94 replies to this topic

[Antonius Zalman]

Metus regem, on 12 June 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

That was kind of my point, the IS LB-2/5/20X are all going to be bad, unless something major is done to make them worth taking. As it stands due to the high chance of jamming, I'd rather take an AC/10 over a UAC/5 for my IS mechs, I'd rather have a reliable weapon that can put them damage where I want it, when I want it.

I wouldnt say the LB-20X will be bad. IMO, i think for some part it will work out for some such as me where i use dual LB-10X. Now i know this will not work for the majority of mechs that still have LAAs but those that can sport in the STs im fine with that. I am seriously considering putting in that 20X to use the extra tonnage to either up my lasers or add extra heatsinks where needed. I know its 11 crits but being a TT player, this Word of Blake (Adept Richard III-gamma) player will do anything to make someone miserable.

Edited by Antonius Zalman, 12 June 2017 - 12:55 PM.

[Metus regem]

Antonius Zalman, on 12 June 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

I wouldnt say the LB-20X will be bad. IMO, i think for some part it will work out for some such as me where i use dual LB-10X. Now i know this will not work for the majority of mechs that still have LAAs but those that can sport in the STs im fine with that. I am seriously considering putting in that 20X to use the extra tonnage to either up my lasers or add extra heatsinks where needed. I know its 11 crits but being a TT player, this Word of Blake (Adept Richard III-gamma) player will do anything to make someone miserable.

You can take your LB-20's and 10's... I'll take my solid shot AC/s or UAC/s and see whom wins...

But for the records I'm more of a PPC man myself.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

As is, IS LB20X can't even be equipped on mech's arms, even without LAA. Let's hope PGI learns to break TT weight/slot values for better balancing. Reducing weight/slot does not break stock builds anyway.

Sure it does. Stock models will be underweight and MWO versions will be able to pull things the TT ones cannot.

This only gets worse with time, of course. And what is broken is fundamentally at the core of the engine's coding. No ammo switching kludges ATM launchers and breaks MMLs soon after, plus the entire host of alternate ammo loads that come along now. Autocannons don't get AP or Precision rounds either, as they're choked off the same way LB-X is.

[Metus regem]

Brain Cancer, on 12 June 2017 - 01:09 PM, said:

Sure it does. Stock models will be underweight and MWO versions will be able to pull things the TT ones cannot.

This only gets worse with time, of course. And what is broken is fundamentally at the core of the engine's coding. No ammo switching kludges ATM launchers and breaks MMLs soon after, plus the entire host of alternate ammo loads that come along now. Autocannons don't get AP or Precision rounds either, as they're choked off the same way LB-X is.

Mostly what we want to make the LB viable is reduced crit slots, not touching the weight. Adjusting the crit slots doesn't actually hurt any stock builds, if anything makes several of them better.

[Brain Cancer]

Better yet, just don't use them until PGI actually makes the effort to properly allow them,which will in turn allow other weapons to be properly used.

That's the problem with stuff like this. It snowballs, or perhaps resembles the product of dung beetles, as timelines and tech advances rub up against coding fail. To whit, they need to get past it because otherwise, the game bogs down into endless workarounds and kludging.

[Metus regem]

Brain Cancer, on 12 June 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

Better yet, just don't use them until PGI actually makes the effort to properly allow them,which will in turn allow other weapons to be properly used.

That's the problem with stuff like this. It snowballs, or perhaps resembles the product of dung beetles, as timelines and tech advances rub up against coding fail. To whit, they need to get past it because otherwise, the game bogs down into endless workarounds and kludging.

Yes, yes it does.

Another strong error on the part of PGI, was not balancing Tech 1 items first, once Tech 1 is balanced, Tech 2 can be introduced and balanced against a balanced tech 1 item... But since PGI didn't balance tech 1 to begin with....

[Andi Nagasia]

Metus regem, on 12 June 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

Yes, yes it does.

Another strong error on the part of PGI, was not balancing Tech 1 items first, once Tech 1 is balanced, Tech 2 can be introduced and balanced against a balanced tech 1 item... But since PGI didn't balance tech 1 to begin with....

um you did hear about the full Energy rebalance coming this month right?
and most people feel Clan and IS Ballistics and Missiles are balanced,
(except LRMs they need a rework, but thats another topic)

[Metus regem]

Andi Nagasia, on 12 June 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:

um you did hear about the full Energy rebalance coming this month right?
and most people feel Clan and IS Ballistics and Missiles are balanced,
(except LRMs they need a rework, but thats another topic)

I was talking about things like SHS vs DHS or FF vs Standard... Now once you add Clan Tech into the equation, things get very, very messy... As Clan Tech was balanced against a set of rules that have no place in a multiplayer environment, with out those restrictions being in place...

I also agree with you on the LRM issue, they, like ECM (well the whole sensor issue) need a rework from the ground up.

[Coolant]

Have LBX knock mechs down like they did in MW4:Mercs and you will see lots of people taking them

[El Bandito]

pyrocomp, on 12 June 2017 - 08:33 AM, said:

Well, maybe it's just a good time to remind Russ of his promise

https://twitter.com/...557942381596672

And direct him to the more or less representative thread with many options discussed

https://mwomercs.com...x-pellet-damage

Is there a volunteer that is not yet banned from Russ twitter?

Sent him a tweet. He will probably shift responsibility to Chris.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Coolant, on 12 June 2017 - 04:56 PM, said:

Have LBX knock mechs down like they did in MW4:Mercs and you will see lots of people taking them

No real reason why a 20 damage shotgun should knock someone down when a 20 point slug doesn't.

It is time to admit that this game does not have equipment with 1 health each. LBX's belong in a game where those myriad 1 damage pellets can kill equipemt with 1 hit each.

