316 replies to this topic

[Pariah Devalis]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 May 2016 - 07:19 AM, said:

1) Nobody but an idiot uses C-ACs. With Clan UACs you get potentially twice the damage...for the same tonnage. And if you can't hold the 3 shot burst on one location the majority of the time? Stop using a joystick.

2) 400 meters? BULLCRAP. Even with the latest round of tightenings (unless one drops to LB2 or 5s)

3) For Clans the UAC-10 is considered better by the Comp Crowd for a reason, and is largely considered the best overall ballistics weapon, beside the Gauss. For the IS, the AC10 wins hands down, every time, also.

Case in point: It isn't uncommon to hit a single component on a mech at 450-600 meters out with at least 2, if not all 3, slugs using a C-UAC10. The total burst duration on a 20, let alone a 10, is far lower than most of our lasers, though the projectile velocity could use some help - especially for the Class 5.

Also, no reason to take a standard C-AC because not only is it the same weight and same burst, but it is one crit more than the C-UAC variations and lacks the option to doubletap. LBX is entirely conal, and you have zero control over where the spread goes. Beyond around 200 meters (less, really, but let's be generous), you will not be doing 100% damage to one section. You'd be lucky to be doing 50%, actually.

Also, those microcrits are worse at knocking out components than 10 damage chunks from, say, an ERPPC. You MIGHT get 4 or 5 crits from a single LBX salvo, but each crit is doing extremely small amounts of damage, and to various individual components as it is rolled against Internal Structure, Heat Sinks, Engine, Gyro, Ammo, Weapons, Active Probes, ECM, Jump Jets, or Armor points. It won't be focused on a single part, unlike frontloaded crits.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 15 May 2016 - 07:39 AM.

[Wintersdark]

ScoutMaster, on 15 May 2016 - 07:13 AM, said:

First of all, you don't need to be at 150 meters for the LBX to be tight, at 400M with a lbx10 you can hit all your pellets on the same component on most medium sized and up. Not to mention it's only 1 round as oposed to 3.

Now let me do a little switcharoo on your initial statement:

"If you are close enough that every 3 rounds of your C-UAC10 hits the same location, which means face hugging a sub 80KPH mech at 200 meters or less. And On mechs heavy Sized and up."

No, because you can't control the spread on the LBX. You control where every pellet from a UAC lands. UAC's don't spread at all; they're pinpoint weapons. It's exactly like firing a laser in that respect (though not being hitscan means you need a couple brain cells to rub together to lead targets); still, 100% of the damage goes exactly where it's aimed.

400m lands all rounds on one section? Lets see:

At 350m, an LBX fired at an Awesome CT (one of the largest CT's in the game, mind you, on a barn-door mech) hits all three torsos, legs, and some pellets wholly miss the mech. It takes 25 shots to kill the AWS in the best case scenario. My first attempt here was at more of an angle, and showed 32 shots to kill - but firing at an angle, despite aiming CT, was causing more pellets to miss the mech. Of course, in reality, nobody face tanks 25 shots, but I'm trying to be as objective as possible here.


At 250m, the LBX is hitting all three torso sections, though dropping a majority of it's damage CT. It still takes 16 shots to kill the AWS in this situation, and 250m is very close. Any shots still aimed CT, but off to either side or at an angle will cause more pellets to miss the CT and thus more shots be required for a kill.


At 150m, the LBX is finally hitting just the CT (again, AWS with massive CT, aimed dead center). 12 shots to kill at last! I wonder how the AC10 compares to this bad boy, fighting in it's optimal situation?




At 436m, an AC10 fired at an Awesome CT hits only the CT, and it takes 12 shots to kill the AWS.

---

So, what we see here is that the LBX is worse - often dramatically worse - even in ideal circumstances (perfect dead center ct aiming, firing at a mech facing directly at you) at ranges of 250m and beyond.

Somewhere between 250 and 150m, the LBX is finally landing all it's pellets in one component... and then? It takes as many shots to kill as the AC10 did out to 450m.


So, same number of shots to kill up close. Crits may push that +/- 1, but as well any shots taken at ~250m+ are going to increase the shots to kill. AC10's are dramatically better at destroying internal items due to the 10 damage crit(s) and 10 regular damage shots (critting on anything <10 armor), so AC10's are better at disabling mechs, too.

The LBX is better at looking and sounding awesome.

