316 replies to this topic

[LordNothing]

as much as i like the cerppc mechanic, i dont think it belongs on a weapon that is supposed to be a shotgun. with a ppc in makes sense. its essentially a lighting gun, its going to surge through the entire mech looking for a path to ground. i actually think all the ppcs should behave that way. but thats not the way shotguns work. its 10 ac1s seeking out whatever is in front of them.

id just go with nonlinear spread. most of the pellets distributed along the centerline, with a very small number of rogue pellets. in addition i would set the weapons max range at around where optimal range is, bring in optimal range about 100 meters, and refactor the balance to reflect the new range numbers.

the reasoning is that these weapons effectively have two sources of damage falloff while other ballistics only have one, the linear falloff that happens after optimal range. for spread weapons the falloff starts the moment the shots leave the barrel, but they dont start hurting your performance to about half of its optimal range, thats about the point where you start hitting every segment on the target mech and start loosing pellets to the sides. by the time it gets to optimal the damage output for even a well aimed shot is already below 50%. so continuing to fall off past that point is pointless. despite this the weapon is still balanced as if it is effective beyond its maximum range, when it is not. where an ac10 would still be doing 5 damage, the lb-10 is effectively doing 2.5 damage (that is if any of the pellets hit).

its kind of like the first time i went duck hunting. i hit the duck on the first pull, it fell in the water and then proceeded to swim away very slowly. after emptying out a box of shells trying to kill it, seeing splashes all around but the duck continuing unimpeded. eventually we got the 22 and headshot the critter, then sent in the dog (which was a total noob at retrieving ducks). of course that duck was stuffed and in the oven that evening.

[Mavairo]

LordNothing, on 15 May 2016 - 04:00 PM, said:

as much as i like the cerppc mechanic, i dont think it belongs on a weapon that is supposed to be a shotgun. with a ppc in makes sense. its essentially a lighting gun, its going to surge through the entire mech looking for a path to ground. i actually think all the ppcs should behave that way. but thats not the way shotguns work. its 10 ac1s seeking out whatever is in front of them.

id just go with nonlinear spread. most of the pellets distributed along the centerline, with a very small number of rogue pellets. in addition i would set the weapons max range at around where optimal range is, bring in optimal range about 100 meters, and refactor the balance to reflect the new range numbers.

the reasoning is that these weapons effectively have two sources of damage falloff while other ballistics only have one, the linear falloff that happens after optimal range. for spread weapons the falloff starts the moment the shots leave the barrel, but they dont start hurting your performance to about half of its optimal range, thats about the point where you start hitting every segment on the target mech and start loosing pellets to the sides. by the time it gets to optimal the damage output for even a well aimed shot is already below 50%. so continuing to fall off past that point is pointless. despite this the weapon is still balanced as if it is effective beyond its maximum range, when it is not. where an ac10 would still be doing 5 damage, the lb-10 is effectively doing 2.5 damage (that is if any of the pellets hit).

its kind of like the first time i went duck hunting. i hit the duck on the first pull, it fell in the water and then proceeded to swim away very slowly. after emptying out a box of shells trying to kill it, seeing splashes all around but the duck continuing unimpeded. eventually we got the 22 and headshot the critter, then sent in the dog (which was a total noob at retrieving ducks). of course that duck was stuffed and in the oven that evening.

Thing is the LBX isn't supposed to be a shotgun at all. It's a solid projectile until the round reaches close range to the target and then releases into a cluster munition. The CERPPC mechanic ironically enough simulates the LBX effect better than the LBX does

[ScoutMaster]

Showing us a stationnary mech and shooting its center torso in a training ground and telling us the data means anything, then saying that all rounds of your uac10-20 hits the same desired component ALL DE TIME MAN CUZ IM SO GUD is utter ********. And when you ask me if I'm a good shot, yes I am, I'm a monster in a mech and I don't usually land all my UAC rounds where I'd want them.

Unless the guy is staying there flatfooted like a jackass, is moving towards you in a straight line or if you're taking him from behind by surprise you're not gonna hit the same component with all your rounds in a uac10-20. People will be at different angles, at different speeds while torso twisting etc.

Please BS us some more and tell us you'd rather have a multi round UAC vs a couple of lights running around you. Please BS us some more and tell us that it's not clearly better at brawling range vs exposed structure.

Sure the non LBX is better in most situations. No one is saying the LBX is better, we're saying it's different and still has its uses. It Has lower heat and is more reliable.

