not suggest either as good builds), if you played them exactly the same.

Quote

the LBX (+SRM)(+MG) is great for hunting down Lights, to finish wounded enemys and to support team-pushs from close range when enemy fire is focused on your Assaults

Lights? Lights don't fear LBX's. An LBX just means instead of tearing off your leg, it's only going to do a couple damage to them. Wounded enemies? Again, regular AC10's are better at destroying internal components, and better at destroying mech sections. They're just better at pretty much everything. Demonstrated mathematically several times thus far in the thread.

Errinovar, on 13 January 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

Honestly I don't know but I do know I got my ace of spades in a 2 LB10X, 2MG, 4ML JM-S. If you support it the LBX is an effective weapon, but you can't expect to do a lot if you try to run it without something to peel off the armor first.

Given a target at 200m with no armor, the LBX is still a worse weapon than an AC10. It'll do fractionally more damage due to the 15% carryover from crit damage (assuming there's no armor anywhere pellets are hitting), but it's still spreading damage over multiple sections. An AC10 will punch through the target section faster, cripple the target faster, kill the target faster.