31 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

ok this test with LBX having .75% draw is good,
but i dont think its enough, LBXs are still lagging behind,


Current LBX Damage(Damage per Pellet((1:1)
Type......Damage...Draw...Cycle...
LBX2.......2(1x2).....1.50.....0.83...
LBX5.......5(1x5).....3.75.....2.30...
LBX10...10(1x10)...7.50.....2.88...
LBX20...20(1x20)...15.0.....4.00...



=Increasing LBX Pellet Damage=
keep the 75% draw but increase Damage,
as so they have same draw as their Namesake,
LBX Damage(Damage per Pellet(1:1.3)
Type.......Damage....Draw...(Draw)...Cycle...
LBX2.....2.6(1.3x2)...1.95......(2)......0.83...
LBX5.....6.5(1.3x5)...4.88......(5)......2.30...
LBX10...13(1x10).....9.75.....(10).....2.88...
LBX20...26(1x20).....19.5.....(20).....4.00...
-
this i think will help LBX stand out from normal AC/UACs,
as well as give them their Place as Close Range Shotguns,
you wouldnt want to get Point Blank with an LBX,
and i think thats exactly want LBX needs,



=Decreasing LBX Cycle(Cooldown)=
keep the 75% draw but Decrease their Cycle,
as so they have same DPS their Namesake,
LBX Cycle Reduction(Cycle x0.70)
Type......Damage...Draw...Cycle...
LBX2.......2(1x2).....1.50.....0.58...
LBX5.......5(1x5).....3.75.....1.61...
LBX10...10(1x10)...7.50.....2.01...
LBX20...20(1x20)...15.0.....2.80...



i think Ether of These Ideas will help LBX stand out from normal ACs,
as well as give LBXs their True Place as Close Range Scatter Shotguns,
If wouldnt want to get Point Blank with an LBX, then they have been Fixed,


Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks

Edit- Added Option2,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 19 September 2016 - 01:36 PM.

[kapusta11]

LBX ACs need fixed projectile spread, similar to that of SRMs. More damage per pellet or less ghost energy draw are band-aid fixes.

SRM spread at 100 and 269m. Notice that SRMs hit more or less the same area.


LB10X AC spread at 100 and 539m. At 100m all pellets hit one component yet at 539m range which is weapon's optimal range within which it should still be effective it hits the entire mech


In other words, right now it works like this:



That and it needs solid slug firing mode.

Edited by kapusta11, 17 September 2016 - 11:51 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

Didn't someone, once upon a time, recommend a way to use the gauss charge mechanic to tighten the spread on LBX, essentially turning it into a slug if you charged it up? Like... a variable-choke shotgun?

So that solves the dual-ammo issue, right? But that doesn't make the pellet version worthwhile. So how about this... slightly increase cycle time for the LBX... fire it as a pellet version, get increased output. Then add the charge mechanic. Amount of time for the charge brings the cycle time back down to more than where we started.

You'd have a pretty cool dual-fire weapon... a fast, shotgun-type weapon, great for close-in engagements with terrible long-range damage but pretty decent close up output on-par with other ACs. And then you have the long range PPFLD version that fires slower than a standard AC of the same class, but still gets some crit-seeking ability, thus kinda evening out.

[Andi Nagasia]

Ya that was me, </p>
(http://mwomercs.com/...hem-discussion/)
Sorry about sentence structure posting from phone,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 17 September 2016 - 02:34 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Andi Nagasia, on 17 September 2016 - 02:32 PM, said:

Ya that was me,
(http://mwomercs.com/...hem-discussion/)
Sorry about sentence structure posting from phone, ������

Ya that was me,
(http://mwomercs.com/...hem-discussion/)
Sorry about sentence structure posting from phone, ������

Yeah, exactly this... combining this mechanic with a faster initial cooldown provides all the utility for the LBX you could ever want. Close up, the LBX would be super dangerous... maybe even enough to overcome it's PPFLD disadvantage. Far away, maybe a little less dangerous than a normal AC... harder to use and land a hit, but keeping that crit bonus.

And ultimately, this is a REAL fix for the LBX, rather than more band-aids.

[cazidin]

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

And ultimately, this is a REAL fix for the LBX, rather than more band-aids.

So we will likely never see this simple XML edit.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

And ultimately, this is a REAL fix for the LBX, rather than more band-aids.

That isn't any better of a fix than just bumping the damage and just dropping the "crit" idea for LBX.

[Tombs Clawtooth]

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 01:48 PM, said:

Didn't someone, once upon a time, recommend a way to use the gauss charge mechanic to tighten the spread on LBX, essentially turning it into a slug if you charged it up? Like... a variable-choke shotgun?

