413 replies to this topic

[Dee Eight]

Look the only fix the LBXs have ever needed was the dual ammo feed. THAT's IT. Give the players the choice between solid projectlles and the cluster round when they load the ammo into the mech. If you can have a toggle to lock and unlock the arms, you can have one to toggle between ammo types.

[jweltsch]

El Bandito, on 05 August 2016 - 08:25 PM, said:

1. Nothing is wrong with ballistic version of SRM, as long as it is implemented correctly. Not all mechs have missile mounts, and some mechs such as the Atlas might like to maximize the close range damage by bringing both SRMs and LBXs.

2. So what if it encourages face hugging? The brawler also puts himself at great risk, and more brawling is always more fun than mid-long range sniping.

3. I never said anything about 3 damage per pellet. In fact, if you read my first post in this thread I specifically proposed 1.4-1.5 damage per pellet.

So many people seem to be stuck on comparing it directly to srms OR the ac/10, what it really should be is a cross of the two, lowering the advantages of both, but also minimizing the disadvantages of both. By making the lbxs do 1.2 to 1.5 damage you give it a specific role, a great close weapon, that is manageable at mid range and can at least provide suppressive fire at long range (and some people seem to fail to understand that suppressive fire is every bit as important as actual damage in most cases, modern military doctrine is based on suppressive fire). This compares to the srm, which is an excellent close in weapon, with no mid or long range capabilities, or the ac/10 that is a decent weapon at short/mid/long range.

So in a direct comparison, srms are better at point blank, about the same at their max range, and obviously, are inferior at ranges greater than 270, whereas the ac10 is inferior to the lbx at short range, slightly better at mid, and superior at longer ranges.

With this the lbx weapons have reason to exist, versus now they have none unless your mech is super quirked.....

[Mole]

jweltsch, on 05 August 2016 - 08:39 PM, said:

So many people seem to be stuck on comparing it directly to srms OR the ac/10, what it really should be is a cross of the two, lowering the advantages of both, but also minimizing the disadvantages of both. By making the lbxs do 1.2 to 1.5 damage you give it a specific role, a great close weapon, that is manageable at mid range and can at least provide suppressive fire at long range (and some people seem to fail to understand that suppressive fire is every bit as important as actual damage in most cases, modern military doctrine is based on suppressive fire). This compares to the srm, which is an excellent close in weapon, with no mid or long range capabilities, or the ac/10 that is a decent weapon at short/mid/long range.

So in a direct comparison, srms are better at point blank, about the same at their max range, and obviously, are inferior at ranges greater than 270, whereas the ac10 is inferior to the lbx at short range, slightly better at mid, and superior at longer ranges.

With this the lbx weapons have reason to exist, versus now they have none unless your mech is super quirked.....

Yeah but see PGI isn't gonna want to break lore by giving an LB-10-X cannon more damage potential than a solid 10 damage even though they are perfectly okay with breaking lore for a thrice damned Marauder IIC mechpack that doesn't have the proper tech that the mech should have just because they want to make a quick buck. If they increase pellet damage then they will have to make there be less pellets per round.

[Andi Nagasia]

Mole, on 05 August 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

Yeah but see PGI isn't gonna want to break lore by giving an LB-10-X cannon more damage potential than a solid 10 damage even though they are perfectly okay with breaking lore for a thrice damned Marauder IIC mechpack that doesn't have the proper tech that the mech should have just because they want to make a quick buck. If they increase pellet damage then they will have to make there be less pellets per round.

Why they have increased the Damage of a Weapon system before,
just look at IS SRMs they do i believe 2.15 per missile,

[Queen of England]

Andi Nagasia, on 05 August 2016 - 08:57 PM, said:

Why they have increased the Damage of a Weapon system before,
just look at IS SRMs they do i believe 2.15 per missile,

They have also increased the damage for every type of large laser (IS and clan), clan small pulse laser (that one is doubled), changed a lot of heat values, and lots of other things. They've been willing to change about everything but slots and tons.

[Mole]

Andi Nagasia, on 05 August 2016 - 08:57 PM, said:

Why they have increased the Damage of a Weapon system before,
just look at IS SRMs they do i believe 2.15 per missile,

Have they? I didn't know that. I thought all weapons in this game did their tabletop damage values with the possible exception of the Clan ERPPC which really still does its full 15 damage, just spreads the last 5 out to adjacent components.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

InspectorG, on 05 August 2016 - 08:03 PM, said:

But its like: how do you give it utility without being another SRM?

