413 replies to this topic

[pyrocomp]

MeiSooHaityu, on 01 August 2016 - 07:01 AM, said:

Really?

Well, a LBX is a ballistic vs an ERPPC being an energy weapon with their own unique hard points. Ballistics have ammo and energy doesn't. PPCs still temporarily disable ECM, LBXs don't. LBX still does bonus crit damage, PPCs don't. I think they are pretty unique still. Really, with that argument, why have different types of lasers (standard, pulse, and ER), when the mechanic is the same.

Also, LBXs already spread damage like an C-ERPPC, just at more close range. How is helping maintain that mechanic at longer ranges bad?

It wouldn't obsolete anything, I'm not sure why you would think so. It's essentially like saying why use an A/C10 when you can use an ERPPC? I just don't see your argument being the case.

Really. As PGI goes and adjusts weapons stats the players readily change on chassis over another. So the hardpoint argument is mitigated as many will try to choose different chassis.
Anyway, AC/10 is less used weapon than it could be. And the main point is that I'd prefer unic mechanincs over one already in place. Not it's like simply change color of the laser, but still there'd preferably be substantial difference.

[pyrocomp]

MeiSooHaityu, on 01 August 2016 - 07:29 AM, said:

I do understand the appeal. With increasing pellet damage only you could potentially get a 12 damage A/C 10 at face hug ranges (although I still think spread would hit 2 locations or some would miss). Thing is, as soon as the range opens up to medium, you still are spreading all over the place.

It just seems like a Clan ERPPC mechanic helps keep focus with damage at all ranges but maintains a spread effect.

The crutial difference is that a part of pellets still may miss where cERPPC will do full damage and vice versa some pellets might hit whereas the cERPPC bolt will miss. Add to it that hitting a Mech from side profile into ST with cERPPC will damage arm and CT while pellets most probably will miss CT altogether (depend on Mech geometry and angle, but a valid assumption still) and will go mostly into the arm. The difference is substatial in many cases for shielding.

[MeiSooHaityu]

pyrocomp, on 01 August 2016 - 07:32 AM, said:

Really. As PGI goes and adjusts weapons stats the players readily change on chassis over another. So the hardpoint argument is mitigated as many will try to choose different chassis.
Anyway, AC/10 is less used weapon than it could be. And the main point is that I'd prefer unic mechanincs over one already in place. Not it's like simply change color of the laser, but still there'd preferably be substantial difference.

The first half of the statement can be made for any weapon system. There are enough mechs and chassis in this game that I can change to any chassis to run any weapon system I want. Still, if I want to run a Catapult with ballistics in the arms, I can't, I have to run something similarish lime PPCs or go to another chassis like a Hager or Rifleman, etc... Sometimes there are actual limitations.

As for the seconds, I get what you are saying. LBXs do what no other weapon does. I just don't ever see it being useful within reasonable buffing. I suppose the existing spread ability could be more useful vs lights at speed since you will probably land some of the shot (vs an ERPPC mechanic that would register a complete miss). It's just, can that alone really be worth it (even with increased pellet damage)?

I guess one thing that needs to be considered is how would boating 4 LBX10s be affected either way? Ranged fire would do more damage with an ERPPC mechanic and short range would be more dangerous with increased pellet damage. Maybe that alone might make a big difference.

[MeiSooHaityu]

pyrocomp, on 01 August 2016 - 07:38 AM, said:

The crutial difference is that a part of pellets still may miss where cERPPC will do full damage and vice versa some pellets might hit whereas the cERPPC bolt will miss. Add to it that hitting a Mech from side profile into ST with cERPPC will damage arm and CT while pellets most probably will miss CT altogether (depend on Mech geometry and angle, but a valid assumption still) and will go mostly into the arm. The difference is substatial in many cases for shielding.