Edited by Wintersdark, 15 May 2016 - 08:14 AM.

[Mavairo]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 December 2015 - 11:36 AM, said:

My Name is Bishop Steiner. And I approve this Message.

For several reasons:
1) It's better than we have now
2) It reuses an already existing game mechanic, enhancing likelihood of being considered.
3) It's SIMPLE, which again feed into likelihood of consideration/implementation
4) It allow sLB-Xs to actually be used EFFECTIVELY at the enhanced ranges that were part of the initial designs
5) It keeps them distinct and different from IS std ACs, and Clan UACs.
6) We can finally stake, cut the heads off of, and bury the abominations known as Clan ACs.
7) Numbers are easy to tweak and adjust to tune, if something feels a little off
8) It will be fun to watch the "switch ammo ONLY" grognards froth into their neckbeards.

As a guy who loves him some autocannons.. I approve of this message. (And it would make a WHOLE new 100 Ton Monster Mech... the King Crab with LBX10s + SRM goodness = DOOM)

[Wintersdark]

The thing here? I love autocannons. I'm totally a ballistics man in this game. And what's more, I *REALLY* love LBX autocannons. They look awesome. They sound awesome. The theory is awesome.

They are awesome.

But they suck.

And every ignorant player who goes on about how great they are makes it less likely that they'll get fixed to actually not suck. It is ignorance, too - see all those idiotic "Well, they work fine for me, look at this screenshot where I got 1400 damage in my dual-lbx mech!" posts. Yeah. With an AC10 instead of an LBX10, you'd have gotten less damage. No doubt. That's the whole damn point.

Needing 250 damage to kill an Awesome instead of 120? That's twice the ammo requirement, twice the time requirement to kill, and that's the best result. In a real fight, it's going to be worse.

[Metus regem]

Wintersdark, on 15 May 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

The thing here? I love autocannons. I'm totally a ballistics man in this game. And what's more, I *REALLY* love LBX autocannons. They look awesome. They sound awesome. The theory is awesome.

They are awesome.

But they suck.

And every ignorant player who goes on about how great they are makes it less likely that they'll get fixed to actually not suck. It is ignorance, too - see all those idiotic &quot;Well, they work fine for me, look at this screenshot where I got 1400 damage in my dual-lbx mech!&quot; posts. Yeah. With an AC10 instead of an LBX10, you'd have gotten less damage. No doubt. That's the whole damn point.

Needing 250 damage to kill an Awesome instead of 120? That's twice the ammo requirement, twice the time requirement to kill, and that's the best result. In a real fight, it's going to be worse.

I couldn't agree more Winter. The only thing, aside from switchable ammunition, that I wish PGI would do for LB's is have proper canister shot. Let the thing act like it does now with out a lock, but with a lock have the round burst into submunitions at 50-100m from the target....

[Richard Hazen]

I use the LBX on my Orion even if it isn't the best because along with srms it makes a pretty good splat machine than rocks any mech you are facing.

[Y E O N N E]

Wintersdark, on 15 May 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

Needing 250 damage to kill an Awesome instead of 120? That's twice the ammo requirement, twice the time requirement to kill, and that's the best result. In a real fight, it's going to be worse.

250 damage at what range?

Also, plot-twist, there are some comp builds using LB-X.

[Wintersdark]

Will Hawker, on 15 May 2016 - 08:35 AM, said:

I use the LBX on my Orion even if it isn't the best because along with srms it makes a pretty good splat machine than rocks any mech you are facing.

If it's an ON1-M, then yeah, you want to use it because a total +40% cooldown is tremendous; way more than a 30% dps increase.

If it's NOT an ON1-M, then you're making a poor choice from a gameplay perspective as - for the reasons shown above - the LBX is flatly inferior to the AC10. If you're talking about a ON1-V with dual LBX's, that's a wholly different situation (and talking about a 22t investment in weapons vs. 12)

Yeonne Greene, on 15 May 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

250 damage at what range?

See videos above. 350m is 25 shots to kill an AWS aimed center CT.

Edit: in case looking at the post up a couple with videos and text isn't possible, the LBX10 acheives the same number of shots to kill (12) as the AC10 at 150m. So it's worse at every point beyond that, and only equal then.

Yeonne Greene, on 15 May 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

Also, plot-twist, there are some comp builds using LB-X.

