50 replies to this topic

[Armored Yokai]

If knockdown is re-implemented they should have a knockdown buff

[El Bandito]

Armored Yokai, on 07 July 2015 - 03:08 AM, said:

If knockdown is re-implemented they should have a knockdown buff

Yeah, I fondly remember back in MW4: Vengeance, when my Atlas got knocked off of its feet by concentrated enemy fire. Good times.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

This. So much this. Even the IS LB-10X needs serious help. I can understand why PGI wouldn't want them to be straight upgrades to standard ACs like they were in lore, but if they're going to be locked in shotgun mode then they should be viable in that role compared to the regular slugthrowers. Right now the only two reasons to take an LB-10X over a standard AC10 are tonnage and slots; the very slightly higher crit chance simply isn't enough to offset the advantages of pinpoint attacks.

[Pjwned]

What should actually happen is revising the critical hit system so that crit seeking weapons are not actually worse (by a large margin even) at doing crit damage than pinpoint weapons, which is the case now because the system is so heavily biased in favor of pinpoint weapons and nearly every piece of equipment has way too much item health.

Mcgral18, on 06 July 2015 - 09:30 PM, said:

If they want to keep them crit weapons, they could at least make them useful at Critting.

Increase the Crit Multiplier to 5x (from 2x) which will decrease the required crits for most items from 5 to 2. Each crit will also deal 0.75 extra damage per crit (which can be 150% damage with 2 crits+the original damage).

Makes them deadly against items and against Structure.

The reason this isn't a great idea is that it just adds LB-X cannons to the status quo of being able to crit out equipment worth a damn when all weapons should be able to crit worth a damn and crit seeking weapons (like LB-X cannons) should just be even better at it.

[Wolf Nuhts]

Spheroid, on 06 July 2015 - 09:30 PM, said:

Or they could simply add the solid slug round, which is somehow impossible.

The excuse they gave for why they couldn't code it, was piss poor if you ask me...

But ya we need slugs.

[ShadowWolf Kell]

El Bandito, on 07 July 2015 - 03:22 AM, said:

Yeah, I fondly remember back in MW4: Vengeance, when my Atlas got knocked off of its feet by concentrated enemy fire. Good times.

That's why my HBR was packing dual LB20Xs.

[Khobai]

The LBX's effectiveness isnt supposed to degrade over range. The main problem with the LBX is that it fires in a cone shape rather than a cylinder shape.

Cone shape causes the spread to get worse proportional to range. While a cylinder shape would keep the spread consistent regardless of range. A cylinder shape would be more consistent with how the LBX works in tabletop and would dramatically improve the weapon at longer ranges.

Quote

What should actually happen is revising the critical hit system so that crit seeking weapons are not actually worse (by a large margin even) at doing crit damage than pinpoint weapons, which is the case now because the system is so heavily biased in favor of pinpoint weapons and nearly every piece of equipment has way too much item health.

The problem isnt equipment having too much health. 10 health means most equipment gets destroyed in one crit from an AC10 or PPC. Thats pretty much exactly where item health should be.

The problem is internal structure gets destroyed so quickly that critical hits are largely pointless.

To make critical hits matter more they need to increase internal structure across the board. Internal structure needs to be high enough that equipment can be destroyed due to crits BEFORE the structure in the location completely destroyed.

Also giving critical hits a bonus to internal structure damage was counterproductive to that end. Because more internal structure damage makes critical hits even less meaningful. Critical hits should NOT do more internal structure damage that was an extremely poor and entirely self-defeating idea.

Edited by Khobai, 07 July 2015 - 08:11 AM.

[DAYLEET]

I used to think clb5x clb2x were better than their ac/uac counterpart but with the recent buff plus the one we are getting today im not sure they will have a place anymore. My kitfox with ecm clb5x 2erml did unexpectedly good in any given situation. Now i guess il switch to the u/ac5 for a buff.

At the end of the day ill still like the idea of a little shotgun clb5x, it's just satisfying to watch those tight pelets hit a mech. But even if i thought they were good when everyone else said they werent, with the new ac's i don't think they still have a place. And the bigger problem is if you can't make them more relevent without buffing them, they don't need a buff. powercreep everywhere.

Edited by DAYLEET, 07 July 2015 - 10:01 AM.

[Pjwned]

Khobai, on 07 July 2015 - 07:55 AM, said:

The LBX's effectiveness isnt supposed to degrade over range. The main problem with the LBX is that it fires in a cone shape rather than a cylinder shape.

Cone shape causes the spread to get worse proportional to range. While a cylinder shape would keep the spread consistent regardless of range. A cylinder shape would be more consistent with how the LBX works in tabletop and would dramatically improve the weapon at longer ranges.

That's an interesting idea, but then what kind of spread would it have if it didn't degrade at farther range?

Quote

The problem isnt equipment having too much health. 10 health means most equipment gets destroyed in one crit from an AC10 or PPC. Thats pretty much exactly where item health should be.

The problem is internal structure gets destroyed so quickly that critical hits are largely pointless.

To make critical hits matter more they need to increase internal structure across the board. Internal structure needs to be high enough that equipment can be destroyed due to crits BEFORE the structure in the location completely destroyed.

Also giving critical hits a bonus to internal structure damage was counterproductive to that end. Because more internal structure damage makes critical hits even less meaningful. Critical hits should NOT do more internal structure damage that was an extremely poor and entirely self-defeating idea.