And I think that is essentially why most people don't use the LBX in the first place :/. All that tonnage tied up in the gun and ammo for a lot of missed or ineffective pellets. 1 ton less than an A/C10 just never feels worth it. I don't know if increased pellet damage would help that very much.

Honestly, like Juodas kind of said, I just wish they would try these systems out (both systems).

If there is one thing we all can agree on, it's that the LBX is very mediocre.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

davoodoo, on 01 August 2016 - 07:15 AM, said:

I given idea how to implement it without ammo switching.

ac10, ac10(incendiary), ac10(precision) and corresponding ammo.

Except that still doesn't fix the issue, in fact it has the potential to exacerbate it similar to the Clan AC debacle.

MeiSooHaityu, on 01 August 2016 - 07:29 AM, said:

I do understand the appeal. With increasing pellet damage only you could potentially get a 12 damage A/C 10 at face hug ranges (although I still think spread would hit 2 locations or some would miss). Thing is, as soon as the range opens up to medium, you still are spreading all over the place.

That's the point, different tools for different things. Even if they do fix the spread issue, it is still competing directly with the AC10 and its role, where as making it more of a shotgun gives them different roles.

MeiSooHaityu, on 01 August 2016 - 07:29 AM, said:

All I know is we have LBX quirked chassis with double (or more) DPS and/or tighter spread

Doubling the RoF =/= Doubling damage per pellet, those are not equal. One requires more face time AND more tonnage devoted to ammo.

[pyrocomp]

MeiSooHaityu, on 01 August 2016 - 07:48 AM, said:

I guess one thing that needs to be considered is how would boating 4 LBX10s be affected either way? Ranged fire would do more damage with an ERPPC mechanic and short range would be more dangerous with increased pellet damage. Maybe that alone might make a big difference.

Well, the extreme version of that change will be to double the damage from each pellet (or double the pellet count, and yes, thats full 20 dmg) and increase the spread to the level of hitting multiple components of an Atlas at 150-200 m (a shotgun as it is). Thus at 400 m you get quater of inital damage spread over the Mech (as most will simply miss). AC20 is pinpoint and better at those ranges at higher mass. Up close LBX is leathal. Boating 4xLBX10... Boating SRMs seem virtually the same (different mass and range, but). Essentially a brawling weapon useless midrange and above unless against a tightly clustered opponents (which isn't covered by any other weapon system, Strikes/LongTom is another issue).

[davoodoo]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 01 August 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Except that still doesn't fix the issue, in fact it has the potential to exacerbate it similar to the Clan AC debacle.

cac10 vs cuac10
-same dmg
-same burst fire
-same tonnage
-same amount of ammo
-ac takes more slots
-uac got double tap
-ac got higher cooldown(paul ffs)
-they even share ghost heat.

However that wouldnt be the problem with specialty ammo as you take is ac10 which weights extra ton, and occupies extra slot but for example fires precision ammo with high range and velocity. Which will find use on some light snipers.
or incendiary ammo which will heat up target, pretty useful trait in brawl, especially against kind of mechs like timber.

Still you change nothing, lbx is still useless
You make this change and you can make both ac10 and lb10x useful or in worst case lb10x will replace ac10 for anything but specialised mechs(like hbk4h) which still makes both useful.
Just dont do anything silly like higher cooldown for 1...

Also uac5 and ac5 suffer from similiar problem and if we further timeline it will get even worse with uac of all calibers.

Edited by davoodoo, 01 August 2016 - 08:43 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

davoodoo, on 01 August 2016 - 08:36 AM, said:

Also uac5 and ac5 suffer from similiar problem and if we further timeline it will get even worse with uac of all calibers.