Edited by ScoutMaster, 15 May 2016 - 05:06 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 15 May 2016 - 02:05 PM, said:

It's worth noting that my response was actually a more specific version of what Bishop was proposing...

Anyone ever find any lore for those first 9 series?

Primitive tech, obsolete, boondoggles?

I'm sure they'd be listed somewhere, right.

[wanderer]

As a matter of fact, I've got a 1st edition TRO 2750 right here. The "LB" is for the manufacturer, Lubalin, and the -10X is because it's a Class 10 AC, though the X isn't specified (odds are it's eXperimental, given at the time it was literally the only model of the day. (As of 2750, advanced tech wasn't in general production, though it was used in League unit machines...but not available to House military.)

It's along the same text as the original Star-League era UAC/5, which is properly referred to as the "KWI (Kawabata Weapons Inc) Autocannon 5 Ultra".

[Lagster]

Wouldn't the simplest solution (not coding wise, mechanics wise) be to simply make the LBXs fire a set of pellets that simply do not spread further apart, kinda like lurms except in a straight line. That way, they keep their spread mechanic but do not lose effectiveness with distance, up to maximum range.

[wanderer]

A straight non-spreading cluster would work, though that'd also derandomize what gets hit as well.

[Wintersdark]

ScoutMaster, on 15 May 2016 - 05:04 PM, said:

Showing us a stationnary mech and shooting its center torso in a training ground and telling us the data means anything

The data illustrates spread and effectiveness. That doesn't change, the LBX doesn't suddenly spread less in combat. In the training grounds, you're seeing the best case scenarios, with perfect shots. With the LBX, if your aim is off a bit but within the target component, you do less damage to the target component.

A differentiation needs to be made with regards to clan LBX, because the situation is murkier.

With the IS case, however, it's pretty simple.

Quote

then saying that all rounds of your uac10-20 hits the same desired component ALL DE TIME MAN CUZ IM SO GUD is utter ********. And when you ask me if I'm a good shot, yes I am, I'm a monster in a mech and I don't usually land all my UAC rounds where I'd want them.

I specifically said I wasn't particularly amazing. Experienced certainly, but not SO GUD. My UAC10 rounds usually all hit the same component because that burst and travel is damn fast. The UAC20, depends on the target.

However, I will HIT my target, pretty much no matter what. At close ranges with a uac20, it's pretty hard to actually wholly miss. Do you regularly miss your targets inside 150m? With anything at all?

Then you're looking at 40 damage vs. 20. Oh. Right.

Quote

Unless the guy is staying there flatfooted like a jackass, is moving towards you in a straight line or if you're taking him from behind by surprise you're not gonna hit the same component with all your rounds in a uac10-20. People will be at different angles, at different speeds while torso twisting etc.

just as likely as with a SPL. Leading your target isn't hard.

Quote

Please BS us some more and tell us you'd rather have a multi round UAC vs a couple of lights running around you. Please BS us some more and tell us that it's not clearly better at brawling range vs exposed structure.

against lights? Lasers thanks. Anything else? Absolutely a UAC/srms. If you can get a good hit with an lbx in brawl range, you'd have hit with the UAC. But the UAC can doubletap.

See how you said "in brawl range, vs exposed structure"? And how it's not brawl range, but inside 150m? That's your window. 150m, against exposed structure. At ranges out to SRM max, you're always spreading damage. ALWAYS. Whether or opponent is evading carefully or standing there like a potato. And even there, we've seen that the end result is comparable TTK either way. But again, which are you talking about? IS and Clan comparisons are different. So you're relying on your team to expose the structure? Your other weapons? I doubt that. In practice, you'd be right in the brawl from the get go. As such, many of your LBX rounds fired are absolutely fired against armor.

When you mount LBX autocannons, you are surrendering some control of accuracy to the spread. That doesn't happen with other autocannons, even burst firing uac's. The control remains on you.

LBX's in this way are much like LRM's, where you're always wasting damage, no matter how good you are. No amount of skill can impact that. On the other hand, the defending pilot can with only minor twisting ensure damage spread, as even at point blank range you'll spread if you hit towards the edges of a component.

SRM's do too, but SRM's make up for it in massive damage per ton conversion, whereas the LBX does laughable dpt. In fact, a single SRM6 does more damage at a tiny fraction of the tonnage, but people will never mount just one srm6.