So we should have half-ton ammo packs that are just as durable as a 12-ton cannon and make it so that anything doing less than 10 pinpoint damage is garbage for critting out equipment? No, that's dumb and it needs to change so that everything has at least a decent shot at critting out equipment.

[Davegt27]

Quote

What about the LBX series? They have been shafted ever since its inception in this game, thanks to players' preference of PPFLDs. Not even increased crit chance had helped them to become popular. Even pre-Clan UAC buffs, people preferred the CUACs over the LBXs.

Is it really too much of a work to increase the LBX pellet damage just so it can offer something advantageous at close range? If it works, you will make a whole weapon family useful.

We used to have a saying in the AF "don’t complain you will only make things worse"

Let’s leave the LBX's alone

[Black Ivan]

I agree with OP. I tried Clan LB-X and IS LB-X yesterday and they need some serious rework.

Edited by Black Ivan, 07 July 2015 - 09:42 PM.

[Rear Admiral Tier 6]

Spheroid, on 06 July 2015 - 09:30 PM, said:

Or they could simply add the solid slug round, which is somehow impossible.

make the slug round to behave like clan er ppc damage wise. 70 % pinpoint damage,rest spread through nearest components,it would still be powerful,but not as good as AC10

[Ultimax]

El Bandito, on 06 July 2015 - 09:24 PM, said:

They have been shafted ever since its inception in this game, thanks to players' preference of PPFLDs.

Just want to point out, LB ACs are all front loaded weapons.


They just aren't pin point.

[Nightshade24]

El Bandito, on 07 July 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:

CLB5X is slightly ok, due to damage per heat, but CLB2X is straight up garbage. It is inaccurate on top of being heat intensive. Not to mention the CLB2X is the only one in the AC2 class to have reduced speed of 1,330 m/s, while all the other AC2s have 2,000 m/s. You are better off packing other AC2s.

CLBX5 WOULD be okay due to damage per heat... but a UAC5 has the EXACT same heat... the only advantage LBX's normally have on the IS and stuff which is reduced heat is non existant on the LBX 5... the UAC 5 can double fire, have longer range... more accuracy... etc =C

[Kmieciu]

Increasing the pellet count will negatively affect HSR and hit registration.
I vote for 20% increase in pellet damage (1.2 per pellet).

[El Bandito]

Ultimatum X, on 07 July 2015 - 09:51 PM, said:

Just want to point out, LB ACs are all front loaded weapons.

They just aren't pin point.

Which is the point of this thread. There is very little reason to pick LBX over its regular AC or UAC equivalents.

Cookiemonter669, on 07 July 2015 - 09:49 PM, said:

make the slug round to behave like clan er ppc damage wise. 70 % pinpoint damage,rest spread through nearest components,it would still be powerful,but not as good as AC10

Then there is still no point in picking LBX, is there? Since PGI is unable to make two separate rounds due to lack of knowledge, I prefer them to buff the scatter round.

Davegt27, on 07 July 2015 - 09:28 PM, said:

We used to have a saying in the AF "don’t complain you will only make things worse"

Let’s leave the LBX's alone

The weapon is already rarely seen. Even if PGI somehow bungles up the rework progress, it is no big loss. On the other hand, should PGI successfully buff it, then the weapon diversity gain is big.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 July 2015 - 11:53 PM.

[STEF_]

Kmieciu, on 07 July 2015 - 11:45 PM, said:

Increasing the pellet count will negatively affect HSR and hit registration.
I vote for 20% increase in pellet damage (1.2 per pellet).

WDHELL. I vote for fixing the HSR and hit registration!

[Wintersdark]

Moldur, on 07 July 2015 - 12:59 AM, said:

As weird as it sounds, I quite like the Clan LB5X and LB2X. Stacking 2 LB5X makes it ultimate at legging lights.

I will never understand people preferring LBX weapons to leg lights. Even 2x LBX 5, that's 10 damage total, of which at LEAST 4 will miss completely and the 6 remaining will be hitting both legs. That's horribly inefficient.

LBX autocannons of either faction pretty much must be aimed center mass or you're losing a lot of damage to missed pellets.

But that's just me.

[Kmieciu]

LBX definitely needs damage boost. I tried running a CN9-D and it can reach 9.3 DPS with a single LBX10. It still feels underpowered. You know why?

Because I also have an HBK-4SP that reaches 15 DPS using only 2xSRM6+A.

In a brawl, a 6 tons of weapons wipes the floor with an 11 tons of weapons.

The "X" in LBX stands for "SUX".

Edited by Kmieciu, 08 July 2015 - 12:16 AM.

[Eldan Sontim]

I think they need to examine what is a critical hit...and why the LBX is a crit seeking weapon....

Is a critical hit something that just magically increases a projectile's damage, OR is it a hit that does damage to a critical system of the mech?

Is it because the pellets are smaller than a regular slug and can find cracks in armor that is not completely destroyed?

Wouldn't that mean that an LBX pellet "should" be able to crit internals even with yellow external armor?

Wouldn't it mean that it would hit components easier when there was no armor because the smaller pellets are less likely to hit internal structure and more likely to hit a squishy critical component than a solid shot would?

Why use increased damage to simulate a crit and not increased chance at component hits?

Just random thoughts.