94 replies to this topic

[pyrocomp]

Metus regem, on 14 June 2017 - 09:03 AM, said:

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.

Also an option. But let's go with what we have now. PGI is... well, I bet they have plenty of code that is a total mystery for their coder (if that is not outsourced). So, simplicity is something that is not obvious from the outside.

[Metus regem]

pyrocomp, on 14 June 2017 - 09:28 AM, said:

Also an option. But let's go with what we have now. PGI is... well, I bet they have plenty of code that is a total mystery for their coder (if that is not outsourced). So, simplicity is something that is not obvious from the outside.

Oh I know, I'll take what we have, but it doesn't mean I can't see how it could be better, and perhaps if I say it enough it will get back to the people that are working with the code.

I am also well aware of how much of a frankin code they have, as I was around for when they adjusted the RoF on the IS AC/2 so that it couldn't ghost heat it's self and in the process they broke the code for Clan Omni mech low arm actuators.... Also when the first weapons guy left, PGI implimented the current clan AC/s as they found themselves unable to code LB/s correctly as they only person that understood how they code work was no longer there. It's things like that, that make me glad to see them going to a different engine, that should support what they want to do, as well as perhaps have more familiarity with (Unreal). It's not just PGI that went with a pretty engine, only to find out it didn't do what they wanted it to, BioWare went through the something with Frostbite, as that engine caused all kinds of problems with Dragon Age Inquisition and ME:A, as it was an FPS engine that didn't support RPG elements.

[Grus]

Ok so you can't put a IS LBX20 in your arms.. So there is a drawback to wanting to bring a bigger gun... adapt? Don't use it? #gaussgoboom #gausschargetime #balance

Edited by Grus, 14 June 2017 - 12:18 PM.

[Metus regem]

Grus, on 14 June 2017 - 12:17 PM, said:

Ok so you can't put a IS LBX20 in your arms.. So there is a drawback to wanting to bring a bigger gun... adapt? Don't use it? #gaussgoboom #gausschargetime #balance

The issue is, the LB-20X is going to be out right inferior to the IS UAC/20 and AC/20, that 11th crit slot requirement coupled with the already lackluster spread damage and forced standard engine is going to overly punish an already bad weapon system. All of this is made eve worse due to the fact that the Clans can mount cLB-20X's in arms due to it only needing 9 crit slots. So in short, the IS version is 16% heavier (14t vs 12t) and 22% larger (11 crits vs 9 crits) when compared to the Clan version, this means that the IS version is being overly punished for an ability it does not and will not have in MWO, namely the ability for dual ammo types.

As far as the HGR goes, for a weapon that in TT can put out 25% more damage an an AC/20 in the same range bracket of an AC/20 (not to mention that it can shoot out to 600m for 10 damage) is well balanced by the fact of weight and that 11th crit slot. As far as MWO goes, I think the HGR has a chance to be either very good or very bad depending on ones play style.

[Grus]

Metus regem, on 14 June 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

The issue is, the LB-20X is going to be out right inferior to the IS UAC/20 and AC/20, that 11th crit slot requirement coupled with the already lackluster spread damage and forced standard engine is going to overly punish an already bad weapon system. All of this is made eve worse due to the fact that the Clans can mount cLB-20X's in arms due to it only needing 9 crit slots. So in short, the IS version is 16% heavier (14t vs 12t) and 22% larger (11 crits vs 9 crits) when compared to the Clan version, this means that the IS version is being overly punished for an ability it does not and will not have in MWO, namely the ability for dual ammo types.

As far as the HGR goes, for a weapon that in TT can put out 25% more damage an an AC/20 in the same range bracket of an AC/20 (not to mention that it can shoot out to 600m for 10 damage) is well balanced by the fact of weight and that 11th crit slot. As far as MWO goes, I think the HGR has a chance to be either very good or very bad depending on ones play style.

fair analogy, but you forgot how mech more HP that component will have above the clan version. Can components are weak and brake easy. So when you punch through the armor and take out that gun it's just dead weight now. And what's so bad about ST eng loadouts? Ok slower but WAY more durable than clan counterparts. So again, if you want to bring a IS lbs that should be used to crit out a striped sector, then there will be drawbacks. Just like if I want ECM IN A Iceferret I have to gimp my damage or cooling ability. Hate to say it but just like my KDK-3 with 4 gauss, there will be drawbacks to that build.

[Grus]

A slug will always do more damage than a shotgun. Use each for what they should be used for. Use the Las to strip armor and once it's down WHAM! with the lbs and watch a shoulder fly off.