So that solves the dual-ammo issue, right? But that doesn't make the pellet version worthwhile. So how about this... slightly increase cycle time for the LBX... fire it as a pellet version, get increased output. Then add the charge mechanic. Amount of time for the charge brings the cycle time back down to more than where we started.

You'd have a pretty cool dual-fire weapon... a fast, shotgun-type weapon, great for close-in engagements with terrible long-range damage but pretty decent close up output on-par with other ACs. And then you have the long range PPFLD version that fires slower than a standard AC of the same class, but still gets some crit-seeking ability, thus kinda evening out.

I personally love this idea.

I was very let down when I bought an LB20X to try out and discovered it's outclassed by every single other weapon in its class. But it'd still need some other buff to make it on par.

A considerably lower cool down combined with this idea would make them a viable alternative to other weapons in its class and fun to use.

[Sereglach]

While I'd be perfectly ok with them just bumping the damage per pellet, the "Charging Shotgun-Choke" concept also sounds like it'd be a pretty good fix for the LBX, as well. Admittedly, at least a charging mechanic does help overcome the lack of ammo-swapping. However, then you end up with the quandary of balancing standard Autocannons vs. a now theoretically superior LBX series. We also have no idea how easy the Gauss Charge could be adopted to the LBX series, as that's not just some simple XML changes.

Thusly, in that sense, just upping pellet damage is the simplest solution and also (due to lack of complexity) the most likely for PGI to do or be able to do.

[ScarecrowES]

Sereglach, on 17 September 2016 - 05:40 PM, said:

While I'd be perfectly ok with them just bumping the damage per pellet, the "Charging Shotgun-Choke" concept also sounds like it'd be a pretty good fix for the LBX, as well. Admittedly, at least a charging mechanic does help overcome the lack of ammo-swapping. However, then you end up with the quandary of balancing standard Autocannons vs. a now theoretically superior LBX series. We also have no idea how easy the Gauss Charge could be adopted to the LBX series, as that's not just some simple XML changes.

Thusly, in that sense, just upping pellet damage is the simplest solution and also (due to lack of complexity) the most likely for PGI to do or be able to do.

Sure, I agree... it's by far the simplest thing to do... but as noted, it really does nothing to actually fix the fundamental problems with the LBX... OR the fact that - BECAUSE we don't have a proper LBX, Clans don't have a proper standard autocannon - and ultra autocannon balancing can never be brought in line.

While certainly adjusting damage per pellet is a reasonable course of action if you only care about adding utility to one weapon, it's not really much of a help if you want to fix all of the problems that are also caused by the LBX not being what it's supposed to be.

In terms of development time and capability... any bit of coding already in the game can be adjusted to be used for any other purpose. It's basically copy pasta to adopt the charge mechanic on the LBX. There are mechanics to adjust the spread of weapons under certain conditions (artemis), and these can be applied variably based on charge time to LBX. It's not as simple as changing a few values on an XML document, but it's not far off.

And balance is achieved basically as I said... small reduction in cooldown in spread form means the weapon works a little better close up than a standard AC... cycle overcomes PPFLD... and you don't mess with damage. The charge will reduce cycle times to more than the equivalent standard AC class, and the charge mechanic adds a skill component. At long range, standard ACs are still better and cycle faster. Makes the LBX a nasty close range fighter that can also shoot at range.

Now, if we WANT... since IS already has standard ACs, the IS LBX/10 can stay spread only. Just with increased cooldowns, or increased damage, or whatever. But on the Clan side, where there ARE no standard ACs, you really need the dual-fire mechanic.

[Sereglach]

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

Now, if we WANT... since IS already has standard ACs, the IS LBX/10 can stay spread only. Just with increased cooldowns, or increased damage, or whatever. But on the Clan side, where there ARE no standard ACs, you really need the dual-fire mechanic.

While I agree with pretty much everything you said, this I can't exactly agree with; and it's not because of Lore or whatnot, but because of the game we have. Whether we like it or not, PGI put "Standard" Clan Autocannons in the game; and thusly we need to balance for them. PGI isn't going to take them out of the game . . . again, whether we like it or not, I don't think anyone can say that they honestly believe PGI would remove the Standard Clan AC's that we have.

Granted, plenty of options have been brought up (like lowering projectile counts -including making the Clan UAC/2 fire 2 projectiles so the Standard only fires 1- and decreasing base cooldowns) to make the Clan Standards more competitive. Those concepts could also be taken into account when balancing vs. any LBX changes.

Again, I'm not saying I disagree with you overall, I'm just saying we're stuck working with the game we have and we need to work within the bounds that PGI has put before us. We've got 3 different AC weapon systems and we're going to need to balance for those 3 different AC weapon systems.

