413 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

id support a 0.2-0.5 Pellet Damage Buff to the LBX System,
(so Each LBX Pellets would do between 1.2 or 1.5 Damage, like IS SRMs)
(New LBX2 Damage= 2.4-3)(New LBX5 Damage= 6-7.5)(New LBX10 Damage= 12-15)(New LBX20 Damage= 24-30)

[El Bandito]

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

Hint: They're better than you think.

No, they are not. I tried out every caliber of LBXs for years, from all ranges, on most class of mechs. At close range, they are highly tonnage inefficient compared to SRMs and MLs, while at longer range ACs and UACs are far better. You are not gonna convince any experienced player with your argument.

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

Right now people mentioned crap crits. ...is that all? No.
So, what else is everyone's gripe with them?

The spread obviously. In a game where pin point damage is key, its spread makes it straight up inferior compared to AC10. That's why everyone is calling PGI incompetent for not able to make select ammo for the LBX, as per lore. And thanks to the spread, the LBX crits deal far less damage than regular AC10 crit.

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

Let's all get to the same page, so we can properly discuss this.
Instead of throwing random ideas like crap to the wind.

We have already discussed the LBX issue in great detail in these forums for years. What needs to be done is already clear. We just require Russ and Paul to dump their head in a bucket full of cold water to wake up tot he reality, and makes those changes. While we are at it, it is a good idea for you to put your head in that bucket too.

Edited by El Bandito, 30 July 2016 - 10:16 AM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

Hint: They're better than you think. Great? Not exactly. They're niched. But definitely not bad.

Anyway, if you don't want to contribute to the discussion, kindly leave. You won't solve a thing like that.

So, back on topic. We ought to look at the main issues people seem to be having with the LB-10X and see what the bloody problem is... Either it is through poor perception and misuse or through an actual issue.

Right now people mentioned crap crits. ...is that all? No.
So, what else is everyone's gripe with them?

Let's all get to the same page, so we can properly discuss this.
Instead of throwing random ideas like crap to the wind.

The reason they are worse than a normal AC10 is because they spread their damage while an AC10 has pin point front loaded damage.

People say LBX is better against lights, this is only true for people with bad aim, making them an easier to use but less effective weapon. If you can reliably make your shots with an AC10 destroying light mechs becomes easier, as does destroying any other mech since you aren't spreading the damage around.

LBX does do more damage to internals, leaving them deadly against opponents who are ripped open. They don't crit out components as well as an AC10 however due to most components being 10 hp. Enemy mechs have more armor than structure, leaving AC10s more effective against what you are most likely to be faced with more often.

The LBX is a weapon that can be used to deal effective damage, the issue is that its worse than other options, leaving it unused in comparison.

The slots and tonnage are good for IS mechs, but the tonnage is the same for a clan LBX10 and clan UAC10 while the LBX takes up an extra slot, giving the clans even less reason to take the LBX.

[Spleenslitta]

Antares102, on 30 July 2016 - 09:48 AM, said:

No thats really a decent idea which i didnt dare to mention. I would even go so far that you can do crits even with full armor but obviously with very little chance.
However, damage increase is more acceptable than this crit system because it's:

• Much easier to implement
  
• Much better understandable for players

That is an idea too. But there are 2 problems.
1) PGI tries to everything other than increasing damage, range, heat, weight, crit slot, etc on weapons.

2) This could possibly threaten the AC20 role as the ultimate brawling weapon.

But yes it is an alternative. The good thing i can say about it is that it would make the LBX more effective at range.
Even if only a few pellets hit they have increased damage in comparison to how things are now.
So i'll remain neutral to this idea.

[Pronotum]

Bandito, first, I will say this. Clan LB's? They are made obsolete by the less bulky, same tonnage UACs. Already from a pure DPS standpoint. That should be adressed. How to fix them, however, is a different story. And if we applied the same to the IS LB-10X, then suddenly the AC10 risks obsoletion.

But let's not ignore what the IS LB10-X has going for it. We need to consider the fact that Hardpoints are a thing, limiting what you can do on a mech. And hardpoint combinations on mechs allow diffrerent builds... And the fact that the only good one, the IS LB-10X weighs less, and takes less slots than the AC-10. So the LB-10 should have spread as that balancer. Anyway, that one ton, one slot opens up a whole can of varied builds that you can't do with an AC/10 and that are viable. Again, an LB-10X on a Dragon? Not a bad idea. 2xLB10 Marauder? Doable.

We should not just drop ourselves to comparing the weapon stats on an excel spreadsheet. There is more to practical use than just that.

Edited by Pronotum, 30 July 2016 - 10:18 AM.

