28 replies to this topic

[o0cipher0o]

Title says it all.
The (IS)LB-10 X is already a subpar weapon, but now that the ac10 has got it's ammo/t count bumbed up to 20, there's really not a single reason to take the lb-x over the standard ac.

Hell, i didn't even notice it untill this afternoon i decided to equip my cplt-k2 with two lb-x for fun.
Come on PGI, can you show some love for the lb-x from time to time?

Edited by o0cipher0o, 27 July 2015 - 04:54 PM.

[Wintersdark]

o0cipher0o, on 27 July 2015 - 01:13 PM, said:

Title says it all.

should have been.

Quote

Hell, i didn't even notice it untill this afternoon i decided to equip my cplt-k2 with two lb-x for fun.
Come on PGI, can you show some love for the lb-x from time to time?

Lol no. I've not decided whether PGI hates LBX autocannons, or they still somehow do not understand how they are worse at everything than an IS AC10.

Maybe it's both.




People: this is an IS AC10 vs IS LBX AC10 thing; don't bring clan versions into it - they are completely different

[Star Colonel Silver Surat]

Wintersdark, on 27 July 2015 - 01:21 PM, said:

People: this is an IS AC10 vs IS LBX AC10 thing; don't bring clan versions into it - they are completely different

No, the Clan LB-10X is almost identically terrible - it just does its morning exercises so it weighs slightly less.

[Averen]

Wintersdark, on 27 July 2015 - 01:21 PM, said:

Lol no. I've not decided whether PGI hates LBX autocannons, or they still somehow do not understand how they are worse at everything than an IS AC10.

Maybe it's both.

Remind me of that one time when they thought victors are tier 1 mechs.

[Felio]

The same reason clan UACs take up 1 less slot despite being far better and more used than their standard clan AC counterparts, and PGI has made no attempt to address this?

Edited by Felio, 27 July 2015 - 01:33 PM.

[Roadkill]

Felio, on 27 July 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

The same reason UACs take up 1 less slot despite being far better and more used than their standard AC counterparts, and PGI has made no attempt to address this?

Not PGI's problem to address. Tonnage and crit slots are all derived from TT so that canon designs will work. You can't change either without breaking things.

The lore reason is that the UAC (and LBX) are both newer (and superior) weapons, and so are intrinsically better than the old, dated, AC/10.

[Sjorpha]

Averen, on 27 July 2015 - 01:28 PM, said:

Remind me of that one time when they thought victors are tier 1 mechs.

To be fair, Victors were the top mech of the game for quite some time, so you can't really blame them for that.

[Xetelian]

LBX is only 'good' when boating 4 of them on a DWF. Otherwise I'd never touch them. I learned my lesson with a dual LBX10 AS7 and JM6.

[Wintersdark]

Star Colonel Silver Surat, on 27 July 2015 - 01:24 PM, said:

No, the Clan LB-10X is almost identically terrible - it just does its morning exercises so it weighs slightly less.

it's as terrible as the is LBX, but the clan uac10 is nothing like the IS ac10 is my point there. Taking a Clan LBX is still a downgrade, but as the clan AC also does damage in small bits (thus no one shotting components like the is ac10 can do, etc) the difference isn't as stark.

[Escef]

Only guess I can think of is that it might let the CN9-D run auto-shotgun with more tonnage to spare for secondary weapons or bigger engine... And if that is the reason than it's a bad one.

[stjobe]

Escef, on 27 July 2015 - 01:52 PM, said:

Only guess I can think of is that it might let the CN9-D run auto-shotgun with more tonnage to spare for secondary weapons or bigger engine... And if that is the reason than it's a bad one.

Wait, what? The CN9-D which comes stock with an XL300 and with only minor modifications (removal of Artemis + LRM-10) can carry 4 tons of LBX ammo and dual SRM-4s with 2 tons of ammo? At 106.9 kph? With two MLs as backup?

[Felio]

Roadkill, on 27 July 2015 - 01:32 PM, said:

Not PGI's problem to address. Tonnage and crit slots are all derived from TT so that canon designs will work. You can't change either without breaking things.

The lore reason is that the UAC (and LBX) are both newer (and superior) weapons, and so are intrinsically better than the old, dated, AC/10.