I don't think you got what I meant, you essentially have 4+ weapons competing for the similar profile. You are correct in that UAC5 and AC5 aren't different enough, especially once we add other AC5 variants (LBX5, RAC5, LAC5, etc). That's pretty much the point, making everything single shot weapons that do damage slightly differently but around the same doesn't really create much diversity. They need to have different behaviors if you want to give us better choices.

davoodoo, on 01 August 2016 - 08:36 AM, said:

Still you change nothing, lbx is still useless

You actually make it more useless because some builds do currently benefit from the LBX10, if ever so slightly, and it would most likely be replaced by the specialty ammo versions. Not to mention the inner balance of the AC10 variants themselves, like precision vs normal ammo (precision ammo would be pretty important on all but the AC2) or even AP ammo.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 01 August 2016 - 08:52 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Remember, we cannot strive to make the IS LBX/10 "as good as" the IS AC/10.

The LBX weighs less, takes up fewer slots, and generates less heat. It should have worse performance, overall, as a consequence. It is, in balance terms, a Lesser Weapon.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 01 August 2016 - 09:18 AM.

[Deathlike]

Prosperity Park, on 01 August 2016 - 09:17 AM, said:

Remember, we cannot strive to make the IS LBX/10 "as good as" the IS AC/10.

The LBX weighs less, takes up fewer slots, and generates less heat. It should have worse performance, overall, as a consequence. It is, in balance terms, a Lesser Weapon.

Um... that's just dumb.

LBX is actually inconsequential, relative to the AC10. It's not like the AC10 is incredible or anything, but having the LBX suck much more than the AC10 is just dumb.

You want different options, not inconsequential ones.

[davoodoo]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 01 August 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

I don't think you got what I meant, you essentially have 4+ weapons competing for the similar profile. You are correct in that UAC5 and AC5 aren't different enough, especially once we add other AC5 variants (LBX5, RAC5, LAC5, etc). That's pretty much the point, making everything single shot weapons that do damage slightly differently but around the same doesn't really create much diversity. They need to have different behaviors if you want to give us better choices.


You actually make it more useless because some builds do currently benefit from the LBX10, if ever so slightly, and it would most likely be replaced by the specialty ammo versions. Not to mention the inner balance of the AC10 variants themselves, like precision vs normal ammo (precision ammo would be pretty important on all but the AC2) or even AP ammo.

Not rly, light ac5 and ac2 will pretty much replace regular counterparts as these are not sniper weapons by any stretch of imagination.
Uac will replace pretty much replace any ac for is unless we get some specialty ammo and unless they do dread tacs ill still stick by uac.
rotary ac5 will be end all for mechs with 2 ballistic hardpoints in torso, ecm atlas varant will pretty much get second life due to that.
lbx will suck anyway, as they offer minimal range increase for extra critical slot which isnt great, but then again if you keep them at cluser it will simply be pointless addition.

Just like dhs obsoleted shs and endo obsoleted standard structure(i dont see anyone asking for making those worse to make unupgraded mechs useful) new weapons will obsolete previous ones and if you tamper with them without completely redesigning them you will end up with useless weapon no one uses.

Like lbx.
I know 1 mech which uses it and its legend killer. Very good and popular mech seen on every match and achieving good results consistently...
Lbx is useless.
Its only saving grace is that you could fit 2 in side torso but even mechs which can do that prefer 2 uac5 because they are simply better.

Also add ap ammo without tacs, give it idk 20% more dmg against armor so 12 dmg per shot to armor 10 to structure and its suddenly still better than single lbx.

Edited by davoodoo, 01 August 2016 - 09:35 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Deathlike, on 01 August 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

Um... that's just dumb.

LBX is actually inconsequential, relative to the AC10. It's not like the AC10 is incredible or anything, but having the LBX suck much more than the AC10 is just dumb.

You want different options, not inconsequential ones.

You take everything to the extreme, don't you?

I say they should not be equal; you claim that I want one to be worthless. Chill out a little, and just take people's words for what they are, not what you want them to be so you have a chance to hard-refute them.

I want you to provide one good reason why my position is wrong. Give one good reason why the lighter, smaller, cooler weapon should be equally-good to the heavier, larger, hotter weapon. Go ahead.