Quote

Sure the non LBX is better in most situations. No one is saying the LBX is better, we're saying it's different and still has its uses. It Has lower heat and is more reliable.

In return for being worse at killing things most of the time, and equal in the narrowest of circumstances, yup.

[Wintersdark]

Trauglodyte, on 15 May 2016 - 02:22 PM, said:

You're misunderstanding because Quicksilver didn't finish out the sentence. The Brawler Shadowhawk runs the LB 10-X for two reasons and only in one situation:

1- Weight and heat considerations
2- Crit seeking power in comp play

I covered that.

I don't really care if one specific build on one specific variant uses it because the ton is critical to the build and hardpoints/tonnage forgo other (better) options. If so, good on the Shadowhawk 2D2.

That is not reason to not fix the damn gun, though, and THAT is the ultimate crux of my argument here. A weapon only good one build of one variant against stripped targets on hot maps? That isn't a weapon that's OK and doesn't need to be fixed.

Quote

The truth is, there isn't any point to running the LB series of ACs in any situation other than the above. You could argue that it is ok for pilots that aren't very good at using ACs on Light mechs. But, even then, that is a practice issue or, if you'd prefer, a "git gud" problem.

Which is exactly what I've been saying.

Quote

The LB needs to actually be an air-burst canister round or it will never be a viable weapon. I don't know why it can't simply be like the clan ER PPC and it has been something that I suggested, actually, before the Clan ER PPC was introduced. In fact, it is so logical and simplistic that it boggles my mind why it doesn't get applied:

LB 2: 1 point to target location, 1 point to an adjacent location with a small percentage chance to miss
LB 5: See LB 2
LB 10: See LB 2/5 but put damage in clusters of 2
LB 20: See the LB 10 but make a two shot burst

Another way to make the LB better would be to increase the damage to 2x what it currently is, cap the range at what it is in TT (i.e., LB 10-X would be capped at 450m), and apply a linear drop off from 0 to max range. That makes the LB series of weapons superior to SRMs at close range (LB series dependent and range dependent, of course), gives them a niche, and takes away the "regular ACs/UACs are better 100% of the time" issue.

Both of which are exactly what I have (and many others) suggested.

---

And yes, Mrs. Greene, I'm aware that the ac10 is not a spectacular weapon. That's sort of why the overall inferiority of the LBX10 bothers me so.

Edited by Wintersdark, 15 May 2016 - 10:08 PM.

[feeWAIVER]

I honestly think LBX is fine as is.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 May 2016 - 05:42 PM, said:

Anyone ever find any lore for those first 9 series?

Primitive tech, obsolete, boondoggles?

I'm sure they'd be listed somewhere, right.

They could be implied as having existed in one form or another under the (original) Star League's "Project CROATOAN" (as mentioned on page 98 of Era Report: 2750)?

"At first the Star League regarded the autocannon as a technological stopping point, with little reason to improve the design any further. With the continued spread of BattleMech technology, and the crucible of the Reunification War, Star League researchers on Terra began development on new autocannon technology in 2595 with the LB 10-X autocannon under the project name CROATOAN. A highly advanced weapon system, the LB-X could switch between ammunition like standard autocannon rounds or fire a shotgun style round that would split into hundreds of explosive sub-munitions. This style of submunition was particularly effective against vehicles, but also proved effective for short-range anti-aircraft flak, and for dispersing attacking infantry."
"The LB 10-X was so effective in its role that the Star League allowed research into other autocannon calibers to stagnate."

CROATOAN started in 2595 (as indicated in the quoted text, above) and the LB 10-X was introduced to the Terran Hegemony armed forces in the same year (as stated on page 207 of TechManual).
As such, the hypothetical "series I through IX" might not have even reached the physical prototype stage (example: "feature creep" during the design phase might have made those designs infeasibly heavy, bulky, complex/finicky/fragile, and/or expensive), existing only in Lubalin and/or Hegemony CAD files.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 16 May 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

They could be implied as having existed in one form or another under the (original) Star League's "Project CROATOAN" (as mentioned on page 98 of Era Report: 2750)?