It's completely their problem to address. They tweak all kinds of things other than slots/weight. I never said they should change slots/weight.

Even if TT is sacrosanct, which I don't think it is, they already deviated from it by splitting AC and LBX into different weapons, didn't they?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Wintersdark, on 27 July 2015 - 01:21 PM, said:

Lol no. I've not decided whether PGI hates LBX autocannons, or they still somehow do not understand how they are worse at everything than an IS AC10.

The sad part, being worse than the AC10 is an impressive feat because even with the ammo boost the AC10 is still very "meh".

[Escef]

stjobe, on 27 July 2015 - 01:59 PM, said:

Wait, what? The CN9-D which comes stock with an XL300 and with only minor modifications (removal of Artemis + LRM-10) can carry 4 tons of LBX ammo and dual SRM-4s with 2 tons of ammo? At 106.9 kph? With two MLs as backup?

Have you seen the way those things burn through ammo? Also, not sure how you allocate armor, but the build you cite is a little on the light side, you'd need to strip the left arm completely and cut the legs to 40.

EDIT: And it will run hot in protracted combat. Just pulled mine out for a stomp trough the training grounds, and I WISH 3 tons of LB10 ammo was good, because 4 means stripping armor that I don't want to strip. If the LB10 got 20 shots/ton instead of 15 I would cut half a ton of ammo, still have more shots, and up-armor the shield arm.

Edited by Escef, 27 July 2015 - 02:08 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Felio, on 27 July 2015 - 01:59 PM, said:

It's completely their problem to address. They tweak all kinds of things other than slots/weight. I never said they should change slots/weight.

Even if TT is sacrosanct, which I don't think it is, they already deviated from it by splitting AC and LBX into different weapons, didn't they?

The IS AC and LBX are separate weapons in TT as well.

[stjobe]

Escef, on 27 July 2015 - 02:03 PM, said:

Have you seen the way those things burn through ammo? Also, not sure how you allocate armor, but the build you cite is a little on the light side, you'd need to strip the left arm completely and cut the legs to 40.

EDIT: And it will run hot in protracted combat. Just pulled mine out for a stomp trough the training grounds, and I WISH 3 tons of LB10 ammo was good, because 4 means stripping armor that I don't want to strip. If the LB10 got 20 shots/ton instead of 15 I would cut half a ton of ammo, still have more shots, and up-armor the shield arm.

The build I cited used stock armour. You want max, you have to remove 1.5 tons ammo. So 3.5 for the LBX + 1 for the SRMs, or 3 + 1.5 (I forgot to remove CASE from the build at first, so that's 0.5 tons more ammo than I said above).

And yes, I know well how they burn through ammo, I run one almost as often as I run my trusty old CN9-A - which was why I couldn't really fathom why you thought it would be the excuse PGI would use to cover that they just plain forgot to increase LBX ammo counts

[Escef]

stjobe, on 27 July 2015 - 02:16 PM, said:

The build I cited used stock armour. You want max, you have to remove 1.5 tons ammo. So 3.5 for the LBX + 1 for the SRMs, or 3 + 1.5 (I forgot to remove CASE from the build at first, so that's 0.5 tons more ammo than I said above).

And yes, I know well how they burn through ammo, I run one almost as often as I run my trusty old CN9-A - which was why I couldn't really fathom why you thought it would be the excuse PGI would use to cover that they just plain forgot to increase LBX ammo counts

So, you admit that it could use more free tonnage. I think they've been very conservative about balance lately. I don't know if it's the reason, but it's the best conjecture I have. If you have better I'd love to hear it.

[stjobe]

Escef, on 27 July 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

it's the best conjecture I have. If you have better I'd love to hear it.

Sure. They forgot, plain and simple.

It's not like it's the first time that would have happened.

[Escef]

stjobe, on 27 July 2015 - 02:23 PM, said:

Sure. They forgot, plain and simple.

It's not like it's the first time that would have happened.

Perhaps, but seems less likely to me. Hence, not a better explanation.

[stjobe]

Escef, on 27 July 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:

Perhaps, but seems less likely to me. Hence, not a better explanation.

To you.

To me it makes more sense than it being a conscious decision to balance a single variant of a single chassis, that truthfully wouldn't be all that affected by having some extra ammo.

The gun really isn't all that good in the first place.