Because, as far as I am aware, BattleTech usually makes the heavier and bigger weapons better performers then the smaller and lighter weapons.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 01 August 2016 - 09:34 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Yellonet, on 01 August 2016 - 07:26 AM, said:

50% crit chance per pellet, thank you.

...

...

It has a 67% Crit chance per pellet...

[Dogstar]

Rather than increasing damage per pellet how about increasing the number of pellets?

That way there would be more of them in the spread so more of them would hit at all ranges.

The current spread pattern tends to be quite lopsided, if it was more even, thanks to additional pellets, the weapon would be more reliable.

Edited by Dogstar, 01 August 2016 - 09:50 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

davoodoo, on 01 August 2016 - 09:27 AM, said:

lbx will suck anyway, as they offer minimal range increase for extra critical slot which isnt great, but then again if you keep them at cluser it will simply be pointless addition.

If you think range is the only thing that matters for that weapon then I guess you don't understand what makes certain weapons good. If it had boosted damage while still retaining its cluster shot, it would be useful, after all SRMs are technically a cluster shotgun and they are the best brawling weapon in the game.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

davoodoo, on 01 August 2016 - 09:27 AM, said:

Just like dhs obsoleted shs and endo obsoleted standard structure(i dont see anyone asking for making those worse to make unupgraded mechs useful)

Actually, that has been discussed before, and ironically MW4 added depth to Endo vs Standard by giving Endo 100% damage transfer rate and Standard a 50% damage transfer rate (this game has a default 40-50% transfer iirc).

[Brain Cancer]

Raw damage is by far the least likely tweak LB-X's will get.

Pellets are designed to wreck internal components. Make them good at destroying equipment. And add in proper damage to actuators and such.

If I shotgunned a light across the legs and it hamstrung the thing, or chewed up an arm on a heavy and restricted mobility for it's guns, nicked the gyro and left the crosshairs in perpetual wobble mode (like it was jumping), put a pellet through the sensors and the HUD just plain burned out- wouldn't that actually be neat vs. the brute-force-obliterate mode we have now?

[Mcgral18]

Brain Cancer, on 01 August 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

Raw damage is by far the least likely tweak LB-X's will get.

Pellets are designed to wreck internal components. Make them good at destroying equipment. And add in proper damage to actuators and such.

If I shotgunned a light across the legs and it hamstrung the thing, or chewed up an arm on a heavy and restricted mobility for it's guns, nicked the gyro and left the crosshairs in perpetual wobble mode (like it was jumping), put a pellet through the sensors and the HUD just plain burned out- wouldn't that actually be neat vs. the brute-force-obliterate mode we have now?

A damage buff is far more likely than any of those changes.

One is an XML edit, the other is implementing an entirely new feature.

[SMDMadCow]

Prosperity Park, on 01 August 2016 - 09:32 AM, said:

You take everything to the extreme, don't you?

I say they should not be equal; you claim that I want one to be worthless. Chill out a little, and just take people's words for what they are, not what you want them to be so you have a chance to hard-refute them.

I want you to provide one good reason why my position is wrong. Give one good reason why the lighter, smaller, cooler weapon should be equally-good to the heavier, larger, hotter weapon. Go ahead.

Because, as far as I am aware, BattleTech usually makes the heavier and bigger weapons better performers then the smaller and lighter weapons.

In Battletech, the LBX is a direct technological upgrade to a standard AC because it does the same damage for less weight, space and heat. ACs only play catch up once they have specialized munitions. Also in MWO a LBX cannot fire slugs, which it should have the ability to do, and the engine/gyro dont take critical hits like they do in BT. You cant strip armor, then crit seek for a 3 engine hit like you can in BT.

I would like to see what happens if the LBX pellets stayed at 1 damage vs armor but then went to 2 damage vs internals .

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

One is an XML edit, the other is implementing an entirely new feature.

Aren't those actually damageable locations but "no effect" since PGI just didn't add them in?