Also, while it seems easy on the surface (and might be) to convert the charge mechanic and cluster sizing, we have no idea what their code looks like without the knowledge & tools to dig into the game files. Therefore, it might not be as easy as it looks. You know, the same way that the ammo coding (and apparently Flamer coding since they can't seem to properly reengineer it for the life of them) is lostech and the whole reason we're in this LBX vs. Standard AC vs. Ultra balancing to begin with. Thusly, I have to presume that converting the code would be a monumental hurdle for PGI to achieve and not likely to happen.

[ScarecrowES]

Sereglach, on 17 September 2016 - 06:59 PM, said:

While I agree with pretty much everything you said, this I can't exactly agree with; and it's not because of Lore or whatnot, but because of the game we have. Whether we like it or not, PGI put "Standard" Clan Autocannons in the game; and thusly we need to balance for them. PGI isn't going to take them out of the game . . . again, whether we like it or not, I don't think anyone can say that they honestly believe PGI would remove the Standard Clan AC's that we have.

Granted, plenty of options have been brought up (like lowering projectile counts -including making the Clan UAC/2 fire 2 projectiles so the Standard only fires 1- and decreasing base cooldowns) to make the Clan Standards more competitive. Those concepts could also be taken into account when balancing vs. any LBX changes.

Again, I'm not saying I disagree with you overall, I'm just saying we're stuck working with the game we have and we need to work within the bounds that PGI has put before us. We've got 3 different AC weapon systems and we're going to need to balance for those 3 different AC weapon systems.

Also, while it seems easy on the surface (and might be) to convert the charge mechanic and cluster sizing, we have no idea what their code looks like without the knowledge & tools to dig into the game files. Therefore, it might not be as easy as it looks. You know, the same way that the ammo coding (and apparently Flamer coding since they can't seem to properly reengineer it for the life of them) is lostech and the whole reason we're in this LBX vs. Standard AC vs. Ultra balancing to begin with. Thusly, I have to presume that converting the code would be a monumental hurdle for PGI to achieve and not likely to happen.

You realize that standard Clan AC/s are placeholder weapons. PGI doesn't actually intend for us to use them. That's why they have the same stats as the LBX. Just putting that out there, because some people don't remember that PGI never intended for those to actually act as standard ACs for Clans.

[Mcgral18]

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 08:24 PM, said:

You realize that standard Clan AC/s are placeholder weapons. PGI doesn't actually intend for us to use them. That's why they have the same stats as the LBX. Just putting that out there, because some people don't remember that PGI never intended for those to actually act as standard ACs for Clans.

Just like they've been placeholders for 2 years, with only the blanket changes involved



Gotta love that 5.03s cUAC20 cooldown on live.
Holy balls, the cAC20 has a normalized cooldown on the PTS
Praise RNGeesus

It only has a 4.33s cooldown VS the 4s cooldown now

[Sereglach]

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 08:24 PM, said:

You realize that standard Clan AC/s are placeholder weapons. PGI doesn't actually intend for us to use them. That's why they have the same stats as the LBX. Just putting that out there, because some people don't remember that PGI never intended for those to actually act as standard ACs for Clans.

I remember that very well. I also sadly remember that they later stated that they weren't going away because they couldn't get the ammo code to work with swapping ammo types. That's when the "ammo code is lostech" theme started.

People then asked for the Clan Standard AC's to fire single rounds, to which PGI replied "would break IS AC balance". That's when people started throwing more creative balance ideas out there.

We're stuck with three types of Clan AC systems, whether we like it or not. Therefore, the least we should be trying to do is balance what we're stuck with.

Mcgral18, on 17 September 2016 - 08:32 PM, said:

Just like they've been placeholders for 2 years, with only the blanket changes involved

Exactly . . . "placeholders".

[ScarecrowES]

Sereglach, on 17 September 2016 - 08:36 PM, said:

I remember that very well. I also sadly remember that they later stated that they weren't going away because they couldn't get the ammo code to work with swapping ammo types. That's when the "ammo code is lostech" theme started.

People then asked for the Clan Standard AC's to fire single rounds, to which PGI replied "would break IS AC balance". That's when people started throwing more creative balance ideas out there.

We're stuck with three types of Clan AC systems, whether we like it or not. Therefore, the least we should be trying to do is balance what we're stuck with.

Well, we have an opportunity to make placeholders to go away. I don't see anyone trying to give the clans a lighter, jam-free single-shot AC. PGI, as you noted, is not keen to do that either.

So we're stuck with a useless AC that noone wants to do anything with. It remains a placeholder.