[Monkey Lover]

I think Pgi knows the lbx has issues right now. They did buff them not long ago and I hope they do it again here soon . I am hoping they learned to take changes slow the 1.1dmg buff sounds good but even this is a 10% buff.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 30 July 2016 - 10:18 AM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Spleenslitta, on 30 July 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

That is an idea too. But there are 2 problems.
1) PGI tries to everything other than increasing damage, range, heat, weight, crit slot, etc on weapons.

2) This could possibly threaten the AC20 role as the ultimate brawling weapon.

But yes it is an alternative. The good thing i can say about it is that it would make the LBX more effective at range.
Even if only a few pellets hit they have increased damage in comparison to how things are now.
So i'll remain neutral to this idea.

LBX probably should be better at brawling than an AC20, I'd support that. AC20 still would have its use as the ultimate pin point frontloaded damage weapon up close though. Dual LBX10 would be more effective than a single AC20, but they weigh more and should be.

PGI also has changed range, damage, and heat before on weapons, just not weights and slots.

[El Bandito]

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

Bandito, first, I will say this. Clan LB's? They are made obsolete by the less bulky, same tonnage UACs. That should be adressed. How to fix them, however, is a different story. And if we applied the same to the IS LB-10X, then suddenly the AC10 risks obsoletion.

But let's not ignore what the IS LB10-X has going for it. We need to consider the fact that Hardpoints are a thing, limiting what you can do on a mech. And hardpoint combinations on mechs allow diffrerent builds... And the fact that the only good one, the IS LB-10X weighs less, and takes less slots than the AC-10. That opens up a whole can of varied builds that are very much viable. Again, an LB-10X on a Dragon? Not a bad idea. 2xLB10 Marauder? Doable.

We should not just drop ourselves to comparing the weapon stats on an excel spreadsheet. There is more to practical use than just that.

I was one of the first pilots to put 2xLBX10s on the Founder Atlas RT. I know about the "one less slot than AC10 making new builds yadda yadda". That still does not matter when it comes to practice. AC10 serves much better on the Dragon, and 2xUAC5s are better for 2x ballistic slot torso, or 3xAC5s on 3x ballistic torso. This is not excel sheeting--this comes from years of in-game experience.

Edited by El Bandito, 30 July 2016 - 10:24 AM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

Bandito, first, I will say this. Clan LB's? They are made obsolete by the less bulky, same tonnage UACs. Already from a pure DPS standpoint. That should be adressed. How to fix them, however, is a different story. And if we applied the same to the IS LB-10X, then suddenly the AC10 risks obsoletion.

But let's not ignore what the IS LB10-X has going for it. We need to consider the fact that Hardpoints are a thing, limiting what you can do on a mech. And hardpoint combinations on mechs allow diffrerent builds... And the fact that the only good one, the IS LB-10X weighs less, and takes less slots than the AC-10. So the LB-10 should have spread as that balancer. Anyway, that one ton, one slot opens up a whole can of varied builds that you can't do with an AC/10 and that are viable. Again, an LB-10X on a Dragon? Not a bad idea. 2xLB10 Marauder? Doable.

We should not just drop ourselves to comparing the weapon stats on an excel spreadsheet. There is more to practical use than just that.

LBX loses out to SRMs if we are talking spread damage weapons for use up close that weigh little and take up few slots. For example, even just having 2 SRM2s out DPSes an LBX. Once you get out of SRM range the LBX wins in that fight, but it would become more useful to have an AC10 due to the spread at that range, unless you just want to sandblast the paint off the poor target.

I'd sure take a few SRMs before an LBX on a Dragon or Marauder.

[Pronotum]

El Bandito, on 30 July 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

I was one of the first pilots to put 2xLBX10s on the Founder Atlas. I know about the "one less slot than AC10 making new builds yadda yadda". AC10 serves much better on the Dragon, while UAC5s are better for the Marauders while giving more tonnage to bring other things. This is not excel sheeting--this comes from years of in game experience.

See, that will depend on subjective use. The Dragon benefits a lot from just one single extra ton on it. And the LB-10 compliments the general short range build you'd use on it. Dual UAC vs LB-10 will depend on playstyle, considering UACs are prone to jam. Once they do, you're screwed.

So let's skip to discussing the issues present.

Clan LB's are made completely obsolete by the UACs which have more burst DPS, weigh the same and take one LESS slot.
How to fix that? Well, would making the clan LB's fire a single slug instead of a spread shot help? Not likely, to be honest.

And Dakota. You're ignoring a few factors from reading the stats. So, 2 SRM2's do more DPS than an LB-10. What else? More heat. Less range, velocity... and hardpoint use... It's not a particularly valid argument, mate. Naturally many small weapons will do more DPS than one big one... That applies to everything.