[Metus regem]

Grus, on 14 June 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

fair analogy, but you forgot how mech more HP that component will have above the clan version. Can components are weak and brake easy. So when you punch through the armor and take out that gun it's just dead weight now. And what's so bad about ST eng loadouts? Ok slower but WAY more durable than clan counterparts. So again, if you want to bring a IS lbs that should be used to crit out a striped sector, then there will be drawbacks. Just like if I want ECM IN A Iceferret I have to gimp my damage or cooling ability. Hate to say it but just like my KDK-3 with 4 gauss, there will be drawbacks to that build.

Think about this one, with an IS AC/20 or UAC/20, I can take a LFE (Light Fusion Engine, 75% of the weight of a standard 2 crits per ST) and live through ST loss, while being a little fast than I could be with a Standard Engine, ontop of that, using LFF (Light Ferro Fib, 7 crits) I can get the same weight savings as if I had been using FF armour, combined with Endo gives me more options for better speed at the expenace of crit slots. As it stands the current HBK-4G will likely be running LFE's with either UAC/20's or AC/20's, they will move faster, have better cooling and likely be better than ever, thanks to only needing 10 crit slots for a UAC/20 or AC/20. both of which will kill targets more efficiently and effectively than a LB-20X will for the IS.

If we were just getting the LB-20X it wouldn't be so bad, but we are also getting IS UAC/s as well, the new IS UAC/s are just flat out better than the LB/s, as all IS LB/s with the exception of the LB-10X are the same weight as normal AC/s but are all larger than normal AC/s. In TT that was done to justify their ability to use dual ammo types, in MWO that is an ability that they will not have, and are going to be punished for it, some far worse than others.... the LB-2X goes from a 6t 1 crit weapon (AC/2) to a 6t 4 crit weapon (LB-2X) while the UAC/2 is 7t and 3 crits.

Grus, on 14 June 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

A slug will always do more damage than a shotgun. Use each for what they should be used for. Use the Las to strip armor and once it's down WHAM! with the lbs and watch a shoulder fly off.

But why even bother mounting the LB in the first place, when for 1t more (that will be made back by the ability to mount a LFE) for a UAC/20 or use the same weight for an AC/20 and jut murder that entire section in the first place?



That meme is going to be changed to cover all LB/s soon I would imagine....

[Grus]

So you're argument is that IS lbx should be smaller because it can't use different ammo types. Ok so if that's the case Clan lbx should be smaller too. Do you want quad LBX20 KDK3's? Because that's how you get quad lbx20 kdk3's...

Metus regem, on 14 June 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

Think about this one, with an IS AC/20 or UAC/20, I can take a LFE (Light Fusion Engine, 75% of the weight of a standard 2 crits per ST) and live through ST loss, while being a little fast than I could be with a Standard Engine, ontop of that, using LFF (Light Ferro Fib, 7 crits) I can get the same weight savings as if I had been using FF armour, combined with Endo gives me more options for better speed at the expenace of crit slots. As it stands the current HBK-4G will likely be running LFE's with either UAC/20's or AC/20's, they will move faster, have better cooling and likely be better than ever, thanks to only needing 10 crit slots for a UAC/20 or AC/20. both of which will kill targets more efficiently and effectively than a LB-20X will for the IS.

If we were just getting the LB-20X it wouldn't be so bad, but we are also getting IS UAC/s as well, the new IS UAC/s are just flat out better than the LB/s, as all IS LB/s with the exception of the LB-10X are the same weight as normal AC/s but are all larger than normal AC/s. In TT that was done to justify their ability to use dual ammo types, in MWO that is an ability that they will not have, and are going to be punished for it, some far worse than others.... the LB-2X goes from a 6t 1 crit weapon (AC/2) to a 6t 4 crit weapon (LB-2X) while the UAC/2 is 7t and 3 crits.




But why even bother mounting the LB in the first place, when for 1t more (that will be made back by the ability to mount a LFE) for a UAC/20 or use the same weight for an AC/20 and jut murder that entire section in the first place?



That meme is going to be changed to cover all LB/s soon I would imagine....

lol nice, i remember having a Atlas with 2 lbx10's ans assorted wepons and loved the right hook of it.

[Metus regem]

Grus, on 14 June 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

So you're argument is that IS lbx should be smaller because it can't use different ammo types. Ok so if that's the case Clan lbx should be smaller too. Do you want quad LBX20 KDK3's? Because that's how you get quad lbx20 kdk3's...

-sigh-

Clan LB's are already smaller, much, much smaller....


What we are arguing for is making the IS LB-20X 10 crits, so that it is the same crit requirement as the AC/20 and UAC/20. It's till going to be an utter **** weapon, but at least then it will not be a total waste of developer resources. Other than that, I am left feeling:

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

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.