Make SRMs guided like they should be and make LBX the actual shotgun powerhouse?

[Mole]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 August 2016 - 09:09 PM, said:

Make SRMs guided like they should be

Ahahaha, that's a good one, PGI actually taking the time to code something that isn't going to immediately make them money.

Edited by Mole, 05 August 2016 - 09:10 PM.

[El Bandito]

Mole, on 05 August 2016 - 09:04 PM, said:

Have they? I didn't know that. I thought all weapons in this game did their tabletop damage values with the possible exception of the Clan ERPPC which really still does its full 15 damage, just spreads the last 5 out to adjacent components.

LRMs used to do 1.8 damage back in 2013, almost twice as much as current value of 1.

Dee Eight, on 05 August 2016 - 08:31 PM, said:

Look the only fix the LBXs have ever needed was the dual ammo feed. THAT's IT. Give the players the choice between solid projectlles and the cluster round when they load the ammo into the mech. If you can have a toggle to lock and unlock the arms, you can have one to toggle between ammo types.

PGI already admitted that they are unable to code in dual ammo feed. The guy who was supposed to know the stuff had left PGI years ago. That's the whole reason we are pushing for simpler alternatives to make LBX more useful.

Edited by El Bandito, 05 August 2016 - 10:07 PM.

[Ace Selin]

Antares102, on 30 July 2016 - 09:29 AM, said:

.. as the title says.

Currently I see no reason to take any LBX weapon over normal AC for IS and UAC for Clan unless heavy quirking is involved e.g. Legendkiller.
So why not increase the LBX pellet damage to something like 1.1 or even 1.2 (or even higher till it is worthwile taking)
IS SRMs also have 2.15 per missile so why not apply the damage logic to LBX?
Might make LBX actually usefull.

they are great for crits, great vs lights, it's a good weapon, the problem is you

[Mole]

Ace Selin, on 05 August 2016 - 11:06 PM, said:

they are great for crits, great vs lights, it's a good weapon, the problem is you

The problem as I see it isn't that the LB cannons are terrible weapons, it's that in pretty much every instance you'd be better off with that regular or ultra counterpart of the same cannon.

[Ace Selin]

Mole, on 05 August 2016 - 11:09 PM, said:

The problem as I see it isn't that the LB cannons are terrible weapons, it's that in pretty much every instance you'd be better off with that regular or ultra counterpart of the same cannon.

see post #3 in this thread.

(aw, i took to long no one will remember)

Edited by Ace Selin, 05 August 2016 - 11:18 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Ace Selin, on 05 August 2016 - 11:06 PM, said:

they are great for crits, great vs lights, it's a good weapon, the problem is you

They're bad for Crits, terrible against Lights, and a poor all around weapon. What's wrong with you?

Damnit man, you need sarcasm tags

Edited by Mcgral18, 05 August 2016 - 11:20 PM.

[Ace Selin]

Mcgral18, on 05 August 2016 - 11:19 PM, said:

They're bad for Crits, terrible against Lights, and a poor all around weapon. What's wrong with you?

Damnit man, you need sarcasm tags

used to be 50% of my posts were sarcasm/trolling, but these days im up to 80%

[General Solo]

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

Just No
its not a armour piercing weapon

Tech for another timeline
I may be wrong

make it stronger close up like a quake III shotgun
Long distance week
Short distance sub 200m da boss
and boast crit chance wen armour gone
perhaps make crit chance distance dependant
Closer u are bigger crit chance
Because getting close is high risk
Hi reward is goodie

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 05 August 2016 - 11:50 PM.

[Mole]

OZHomerOZ, on 05 August 2016 - 11:41 PM, said:

Just No
its not a armour piercing weapon

Tech for another timeline
I may be wrong

make it stronger close up like a quake III shotgun
Long distance week
Short distance sub 200m da boss
and boast crit chance wen armour gone
perhaps make crit chance make distance dependant

Uh... isn't that what it already does...?