And until we get a proper AC, you can't balance UACs properly.

Now... the mechanics necessary to turn the LBX into the weapon it's supposed to be, which allows us to get rid of placeholder ACs and balance UACs... we already HAVE those mechanics in the game. The coding works. It's been working for years. The work is 90% done. If they can adjust a few values in an XML, they can do this with only a teeny bit more effort.

Why not push for the better result?

[davoodoo]

I would just like to point that who would use 11 ton shotgun with 13dmg when you can take 3 ton shotgun with 12.9 Dmg?
Clusters are useful only at crit seeking while crits are pretty useless in mwo.

Edited by davoodoo, 17 September 2016 - 10:44 PM.

[Mcgral18]

ScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 10:33 PM, said:

Well, we have an opportunity to make placeholders to go away. I don't see anyone trying to give the clans a lighter, jam-free single-shot AC. PGI, as you noted, is not keen to do that either.

So we're stuck with a useless AC that noone wants to do anything with. It remains a placeholder.

And until we get a proper AC, you can't balance UACs properly.

Now... the mechanics necessary to turn the LBX into the weapon it's supposed to be, which allows us to get rid of placeholder ACs and balance UACs... we already HAVE those mechanics in the game. The coding works. It's been working for years. The work is 90% done. If they can adjust a few values in an XML, they can do this with only a teeny bit more effort.

Why not push for the better result?

Because one is a 2 minute change, the other will require more in depth work and testing.

We have access to this:

-<Weapon faction="Clan" HardpointAliases="Ballistic,LargeWeapon,AutoCannon,AC,AutoCannon20,ClanAutoCannon,ClanAC,ClanAutoCannon20" name="ClanAutoCannon20" id="1241">
<Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\ClanAutoCannon20.dds" descTag="@ClanAC20_desc" nameTag="@ClanAC20"/>
<WeaponStats maxDepth="10.0" gravity="0,0,-9.8" volleydelay="0.11" speed="650" lifetime="10.0" duration="0.0" tons="12" maxRange="720" longRange="360" minRange="0" ammoPerShot="1" ammoType="ClanAC20Ammo" cooldown="4.0" heat="6.0" impulse="0.09" EnergyDraw="18.0" damage="5" numFiring="4" projectileclass="bullet" type="Ballistic" slots="9" Health="10"/>

For next to no work. Small changes would not require hefty testing

[762 NATO]

Or! As I have toted in the past, make all ACs work like Clam ACs. Then we can have a RAC5. And the balance issue goes away. I run AC20s, 10s and 5s on a myriad of IS and Clan mechs. I really don't care about the differences. It does become a "get gud", but so much of this game already is. Sure I have a few where the damage would go up and the KDR would go down, so what. That increases TTK so many newer players complain about and that seems to be the current focus of PGI right now.

Cheers!

[vocifer]

LBX is supposed to be a part of a crit mechanic, which is still in alpha state.
I'd better off reworking a crit mechanic on the first stage and then giving LBX a unique flavor based on that.


Just got an idea:

How about "LBX pellet does x5 damage to the ammo/heatsink"?

Boom! A new flavor instead of simple damage tweak.

Edited by vocifer, 18 September 2016 - 09:43 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

Mcgral18, on 17 September 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

Because one is a 2 minute change, the other will require more in depth work and testing.

We have access to this:

-<Weapon faction="Clan" HardpointAliases="Ballistic,LargeWeapon,AutoCannon,AC,AutoCannon20,ClanAutoCannon,ClanAC,ClanAutoCannon20" name="ClanAutoCannon20" id="1241">
<Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\ClanAutoCannon20.dds" descTag="@ClanAC20_desc" nameTag="@ClanAC20"/>
<WeaponStats maxDepth="10.0" gravity="0,0,-9.8" volleydelay="0.11" speed="650" lifetime="10.0" duration="0.0" tons="12" maxRange="720" longRange="360" minRange="0" ammoPerShot="1" ammoType="ClanAC20Ammo" cooldown="4.0" heat="6.0" impulse="0.09" EnergyDraw="18.0" damage="5" numFiring="4" projectileclass="bullet" type="Ballistic" slots="9" Health="10"/>

For next to no work. Small changes would not require hefty testing

No argument... but it's not as though PGI has lifted a finger to do any of that in the last several years. And it still doesn't solve the problem.

Just like with ED, you're looking at putting in additional work for a band-aid. It's absolutely hilarious how much work PGI is willing to put in to work around a problem that can be solved much more quickly and with much less work by simply fixing the damn problem.

LBX is the same thing. We can change all the numbers we want, but it still isn't addressing the issue.