Basically this- unless pellets deal 5-10 damage to equipment per, they're not going to be the gut-scrubber.

That's PPCs and other weapons that can actually destroy equipment in a single hit.

I've always thought proximity rounds would be best- or having a spread pattern that gradually narrows until it hits midrange, then spreads outward at the same rate from there.

[Grus]

Metus regem, on 14 June 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

-sigh-

Clan LB's are already smaller, much, much smaller....


What we are arguing for is making the IS LB-20X 10 crits, so that it is the same crit requirement as the AC/20 and UAC/20. It's till going to be an utter **** weapon, but at least then it will not be a total waste of developer resources. Other than that, I am left feeling:

hey whats good for the gander is good for the goose. If your LBX gets smaller then sp should ours.

[Dago Red]

Metus regem, on 14 June 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

Think about this one, with an IS AC/20 or UAC/20, I can take a LFE (Light Fusion Engine, 75% of the weight of a standard 2 crits per ST) and live through ST loss, while being a little fast than I could be with a Standard Engine, ontop of that, using LFF (Light Ferro Fib, 7 crits) I can get the same weight savings as if I had been using FF armour, combined with Endo gives me more options for better speed at the expenace of crit slots. As it stands the current HBK-4G will likely be running LFE's with either UAC/20's or AC/20's, they will move faster, have better cooling and likely be better than ever, thanks to only needing 10 crit slots for a UAC/20 or AC/20. both of which will kill targets more efficiently and effectively than a LB-20X will for the IS.

If we were just getting the LB-20X it wouldn't be so bad, but we are also getting IS UAC/s as well, the new IS UAC/s are just flat out better than the LB/s, as all IS LB/s with the exception of the LB-10X are the same weight as normal AC/s but are all larger than normal AC/s. In TT that was done to justify their ability to use dual ammo types, in MWO that is an ability that they will not have, and are going to be punished for it, some far worse than others.... the LB-2X goes from a 6t 1 crit weapon (AC/2) to a 6t 4 crit weapon (LB-2X) while the UAC/2 is 7t and 3 crits.




But why even bother mounting the LB in the first place, when for 1t more (that will be made back by the ability to mount a LFE) for a UAC/20 or use the same weight for an AC/20 and jut murder that entire section in the first place?



That meme is going to be changed to cover all LB/s soon I would imagine....

I mean basically the only mechs I see taking advantage of the LB20 are mechs that are already doing the two LB10's in one side torso setup. Which I will admit I have a few of. It would shave a decent amount of weight off those builds. Also if they don't do ghost heat on firing two of them then they could have a niche for certain assault brawler setups.

I don't see them doing it as crits and weights have stayed locked to lore so far but yeah knocking a ton and crit off the regular versions of all Ac's for LBX's would be the most sensible thing.

Possibly giving a big heat per shot reduction for better sustained fire could help make up the difference.

The amount of spread will make a huge difference in viability as well. Say if it stays as clustered as an LB10 then there's very little functional difference to the damage range of a normal twenty especially since all pellets should do full damage out farther than a standard AC even if it does spread a bit.

[Metus regem]

Grus, on 14 June 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

hey whats good for the gander is good for the goose. If your LBX gets smaller then sp should ours.

I mean seriously, why should the group that has already smaller, lighter, better ranged and higher damage weapons need to get their already smaller weapon size advantage made better, while the IS is asking to make one weapon system not a total example of flaming hot garbage.... You've got to be just trolling at this point....

[Metus regem]

Dago Red, on 14 June 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

I mean basically the only mechs I see taking advantage of the LB20 are mechs that are already doing the two LB10's in one side torso setup. Which I will admit I have a few of. It would shave a decent amount of weight off those builds. Also if they don't do ghost heat on firing two of them then they could have a niche for certain assault brawler setups.

I don't see them doing it as crits and weights have stayed locked to lore so far but yeah knocking a ton and crit off the regular versions of all Ac's for LBX's would be the most sensible thing.

Possibly giving a big heat per shot reduction for better sustained fire could help make up the difference.

The amount of spread will make a huge difference in viability as well. Say if it stays as clustered as an LB10 then there's very little functional difference to the damage range of a normal twenty especially since all pellets should do full damage out farther than a standard AC even if it does spread a bit.