Very heavily quirked builds only for IS. Clan side, only to avoid Ghost Heat (so basically only in the odd DWF builds). Once heavily quirked mechs are involved, it's not about the weapon anymore.

Edited by Wintersdark, 15 May 2016 - 08:47 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Wintersdark, on 15 May 2016 - 08:44 AM, said:

Very heavily quirked builds only for IS. Clan side, only to avoid Ghost Heat (so basically only in the odd DWF builds). Once heavily quirked mechs are involved, it's not about the weapon anymore.

Actually no, the SHD-2D2 brawler typically runs the LBX10 over the AC10 because of the extra ton and slightly better heat profile (since you are using SRMs to begin with the spread doesn't matter that much). No Clan dakka boat should be using LBX to avoid ghost, the only LBX that really matters on the clan side is the 20, that's pretty much it.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 15 May 2016 - 08:51 AM.

[Raso]

I am still of the mind that they should simply be turned into high powered, close range scatter guns. It's simple damage number adjustments and since PGI has shown they aren't really eager to invest time into anything other than mech packs I feel we need to keep it as simple as possible.

Up the damage per pellet to 1.5 and adjust each weapon's range so that it's fall off range would have each pellet deal 1 damage at the listed optimum range. Maybe up the spread EVER SO SLIGHTLY to compensate.

No, it's not inline with lore..... but that MWO isn't a battletech game. It's a robot shooter wearing a cheap, home made battletech costume.

Other than that, I'm so down for the air burst rounds and massive damage to exposed to structure and all that jive. If there's even chance PGI will deliver on that (spoiler alert: there isn't) I'd love to see that happen.

[Y E O N N E]

Wintersdark, on 15 May 2016 - 08:44 AM, said:

See videos above. 350m is 25 shots to kill an AWS aimed center CT.

Okay, but consider that 350 m is not the bracket for the LB-X?

Quote

Very heavily quirked builds only for IS. Clan side, only to avoid Ghost Heat (so basically only in the odd DWF builds). Once heavily quirked mechs are involved, it's not about the weapon anymore.

Every build in the game is attempting to avoid Ghost Heat, so that argument is kind of a non-starter. It's also not usually the IS 'Mechs using them, it's usually Clan brawlers. You'll find LB-20X Storm Crows and sometimes Timber Wolves. They are actually colder to fire than a wad of SRMs, and that's why they are a thing. The only reason you ever bring a DWF in comp is for heavy dakka at medium to long range, and you aren't doing that with LB-X. And even then...Mauler is better.

Don't get me wrong, LB-X need some fixing, but wouldn't consider them a bottom-of-the-barrel weapon like the IS Small Laser, LRM20, or LRM15. Unlike those, it actually has its uses. And in the presence of quirks, even the IS LB-10X has some powerful niches.

[Wintersdark]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 May 2016 - 08:51 AM, said:

Actually no, the SHD-2D2 brawler typically runs the LBX10 over the AC10 because of the extra ton and slightly better heat profile (since you are using SRMs to begin with the spread doesn't matter that much). No Clan dakka boat should be using LBX to avoid ghost, the only LBX that really matters on the clan side is the 20, that's pretty much it.

LBX20? Really?



Seems I have to do this every so often.

Short form results:

LBX20 vs. Stock (not max armored) commando at 100m: 5 rounds.
LBX20 vs. Stock commando at 200m: 11 rounds (fired 12, but it took 11 to kill.)
CUAC20 vs. Stock Commando at 314m: 3 rounds. Would be the same at 360m.

LBX20 vs. Atlas at 100m: 11 shots.
LBX20 vs. Atlas at 200m: Failed to kill with 21 shots - three tons of ammo.
CUAC20 vs Atlas at 340m: 10 shots. Less than the LBX20 at 100m.

This is why the LBX20 is such an embarassment.


As to the 2D2; using an LBX for an extra ton of ammo still doesn't get around needing massively more shots to kill. That's a build made by someone who doesn't understand the realities of the LBX vs. AC10 - when you're looking at 2.5t for the AC10 or 3.5t for the LBX, but the AC10 kills faster, further, the AC10 is a superior choice.

Even when you can land 100% of every single shot on a single target section, the LBX is still killing at the same speed as the AC, and that's at 150m.

Giving up the ability to do full AC10 damage from 250-450m? Not worthwhile.

[Yosharian]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 December 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...b-10x-proposal/



But this is simpler, so more probable, and elegant.