"At first the Star League regarded the autocannon as a technological stopping point, with little reason to improve the design any further. With the continued spread of BattleMech technology, and the crucible of the Reunification War, Star League researchers on Terra began development on new autocannon technology in 2595 with the LB 10-X autocannon under the project name CROATOAN. A highly advanced weapon system, the LB-X could switch between ammunition like standard autocannon rounds or fire a shotgun style round that would split into hundreds of explosive sub-munitions. This style of submunition was particularly effective against vehicles, but also proved effective for short-range anti-aircraft flak, and for dispersing attacking infantry."
"The LB 10-X was so effective in its role that the Star League allowed research into other autocannon calibers to stagnate."

CROATOAN started in 2595 (as indicated in the quoted text, above) and the LB 10-X was introduced to the Terran Hegemony armed forces in the same year (as stated on page 207 of TechManual).
As such, the hypothetical "series I through IX" might not have even reached the physical prototype stage (example: "feature creep" during the design phase might have made those designs infeasibly heavy, bulky, complex/finicky/fragile, and/or expensive), existing only in Lubalin and/or Hegemony CAD files.

So...... no?



Mind you, wouldn't be entirely shock to see yet another retcon make that official, either. I like them re-exploring the older eras... just wish it didn't involve so many retcons and such (which of course are there to sell more stuff).

Am saying it's not exactly etched in stone, either way. (yet). And even retconnned of currently accepted canon does not always jibe with the original text (again, just look at the KGC of the 2750 TRO vs the first record sheets... which also coincidentally gave the Jagermech and RFL hand actuators).

*shrugs*

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 16 May 2016 - 08:15 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I'm all for the LBXs applying damage similar to a Clan ERPPC.

I think that is the one thing that could actually make it be worth a darn.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 19 December 2015 - 07:54 PM, said:

and its inclusion of a dual-feed system that allows it to switch between a burst of high-explosive armor-piercing shells (which, despite the appellation used when referring to the LB-X, are not true slugs like those fired by real-world shotguns) and shotshell-like canister rounds filled with explosive bomblet/grenade-like submunitions.

Which make very little sense, if you think about it. Because if it's a multi-round weapon (aka traditional burst AC) as indeed lore implied, then since the Shot/Flack shell is touching off a single projectile, it is pretty literally impossible it would do comparably effective damage.

The LB-X makes sense (sorta) when you treat it similar to this, such as the M1A1 using both M289A3 "standard" rounds, and M1028 cluster/canister rounds. But in Btech terms, the M1A1 would either be using a full auto 120mm, in whihc case if that is what it took (say a 3-5 round burst) to achieve it's damage, than the shotshell would be packing 1/3-1/5th the kill energy, and worse be broken down into 10-20 submissions further weakening their effectiveness compared to the primary shell. It would only be remotely useful against infantry and thin skinned vehicles.

Thus, while you are correct on it's canon nature, why I have always felt the canon descriptions of ACs failed spectacularly.
The LB-X only remotely "works" if it IS a Slug/Proximity Fused Cluster weapon.

And most ACs being Mech Machine Guns, really is a matter of pulp fiction blue prose overriding actual common sense and remote understanding of weapons. (Admittedly, the same could be said about Btech weapon design in general, but hey, what can you do?)

I miss the days when ACs was just considered a generic catchall, and could include anythign from single shot to burst weapons---- but that's just further off topic, I reckon.

ScoutMaster, on 15 May 2016 - 05:04 PM, said:

Showing us a stationnary mech and shooting its center torso in a training ground and telling us the data means anything, then saying that all rounds of your uac10-20 hits the same desired component ALL DE TIME MAN CUZ IM SO GUD is utter ********. And when you ask me if I'm a good shot, yes I am, I'm a monster in a mech and I don't usually land all my UAC rounds where I'd want them.

Unless the guy is staying there flatfooted like a jackass, is moving towards you in a straight line or if you're taking him from behind by surprise you're not gonna hit the same component with all your rounds in a uac10-20. People will be at different angles, at different speeds while torso twisting etc.

Please BS us some more and tell us you'd rather have a multi round UAC vs a couple of lights running around you. Please BS us some more and tell us that it's not clearly better at brawling range vs exposed structure.

Sure the non LBX is better in most situations. No one is saying the LBX is better, we're saying it's different and still has its uses. It Has lower heat and is more reliable.

just felt like the appropriate time to repost for the steering wheel claims....

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Wintersdark, on 15 May 2016 - 10:06 PM, said:

And yes, Mrs. Greene, I'm aware that the ac10 is not a spectacular weapon. That's sort of why the overall inferiority of the LBX10 bothers me so.