Thing is the LB-20X is 6 heat, 14t and 11 crits, while the normal AC/20 is 7 heat, 14t and 10 crits and the UAC/20 is 7 heat, 15t and 10 crits. Now even taking burst fire into account the LB-20X is just going to be a bad choice over the UAC/20 simply because the UAC/20 (not only will it be better at killing components and sections) can be mounted with a LFE in a torso, or in arms thus increasing it's range of motion ever so slightly, as well as increasing the number of units that can actually mount it... Centurion AH and LYW, Riflemen, Jaggers and King Crabs can all arm mount UAC/20's, the Atlas can ST mount a UAC/20 with an LFE to be faster or cool better thanks to being able to take a larger engine with more DHS slots. or pack more ammo. All of which make the LB-20X a bad choice to even waste development time on, with out doing something to make it worth taking.

[Navid A1]

Do we really have people who are arguing that IS LB20s won't be complete DOA garbage?

lol

Why take an LB20 when you can pack a UAC20 AND an LFE, for better pinpoint and more available tonnage?
unless PGI decides to reduce LB20 size.

[Grus]

Metus regem, on 14 June 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

I mean seriously, why should the group that has already smaller, lighter, better ranged and higher damage weapons need to get their already smaller weapon size advantage made better, while the IS is asking to make one weapon system not a total example of flaming hot garbage.... You've got to be just trolling at this point....

simple, clan tech was improved versions of IS tech. If the lbx20 is smaller than so should ours. It won't be a garbage weapon we have Lrms for that title. I'm trying to drive the point home that if you want to take a big gun that can crit very well then there will be drawbacks and you will have to adjust your build. I'm not being that I have to slow my LDK3 Way down to fit the build I want. I adapt and do what is needed to bring the setup I want with current mechanics.

[pyrocomp]

Metus regem, on 14 June 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

I mean seriously, why should the group that has already smaller, lighter, better ranged and higher damage weapons need to get their already smaller weapon size advantage made better, while the IS is asking to make one weapon system not a total example of flaming hot garbage.... You've got to be just trolling at this point....

Not neccessarilly trolling, stil can be genuily misdirected.

Anyway, as it stands, any LB type weapon at present state works worse than it's regular (not to mention Ultra) version. Even at critting components. Yes, regular AC crits better, I checked both numerically and through the in-game testing. Even if the LB type weapons will be at the same size/weight as regular ACs they will still be worse due to damage spread and bad critting capabilities (so the current crit mechanics work). Double crit damage does not help. Math behind LBX-10 and AC10 comparision is here.
So the proposition is to go with a shotgun version of the LB series turning those into the ultimate close weapon (below 150-200 m) and useless even at medium ranges. To do so both the drastic increase in both damage and spread are proposed. And it is proposed for the current mechanics and LB series implementation.

[Dago Red]

Metus regem, on 14 June 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

Thing is the LB-20X is 6 heat, 14t and 11 crits, while the normal AC/20 is 7 heat, 14t and 10 crits and the UAC/20 is 7 heat, 15t and 10 crits. Now even taking burst fire into account the LB-20X is just going to be a bad choice over the UAC/20 simply because the UAC/20 (not only will it be better at killing components and sections) can be mounted with a LFE in a torso, or in arms thus increasing it's range of motion ever so slightly, as well as increasing the number of units that can actually mount it... Centurion AH and LYW, Riflemen, Jaggers and King Crabs can all arm mount UAC/20's, the Atlas can ST mount a UAC/20 with an LFE to be faster or cool better thanks to being able to take a larger engine with more DHS slots. or pack more ammo. All of which make the LB-20X a bad choice to even waste development time on, with out doing something to make it worth taking.

Aye that's why I'm stating the rare niche cases it would have a use and advocating that the heat savings be made even more extreme.

Pop that down to 4 heat a shot and don't give them a ghost heat limit and you could have viable spot for them as face huggy high weight brawl setups.

Or like I said mechs mounting double LB10's in a single side torso would have an option to keep almost the same firepower as now but for significant weight savings. That's trading down to 14 tons 11 slot from 22 tons and 12 slots, you'd lose some heat efficiency and fire rate but you can do a lot with 8 tons.

I'm not arguing that the the UAC won't be almost always the superior choice just that there is a small place that the LBX's could shine.

And don't get me wrong shrinking them would be a FAR more elegant solution but I'm also 100% sure they will not do that so lets try and look at the factors that they tend to be more flexible on.

Edited by Dago Red, 14 June 2017 - 01:44 PM.

[pyrocomp]

Navid A1, on 14 June 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

Why take an LB20 when you can pack a UAC20 AND an LFE, for better pinpoint and more available tonnage?
unless PGI decides to reduce LB20 size.

Maybe I'm just bad with cUAC20, but 2xcLBX20 I can use and 2xcUAC20 cannot. That GH ans projectile speed do really matter for me.

[Grus]

If you guys are crying about the lbx20 I can't wait for the Heavy GAUSS salt.