Edited by Pronotum, 30 July 2016 - 10:36 AM.

[El Bandito]

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

See, that will depend on subjective use. The Dragon benefits a lot from just one single extra ton on it. And the LB-10 compliments the general short range build you'd use on it. Dual UAC vs LB-10 will depend on playstyle, considering UACs are prone to jam. Once they do, you're screwed.

In such cases I defer to the wisdom of players better than me, and I'm gonna bet they will all say LBX sucks compared to its alternatives.

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

Clan LB's are made completely obsolete by the UACs which have more burst DPS, weigh the same and take one LESS slot.
How to fix that? Well, would making the clan LB's fire a single slug instead of a spread shot help? Not likely, to be honest..

In the first part of the comment, didn't you say that UACs are prone to jam and once it jams you get screwed? What happened to the "depending on the play style"?

As for making Clan LBXs on par with CUACs, by simply increasing the pellet damage to 1.4 or 1.5 as I suggested, the CLBX will be a superior weapon up close due to much better front loaded damage and lower heat, while CUACs will still be better at longer distance.

Edited by El Bandito, 30 July 2016 - 10:40 AM.

[Queen of England]

Higher damage per pellet is a great idea. If MWO is going to implement LBX ACs as FPS-style shotguns, they need to give them FPS-style shotgun damage.

[Pronotum]

Bandito, this is not Ace Attorney. Stop grasping at straws, expecting something to happen. How immature can you get to try and desperately prove your point, where there isn't just a single grand truth?

IS UAC5 is of a lesser caliber than the LB-10X, so two LB10s will do the same damage as a double tap dual UAC/5 in an "alpha strike". While the LB10 can keep firing, the UAC/5 won't eventually depending on RNG. They both have a different utilization and sustainability. Dual UAC/5 will be better at longer engagements, or where cover is present, since you can safely unjam and use its range as an advantage. Dual LB10-X will be better for sustaining a push in close combat, where you can deal damage and KEEP dealing damage. They both have different practical uses. UAC/5 weighs less. LB-10 has more damage per ton of ammo.

Now. Is the dual UAC/5 better? In most practical brainless skirmish scenarios... yes. Again, the LB-10 is a niched weapon. You need to play with it. Position yourself to make good use of it. After the spread reduction, the LB-10 is good pinpoint weapon at low ranges, and allows more time to twist your torso, that is for sure.

Everything has advantages and disadvantages. That's why I love this game. But that also makes balance a lot more difficult to do, because some people won't consider all the advantages and disadvantages when they just look at an excel spreadsheet, looking at pure DPS stats and what not. Just PLAY the game.

Edited by Pronotum, 30 July 2016 - 10:52 AM.

[El Bandito]

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 10:46 AM, said:

Bandito, this is not Ace Attorney. Stop grasping at straws, expecting something to happen. How immature can you get to try and desperately prove your point, where there isn't just a single grand truth?

IS UAC5 is of a lesser caliber than the LB-10X, so two LB10s will do the same damage as a double tap dual UAC/5. While the LB10 can keep firing, the UAC/5 won't. They both have a different utilization and sustainability. Dual UAC/5 will be better at longer engagements, or where cover is present. Dual LB10-X will be better for sustaining a push in close combat, where you can deal damage and KEEP dealing damage. They both have different practical uses. UAC/5 weighs less. LB-10 has more damage per ton of ammo.

Even if you compare LBX and Ultra of the same caliber, my argument will still hold water. Current LBX is simply that bad. It is you who is desperately trying to validate the current LBX, while those who had been here longer are trying to convince you out of it.

I don't even have to tell you this. Every player that is actually good at this game will tell you what I said.

Edited by El Bandito, 30 July 2016 - 10:55 AM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

See, that will depend on subjective use. The Dragon benefits a lot from just one single extra ton on it. And the LB-10 compliments the general short range build you'd use on it. Dual UAC vs LB-10 will depend on playstyle, considering UACs are prone to jam. Once they do, you're screwed.

So let's skip to discussing the issues present.

Clan LB's are made completely obsolete by the UACs which have more burst DPS, weigh the same and take one LESS slot.
How to fix that? Well, would making the clan LB's fire a single slug instead of a spread shot help? Not likely, to be honest.

And Dakota. You're ignoring a few factors from reading the stats. So, 2 SRM2's do more DPS than an LB-10. What else? More heat. Less range, velocity... and hardpoint use... It's not a particularly valid argument, mate. Naturally many small weapons will do more DPS than one big one... That applies to everything.

2 SRM2s weighs 2 tons for an IS mech, the LBX weighs 11. That there is a massive advantage. I also addressed the range issue there in my previous post. Velocity is slower for the SRMs, though at close range its not as big of a deal. Heat is 2.5 times higher for the dual SRM2s compared to the LBX though those 9 extra tons can add considerable cooling or other utility to the mech to make up for it.