So, UNTIL LBX PELLETS DEAL 10 CRITIAL DAMAGE EACH, then they will not have a proper place in the game unless they can get by on raw damage alone, and that means a very high rate-of-fire.

[BumbleBee]

IS LBX already has a distinct range advantage as ballistics have max range at double effective range, LBX is at triple.

Just checked smurfys, and yep, it still does. Clan does not, but IS does

AC/10
Range = 450m
Max = 900m

LB-10XAC
Range = 540m
Max = 1620m

Clan LB-10XAC
Range = 540m
Max = 1080m

Edited by BumbleBee, 13 June 2017 - 01:24 AM.

[Metus regem]

BumbleBee, on 13 June 2017 - 01:20 AM, said:

IS LBX already has a distinct range advantage as ballistics have max range at double effective range, LBX is at triple.

Just checked smurfys, and yep, it still does. Clan does not, but IS does

AC/10
Range = 450m
Max = 900m

LB-10XAC
Range = 540m
Max = 1620m

Clan LB-10XAC
Range = 540m
Max = 1080m

Unfortunately, due to how LB/s work, their effective optimal range is under 200m, anything beyond that and your spread is so bad that you would be better off taking solid shot. Now if LB/s had dual ammo types, then that theoretical optimal range could be used in a discussion about them.

[R Valentine]

A lot of the "new tech" PGI is giving IS won't even be usable. LBX-20s are 11 crits. So are Heavy Gauss. No crit splitting means standard engine, shoulder only. Well, those heavy gauss in the shoulder are going to make your entire make go up in flames like you had an XL, only without the benefit of actually having an XL. The more you actually think about Civil War, the more you realize PGI is only pretending to give IS nice things. In reality, they're giving you garbage and hoping you don't notice until it's too late.

[pyrocomp]

El Bandito, on 12 June 2017 - 05:15 PM, said:

Sent him a tweet. He will probably shift responsibility to Chris.

Good. I hope we will get The Response (and hopefully a positive one).

[El Bandito]

pyrocomp, on 13 June 2017 - 07:03 AM, said:

Good. I hope we will get The Response (and hopefully a positive one).

I did you one better. I also directly asked Chris about his opinion on the LBX issue, in a PM conversation just now. He will be more likely to reply.

[pyrocomp]

El Bandito, on 14 June 2017 - 05:33 AM, said:

I did you one better. I also directly asked Chris about his opinion on the LBX issue, in a PM conversation just now. He will be more likely to reply.

Now, this is good news. Now, let's see how's that will play out. I'm with 'shotgun' option.

PS: 2xcLBX20 seems more or less playable right now.

[Metus regem]

pyrocomp, on 14 June 2017 - 05:38 AM, said:

Now, this is good news. Now, let's see how's that will play out. I'm with 'shotgun' option.

ugh...

I really wish when FASA first went with the ideas behind LB's they had taken the time to figure out how they want them to work, as it stands they gave us two wordings that couldn't be more different... As FASA once refereed to it as a Mech Shotgun, while they also refereed to it as more of a Flak Cannon... later sources seem to go with Flack Cannon style.

"The cluster round fragments in flight, peppering the target with hundreds of explosive submunitions. The cannon is able to punch through an opponent's armor with standard rounds, and then fire cluster rounds to increase the chance of scoring a critical hit on a target's internal systems. The LB-X's flak-like 'shotgun' effect also makes it an effective and deadly weapon against AeroSpace Fighters, VTOLs and Infantry."

I've underlined the two parts of that entry about LB/s that reference how flak rounds work, a canister that goes to a set range, then bursts open. If PGI had gone with that model they would be useful beyond 200m. That could've been achieved by making it require a target lock to have the round burst 100-50m from the target, while with out a target lock, have it behave like it currently does.

[pyrocomp]

Metus regem, on 14 June 2017 - 06:34 AM, said:

I've underlined the two parts of that entry about LB/s that reference how flak rounds work, a canister that goes to a set range, then bursts open. If PGI had gone with that model they would be useful beyond 200m. That could've been achieved by making it require a target lock to have the round burst 100-50m from the target, while with out a target lock, have it behave like it currently does.

Actually, in that logic, without target lock it should go as a AC/10 shell. And with lock it should travel as an AC/10 round till 50--100 m (maybe less, maybe more) to and then burst into ever growing wide cone (hit or miss) or shot entirely in different direction should not matter. Interesting mechanic, but not sure PGI would implement that.
Or more precisely, I'm for direct LBX damage buff until another mechnic is introduced (switchible ammo, comething described above and so on). When, if and after a new mechanic is in place the LBX damage should be revised. So, the currently, I'm for LBX-is-a-shotty option as a temporal decision that should not in any way stop or cancel the implementation of whatever the who's-now-ion-charge-of-BT-Universe will decide it to be.

PS: Jordan Wiesman, allegedly, stated that the worst decision in BT that they really regret doing and wanted to retcon first thing when possibility will open is the introduction of Clans. So little blur upon this or that system description really passes as a minor nusiance.

[Metus regem]

pyrocomp, on 14 June 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:

Actually, in that logic, without target lock it should go as a AC/10 shell. And with lock it should travel as an AC/10 round till 50--100 m (maybe less, maybe more) to and then burst into ever growing wide cone (hit or miss) or shot entirely in different direction should not matter. Interesting mechanic, but not sure PGI would implement that.

That is one way to look at doing it with out a lock, how ever, as another way, the fuse in the canister to burst it open, would be set long enough to get to the set range, how ever with out a lock the targeting software would not be able to set the fuse to the requried time, rather set it for .1 seconds by default giving us the current dispersal pattern.

As for PGI's ability to do something like that, is something I currently question, as they have done a few things, that should've been relatively easy fixes, in rather complex ways or the left it alone a disgustingly long time.