If the LBX10 were overall inferior, you would see it less than the AC10 on the comp side, but you actually see it more, between the SHD-2D2 and the occasional AS7-D-DC. Is it good, well it certainly isn't great but in those instances it is better than the alternatives those builds can run.

That said the LBX aren't great, so they could definitely use a buff so they are just crappy supplemental weapons and the AC10 still needs more to be better (like better velocity to pair with the PPC).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 May 2016 - 08:49 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 May 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

If the LBX10 were overall inferior, you would see it less than the AC10 on the comp side, but you actually see it more, between the SHD-2D2 and the occasional AS7-D-DC. Is it good, well it certainly isn't great but in those instances it is better than the alternatives those builds can run.

That said the LBX aren't great, so they could definitely use a buff so they are just crappy supplemental weapons and the AC10 still needs more to be better (like better velocity to pair with the PPC).

Well, since an Atlas can't actually pack 2x AC10, that might also limit the amount you see them, Competitively or not, since it's either 2x LB-X, 2x UAC5 or use an AC20/Gauss. A single AC10 or LB-X on an AS7 isn't something I can say I have seen used often or effectively.

Not sure why one wouldn't use the AC10 on the shadowhawk instead of a single LB-X (again, unless it's a dual LB-X build, somehow).

I will say that when Running RFLs, the dual ac10 destroys dual LB-X every single time I have encountered one.

[Mavairo]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 May 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

Well, since an Atlas can't actually pack 2x AC10, that might also limit the amount you see them, Competitively or not, since it's either 2x LB-X, 2x UAC5 or use an AC20/Gauss. A single AC10 or LB-X on an AS7 isn't something I can say I have seen used often or effectively.

Not sure why one wouldn't use the AC10 on the shadowhawk instead of a single LB-X (again, unless it's a dual LB-X build, somehow).

I will say that when Running RFLs, the dual ac10 destroys dual LB-X every single time I have encountered one.

I agree. And the Dual LBX Atlas is giggle worthy...and that's it. All it has is rate of fire.. a UAC5 paired with an AC10 on the other hand utterly destroys a dual LBX Atlas, every time, at every engagement range.
I can't see any reality other than the underhive where anyone would willingly take an LBX over an AC10.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 May 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

I will say that when Running RFLs, the dual ac10 destroys dual LB-X every single time I have encountered one.

That fulfills a different role, LBX go well with SRM splat, not lasers, so that's probably why.

Bishop Steiner, on 16 May 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

a UAC5 paired with an AC10 on the other hand utterly destroys a dual LBX Atlas, every time, at every engagement range.

Maybe in the underhive, where players face tank each other, UAC5s don't lend themselves to rolling damage like an Atlas should however.

Bishop Steiner, on 16 May 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

Not sure why one wouldn't use the AC10 on the shadowhawk instead of a single LB-X (again, unless it's a dual LB-X build, somehow).

I've already said why, heat and speed. The LBX10 has equivalent or tighter spread than the SRMs since you don't have artemis so its not like it is really that bad when using it with SRMs and you are getting potentially better DPS once a mech has been run down to internals (with structure quirks as abundant, this helps a small bit as well).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 May 2016 - 09:46 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

Was their any response to your tweet to Russ about the LBX? I am really curious because I like ballistics

[Wintersdark]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 May 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

If the LBX10 were overall inferior, you would see it less than the AC10 on the comp side, but you actually see it more, between the SHD-2D2 and the occasional AS7-D-DC. Is it good, well it certainly isn't great but in those instances it is better than the alternatives those builds can run.

That said the LBX aren't great, so they could definitely use a buff so they are just crappy supplemental weapons and the AC10 still needs more to be better (like better velocity to pair with the PPC).

the D-DC doesn't count, as you're choosing 2 LBX over 1 ac10 or a mismatched pair (with attendant ammo issues); it's an inferior weapon, but with two it's not comparable anymore.

So, you're still talking one variant t of one mech in a very specific role.

What happens is that the LBX is poorer than an AC10, which is also poor. But many don't understand the math. They think the LBX does more damage against structure when in practice it doesn't.

Still, given certain hardpoint and tonnage constraints, it's what's available. The 2d2, I suppose, fits this nicely: if you can't fit a 10 due to tonnage, and don't want lasers due to face time/cooling, what else are you going to do? 5's are very different animals, less suited for brawling, and 2's are bad.

But that's an uncommon problem, and it's using an LBX not because it's good but because it's the best of limited options.