FINALLY I find out what the L B stands for. I've been wondering about that for eons.

[ScoutMaster]

Wintersdark, on 15 May 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

The thing here? I love autocannons. I'm totally a ballistics man in this game. And what's more, I *REALLY* love LBX autocannons. They look awesome. They sound awesome. The theory is awesome.

They are awesome.

But they suck.

And every ignorant player who goes on about how great they are makes it less likely that they'll get fixed to actually not suck. It is ignorance, too - see all those idiotic &quot;Well, they work fine for me, look at this screenshot where I got 1400 damage in my dual-lbx mech!&quot; posts. Yeah. With an AC10 instead of an LBX10, you'd have gotten less damage. No doubt. That's the whole damn point.

Needing 250 damage to kill an Awesome instead of 120? That's twice the ammo requirement, twice the time requirement to kill, and that's the best result. In a real fight, it's going to be worse.

It's like you think real matches involve mostly 1v1 fights or something, you just admitted my point : LBX DOES MORE DAMAGE ON AVERAGE. ( Because of increased crit chance and damage )

Your videos are pointless, no one is making the case that you will kill a stationary target faster with a LBX.

In a real game scenario you won't be hitting that center torso 100% of the time and other people are firing at your target, so any torso damage is good damage. ( Especially true vs IS )

I never said LBX was better, I said it was fine. It does something different.

I run LBX on mechs designed for hot maps in my CW dropdecks, they produce less heat so they allow you to run cooler so you have more sustainable and reliable (no jam) firepower.

Edit: And if you're an agressive player who likes to go in and actually face someone at close range where the LBX really shines, the last thing you wanna see is big red letters saying : WEAPON JAMMED. "then dont double tap derk." You know you're gonna double tap, everyone does.

Edited by ScoutMaster, 15 May 2016 - 09:11 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 15 May 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

"Well, they work fine for me, look at this screenshot where I got 1400 damage in my dual-lbx mech!" posts. Yeah. With an AC10 instead of an LBX10, you'd have gotten less damage. No doubt. That's the whole damn point.

Needing 250 damage to kill an Awesome instead of 120? That's twice the ammo requirement, twice the time requirement to kill, and that's the best result. In a real fight, it's going to be worse.

qoutyed for truth.

Same reason I pull my hair out at LRMboats and to a lesser degree SRMboats. Yes. You can score high damage relatively easy...because actually efficiently killing things simply doesn't happen.

My favorite weapons are (in order) the UAC10, AC20, AC10 and PPC/ERPPC precisely because if you are not a Bad, and can actually aim semi reliably, they kill the enemy dead in a very focused and efficient manner. To me, scoring 1000 damage is actually the sign of a bad match. Because it means 1) my team probably sucked enough that I HAD to carry harder, and or 2) my aim was bad, and I was very inefficient at killing the Opfor.

Doubly so if I have 1000+ dmg and only 1-3 kills to show. With my HBK-4G the norm is 500 dmg with 4 kills. Similarly my AC10 packing CN9-D (closer to 3 kills per 500 dmg, being that it takes smaller chunks, precision kills do take more work)

UAC10s are a little sloppier, not denying because of aim, enemy twisting, etc, but not massively so, but also compensate by allowing you to put a ridiculous level of damage down range.

LB-X efficacy ..... it's the sugar pill of MWO. Placebo. At no point is it actually superior to the UAC or IS AC counterpart, except for allowing people with bad aim to hit for SOME degree of damage on shots they would otherwise miss.

[Wintersdark]

Yeonne Greene, on 15 May 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

Okay, but consider that 350 m is not the bracket for the LB-X?

No, but again - my post just a couple above shows the numbers. Anything 250m+ is taking more ammo (and thus time) to kill, while at 150m and below it's the same.

The only time the LBX10 is going to be "ideal" is in very, very specific tonnage constrained circumstances where the added ton of ammo is the difference between having an effective weapon and not.

Quote

Every build in the game is attempting to avoid Ghost Heat, so that argument is kind of a non-starter. It's also not usually the IS 'Mechs using them, it's usually Clan brawlers. You'll find LB-20X Storm Crows and sometimes Timber Wolves. They are actually colder to fire than a wad of SRMs, and that's why they are a thing. The only reason you ever bring a DWF in comp is for heavy dakka at medium to long range, and you aren't doing that with LB-X. And even then...Mauler is better.