[DrSaphron]

The strength of the LBXs is in their crit chance, their crit rate is DOUBLE that of any other weapon in the game and it checks crit damage PER PELLET! Against exposed internals a couple of well placed LBX blasts is enough to severely cripple the target if not blow it to pieces. The only buff it could REALLY use is armor over penetration on a T3 crit where, if hitting armor, the pellet simply ignores the armor and applies its damage direct to internals! Gauss rifles could also benefit from a T3 crit over-pen but it would be a lot less OP due to the fact that it's only sending a single round down range and does NOT have the same crit rate as LBXs.

[Mcgral18]

DrSaphron, on 06 August 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

The strength of the LBXs is in their crit chance, their crit rate is DOUBLE that of any other weapon in the game and it checks crit damage PER PELLET! Against exposed internals a couple of well placed LBX blasts is enough to severely cripple the target if not blow it to pieces. The only buff it could REALLY use is armor over penetration on a T3 crit where, if hitting armor, the pellet simply ignores the armor and applies its damage direct to internals! Gauss rifles could also benefit from a T3 crit over-pen but it would be a lot less OP due to the fact that it's only sending a single round down range and does NOT have the same crit rate as LBXs.

You don't seem very informed on how Crits work in MWO.

Every weapon has a 42% chance to Crit, increased with TCs
LBx pellets (and Flamers) have a 67% chance to Crit. An increase, but not double.

However, 5, two damage Crits (because CritDamMult=2) are required to all, individually, hit the same item (1/12, or less for larger items) to destroy the typical item. That's .67*.67*.67*.67*.67, or a 13% chance to destroy an item...if all the pellets even hit the same component (this is sub 200M we're talking about)
That's on top of requiring your target having no armour on that component.


Gauss on the other hand? Straight up 42% chance to destroy an item, or a cGauss+TC1 having a 50% chance of destroying an item, from 600+M out...if it hits 14 armour or less.
That's right, they crit for full 15 Crit Damage no matter how much armour they hit, making them a far superior Crit weapon, at greater range, a greater percentage of the time, more reliably.


Goose Waffles, and PPCs, are among the best Crit weapons in the game. If they roll a Crit, almost guaranteed to destroy any item in the game (Engines at 15HP, for Crit padding, and AC20s at 18HP)

[El Bandito]

Mcgral18, on 06 August 2016 - 12:39 AM, said:

You don't seem very informed on how Crits work in MWO.

Every weapon has a 42% chance to Crit, increased with TCs
LBx pellets (and Flamers) have a 67% chance to Crit. An increase, but not double.

However, 5, two damage Crits (because CritDamMult=2) are required to all, individually, hit the same item (1/12, or less for larger items) to destroy the typical item. That's .67*.67*.67*.67*.67, or a 13% chance to destroy an item...if all the pellets even hit the same component (this is sub 200M we're talking about)
That's on top of requiring your target having no armour on that component.

Gauss on the other hand? Straight up 42% chance to destroy an item, or a cGauss+TC1 having a 50% chance of destroying an item, from 600+M out...if it hits 14 armour or less.
That's right, they crit for full 15 Crit Damage no matter how much armour they hit, making them a far superior Crit weapon, at greater range, a greater percentage of the time, more reliably.

Basically this. One big FLD damage (PPC) is way superior to multiple small damages (lasers) at critting. Which is why contrary to PGI's advertisement, LBX is bad at critting compared to Gauss.

[Antares102]

Mole, on 05 August 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

Yeah but see PGI isn't gonna want to break lore by giving an LB-10-X cannon more damage potential than a solid 10 damage ...

NONSENSE

PGI doesnt give a flying rubber-duck about lore when it comes to weapon stats (except tons/slots) because:

• Lore wise IS Large Pulse Laser has 9 damage and 10 heat and we have 11 damage 7 heat
  
• Lore wise Clan Large Pulse Laser has 10 damage and 10 heat and we have 13 damage 10 heat
  
• Lore wise IS SRM have 2 damage per missile we have 2.15
  
• Lore wise IS Med Laser has 3 heat and we have 4 heat
  
• Lore wise Clan ERPPC has 15 damage and 15 heat we have splash damage and 14 heat
  
• Lore wise IS Large Laser has has 8 damage and 8 heat and we have 9 damage 7 heat
  
• Lore wise Clan ER Med Laser has 7 damage and 5 heat we have 7 damage 6 heat
  
• Lore wise Clan Med Pulse Laser has 7 damage and 4 heat we have 8 damage 6 heat
  
• Should I go on?

Edited by Antares102, 06 August 2016 - 01:21 AM.