I'm not arguing that LBX can be useful on some specific mechs in some loadouts. I'm arguing that those mechs using those loadouts aren't as effective as ones based around AC10s and I'd like to see LBX brought up to that level so they can compete with UACs and the pinpoint damage of IS ACs.

[Pronotum]

Dakota, the problem with that is that you're comparing weapons of two different classes that perform in a spread pattern... That's where the similarities end. And again. Choice between AC/10 and LB-10... depends if you need that ton, and can make that LB-10 work. Some times that one slot or one ton makes all the difference. And there is not just one correct way to build a mech.

LB-10x should not be on exactly equal footing as the AC/10 either, given its weight and tonnage advantage. How much of a difference is the main issue to be figured out. If LB-10 is as good as the AC/10... why use the heavier weapon?

Bandito, LB-10 with an ultra of the same caliber? IS does not have that luxury. It's a moot point. And mate? Drop the self bias. It is not particularly attractive. You've pushed how "experienced" you are and how that makes your opinion worth more? I call that complacency.

Anyway, let's drop the assumption I say LB-10x is perfect. It's not. But it is not "a horrible deal underpowered and should be avoided at all costs" kind of weapon either. It has use.

So one last time I will ask to stop derailing the thread and discuss how the LB10-X and the Clan LBs can be improved. I won't reply to further comments about MY views on the Inner Sphere's LB10-X to prevent derailing the thread.
_{P.S. The LB10-X is not useless.}

Edited by Pronotum, 30 July 2016 - 11:04 AM.

[Antares102]

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 10:55 AM, said:

_{P.S. The LB10-X is not useless.}

Yes it is because when push comes to shove and you dont play for fun you ONLY pick mechs with equipment
that has the absolute highest chance of killing stuff running around.
If ANY weapon is just 1% better for the same size/tonnage then you pick that one instead of LBX.
Same as an earlier statement by Dakota1000:

Dakota1000, on 30 July 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

The LBX is a weapon that can be used to deal effective damage, the issue is that its worse than other options, leaving it unused in comparison.

I played enough with both IS AC, Clan UAC and LBX to know that LBX is almost in a state
as flamers were before the rework a few month ago. They are just not effective at what they are supposed to do from "lore".

It always amazing me how people can argue against common sense.
Might be the same people who argue that the earth is flat.

Edited by Antares102, 30 July 2016 - 11:15 AM.

[Pronotum]

Antares102, on 30 July 2016 - 11:10 AM, said:

_{Yes it is because when push comes to shove and you dont play for fun you ONLY pick mechs with equipment
that has the absolute highest chance of killing stuff running around.}
If ANY weapon is just 1% better for the same size/tonnage then you pick that one instead of LBX.

<sub>I played enough with both IS AC, Clan UAC and LBX to know that LBX is almost in a state
as flamers were before the rework a few month ago.

^{It always amazing me how people can argue against common sense.
Might be the same people who argue that the earth is flat.}</sub>

Okay, I'll make one exception for this guy just this once.
Inner sphere LB10-X AC weighs less and takes less slots than the AC/10. So not quite there.
Clan LB's are obsolete since they weigh the same and take MORE slots than the respective UAC.

...you almost got it.
But anyway, hell, we ALL should really start stating clan and IS LB's seperately, since they have different relative tonnage issues.

Edited by Pronotum, 30 July 2016 - 11:16 AM.

[El Bandito]

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 10:55 AM, said:

So one last time I will ask to stop derailing the thread and discuss how the LB10-X and the Clan LBs can be improved. I won't reply to further comments about MY views on the Inner Sphere's LB10-X to prevent derailing the thread.
_{P.S. The LB10-X is not useless.}

And I already told you how the LBXs can be improved. Judging by the likes I got, I say my suggestion is a popular one.

PS: If by saying that all that requires a weapon to not be useless is to deal damage, then sure, LBX is not useless. But I already know just how deluded you are so I am gonna leave you be. May you get better.

Edited by El Bandito, 30 July 2016 - 11:19 AM.

[Antares102]

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:

Okay, I'll make one exception for this guy just this once.
Inner sphere LB10-X AC weighs less and takes less slots than the AC/10. So not quite there.
Clan LB's are obsolete since they weigh the same and take MORE slots than the respective UAC.

Still as was said before even the size/tonnage advantage of the IS LBX 10 does not make it better than the AC10,
because you are not spreading damage like a boss.

Pronotum, on 30 July 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:

But anyway, hell, we ALL should really start stating clan and IS LB's seperately, since they have different relative tonnage issues.

True