9 replies to this topic

[Kin3ticX]

Option 1 and 2 are two different ideas

Benefits

• Less projectiles, less to track on the game servers

• LBX not totally useless at its full damage range and half damage falloff (1.5x range is half damage, 2x range is zero damage

• No need to fiddle with choke anymore to make LBX viable

• Perhaps usage of LBX will increase across all of MWO

I like both ideas and currently almost never use LBX myself.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 25 April 2015 - 10:59 AM.

[Kalimaster]

I have used LBX and I could see this in game play. However I also think that I would like to keep the current way the LBX functions.

[Lord Jay]

This seems like an excellent idea.

[Draykin]

No offense, but the real way to make LBXs better is to implement dual fire rather than try to combine the two firing modes into one.

[FupDup]

Draykin, on 25 April 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

No offense, but the real way to make LBXs better is to implement dual fire rather than try to combine the two firing modes into one.

Then people will just use pure slugs and ignore clusters entirely. Almost everybody forgets about that.

[Mad Porthos]

AS MENTIONED ABOVE if you had LBX and could switch ammo types, people would always take it, keep it switched to slug and enjoy a lighter version of the autocannon all the time. But we CANNOT, and WILL NOT have switchable ammo, due to core choices in programming weapons in the game made in very early stages of designing and implementing the game. LIKELY because those decisions that prevent ammo switch are so early and as a result, linked to a huge amount of other stuff in the game, the change is not simply changing a few numbers in a file and tweaking a few arrays/data fields.

Since this is the case, the question becomes can they (PGI), now make a weapon fire a different number of simultaneous projectiles all travelling at same speed, some doing one damage number i.e. 1, while a central projectile does 5 (Lb-X). Maybe even this type of change is beyond them if the people who created the original patterns of LB Shot, missile groupings, etc are no longer programming for PGI.

[GenAce2010]

I hate to do this but the Auto Cannon (for example AC10/AC20) are slug rounds. Please see: http://mwo.gamepedia.com/Autocannon_10 for the chart for further information (range, dps, etc). Simply put putting a select fire between slug/spread is circumventing the games mechanic and making it over powered.

[Kin3ticX]

GenAce2010, on 25 April 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

I hate to do this but the Auto Cannon (for example AC10/AC20) are slug rounds. Please see: http://mwo.gamepedia.com/Autocannon_10 for the chart for further information (range, dps, etc). Simply put putting a select fire between slug/spread is circumventing the games mechanic and making it over powered.

Sorry for the confusion, but I am not suggesting a fire select. These are two entirely different options I am suggesting to modify the implementation of LBX.

[W A R L O R D]

Kalimaster, on 24 April 2015 - 07:21 AM, said:

I have used LBX and I could see this in game play. However I also think that I would like to keep the current way the LBX functions.

At the least it would make it a more viable weapon....almost nobody uses it right now....

[Infrasound]

Looks interesting