LBX20's are terrible. See video above. Really, really terrible. Using LBX's to avoid ghost heat is possible, but still a bad idea in the vast majority of cases.

Quote

Don't get me wrong, LB-X need some fixing, but wouldn't consider them a bottom-of-the-barrel weapon like the IS Small Laser, LRM20, or LRM15. Unlike those, it actually has its uses. And in the presence of quirks, even the IS LB-10X has some powerful niches.

Even with quirks, I don't think any mechs now have substantial LBX only quirks, I was just checking and it seems all (most?) have had theirs pushed more to general, such as the CN9-D. In those cases, 30% cooldown AC10 > 40% cooldown LBX10.



But really, folks. Disagree with my assessment? Don't talk out of your ***, provide proof. I've got a set of videos above proving what I'm saying. Show me a specific, reasonable situation where the LBX is a noticably superior choice.

Show me I'm wrong.

[Spleenslitta]

I approve of OP's idea. But if it was implemented i would not gain anything from it since the only ballistic weapon i use is the MG.
Despite that i approve.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yosharian, on 15 May 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

FINALLY I find out what the L B stands for. I've been wondering about that for eons.

there is some argument over it, since it's never been documented, but it's the single most sensible, simplest answer. And usually, the simple answer is the right one.

But it's not exactly brain work to put together "Luballin Ballistics series Ten" and get LB-X. And when introduced there were no series 2, 5 or 20.

Still Strum Wealh argues with me tooth and nail about this. I wish I could find the person who was in charge of the designs in the 2750 TRO and see his answer. The poor editing, and lack of consistency in early FASA stuff, especially in the jump to the 3050 era, is legendary, which is why we ended up with the "do KGC have hand and lower arm actuators, or not" debate.

And the answer? In the original entries, they did not, because the "claw", clearly is NOT a functioning hand actuator. And in 1st Ed Construction Rules, split Crits were not even an option, if I recall correctly (I'll dig out my paper copy this afternoon to confirm or correct).

But those are just two examples of poor copy editing and consistency causing confusion for years to come.

[Wintersdark]

ScoutMaster, on 15 May 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

It's like you think real matches involve mostly 1v1 fights or something, you just admitted my point : LBX DOES MORE DAMAGE ON AVERAGE. ( Because of increased crit chance and damage )

No, my post is showing that it takes more damage to kill someone. That's very different.

Quote

Your videos are pointless, no one is making the case that you will kill a stationary target faster with a LBX.

In a real game scenario you won't be hitting that center torso 100% of the time and other people are firing at your target, so any torso damage is good damage. ( Especially true vs IS )

Are you a bad shot? When I'm firing an AC10 at you, I will hit the torso, and almost always the segment I'm aiming at. I am not a particularly amazing pilot.

So anyone worth their salt is doing the same.

But, to be fair, if really necessary I'll do one of these showing the LBX fired CT aimed, but at an angle to the target.

The "Face on motionless" is actually BETTER for the LBX, as it allows me to ensure as tight of clustering as possible. That's the optimal scenario for the LBX.

Quote

I never said LBX was better, I said it was fine. It does something different.

But it's NOT fine. It's WORSE, it's worse is almost every situation, and equal in only a couple very specific cases. Marginally superior in an EXTREMELY limited circumstance (but that happens so rarely, and the majority of shots are happening in the "worse" category, so you're still not better off having mounted it).

Quote

I run LBX on mechs designed for hot maps in my CW dropdecks, they produce less heat so they allow you to run cooler so you have more sustainable and reliable (no jam) firepower.

CUAC's don't jam if you don't want them too. They're reliable when you want reliable, and do twice the damage when you're poking. With that said, 2-class cannons aside (which suck anyways) you should always be doubletapping because you're doing more burst and more dps overall even after jams. More burst dps is ALWAYS better than very slightly higher sustained dps.

You can do it your way all you like, that doesn't make it a good idea.

[Bishop Steiner]

Will Hawker, on 15 May 2016 - 08:35 AM, said:

I use the LBX on my Orion even if it isn't the best because along with srms it makes a pretty good splat machine than rocks any mech you are facing.

ON1-VA with std AC10 and 4xaSRM4 is one of the best rock n rollers ever. Try it over the LB-X and prepare to soil yourself.

Just wish Instagib alphas hadn't largely forced me to go to STD 300 instead of my 350xl.