94 replies to this topic

[pyrocomp]

Dago Red, on 14 June 2017 - 03:20 PM, said:

If we're lucky they'll tweak the heat and if we're STUPID lucky they'll try that 1.2 damage a pellet buff they waffled on like a year ago. And I would welcome either or both. There's also possibility of the spread reduction nodes getting stronger at some point if they realize everyone's just skipping them. Frankly they do need it but doom and gloom aint improving anything.

The proposed solution is a damage buff and spread increase. And leave the size as is. The aim is not to press PGI to make LBX the same size and weight (or less) than regular ACs, but to give a reason to sometimes pick LBX over AC10 on the mechs than can fit AC10s. And reduction does nothing to help LBX. even if the spread will be 0 LBX still will be worse than regular ACs.

[pyrocomp]

El Bandito, on 14 June 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

Unfortunately Chris has no immediate plans of touching the LBX issue. Here is what he told me.

Oh... well, that is bad. But after July patch the,I think, the issue should be brought up again.

[Dago Red]

Wintersdark, on 14 June 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

There's no reason you'd rather run an LBX20 vs. an AC20 unless there are some really substantial changes going on - 1 less heat isn't going to cut it.


1.2 damage per pellet would make LBX autocannons worthwhile.

More spread reduction won't. The spread hurts LBX's, but isn't really the problem.

For the new LBX's to be worthwhile, they'll need really significant changes from what's likely (1.2 damage per pellet is definitely a significant change)

---

As it stands, the isLBX10 is a dumpster-fire of a weapon. In the hierachy of MWO weapons, it's really close to the bottom.

You ONLY run an LBX now because:

1) You don't care it's garbage and think it's fun
2) You have no better options (very uncommon)
3) You've got quirks which make it not garbage.

Well I'm not gonna lie and not say I'm not mostly category 1 on this issue. But then it doesn't effect my play style as much as some because if I'm not ripping someone's face off from close enough to hear the pilot crying I'm not happy. That and they really are stupid cool running. You can run a pair of them nonstop while staying 100% heat neutral on terra with just the standard engine heatsinks and nothing in cooling skills. And yeah they only shine when you get two or more which is a LOT of weight to invest.

Anyway I wasn't talking a one point heat drop. I think in my opening post I even floated dropping it as low as 4 and removing the ghost heat cap on them. A pair of them would still be a lot weight to invest in essentially a low range cool running UAC 20 that doesn't jam but then that would put it at least on par with where the LBX 10's are in the current scheme of things.

And yeah reduced spread wouldn't fix them necessarily but it certainly wouldn't hurt. I've always kind of championed increased fire rates and ammo per ton as well to make them superior sand blasters but I don't ever see that happening.

I appreciate you at least having some nuance on the issue.

[El Bandito]

pyrocomp, on 14 June 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

Oh... well, that is bad. But after July patch the,I think, the issue should be brought up again.

Given that he will take time gathering data, I doubt Chris will be ready to talk about LBX issue until mid August at earliest. I only wonder why he decided to release energy rebalance before new tech, cause new tech is likely to invalidate whatever change he will make in the energy rebalancing.

[Dago Red]

pyrocomp, on 14 June 2017 - 03:44 PM, said:

The proposed solution is a damage buff and spread increase. And leave the size as is. The aim is not to press PGI to make LBX the same size and weight (or less) than regular ACs, but to give a reason to sometimes pick LBX over AC10 on the mechs than can fit AC10s. And reduction does nothing to help LBX. even if the spread will be 0 LBX still will be worse than regular ACs.

Is that really the push? Because I've mostly just seen a lot of bitching that you can't shove one in an arm or a side torso with an LFE. Which I do agree sucks like real bad.

[El Bandito]

pyrocomp, on 14 June 2017 - 03:44 PM, said:

The proposed solution is a damage buff and spread increase. And leave the size as is. The aim is not to press PGI to make LBX the same size and weight (or less) than regular ACs, but to give a reason to sometimes pick LBX over AC10 on the mechs than can fit AC10s. And reduction does nothing to help LBX. even if the spread will be 0 LBX still will be worse than regular ACs.

Dago Red, on 14 June 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

Is that really the push? Because I've mostly just seen a lot of bitching that you can't shove one in an arm or a side torso with an LFE. Which I do agree sucks like real bad.

Why can't we have BOTH? Increase LBX pellet damage and reduce weight/slot on certain calibers such as LB20X so more mech can field it.

[Dago Red]

El Bandito, on 14 June 2017 - 04:10 PM, said:

Why can't we have BOTH? Increase LBX pellet damage and reduce weight/slot on certain calibers such as LB20X so more mech can field it.

Well mostly the fact that I don't think PGI has fudged the weight or crits on any component in the history of the game. So you know I'd personally be all for it I just straight up don't think it's on the table.

So maybe trying to somewhat reasonably ask for changes that there's half a chance they'll actually do would be a better use of time and energy.

[pyrocomp]

Dago Red, on 14 June 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

Is that really the push? Because I've mostly just seen a lot of bitching that you can't shove one in an arm or a side torso with an LFE. Which I do agree sucks like real bad.

Well, there should be a reason why that monstrosity should see service, no?

[VanillaG]

El Bandito, on 14 June 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

Given that he will take time gathering data, I doubt Chris will be ready to talk about LBX issue until mid August at earliest. I only wonder why he decided to release energy rebalance before new tech, cause new tech is likely to invalidate whatever change he will make in the energy rebalancing.

I am pretty sure the energy rebalance is taking the new weapons into account. They mentioned giving them better defined roles.

[Angel of Annihilation]

The Clans have their useless weapons too. I mean what is the point of the CAC...oh right it is the place holder for the solid slug version of the LBX cannon that was supposed to be put in about 5 years ago back in closed beta. Almost forgot about that hehe.

On a more serious note, there is always going to be some weapons that aren't as good as others and to be honest, LBX cannon are one of those. Even on Clan mechs which only have a choice between high jam UACs and LBX versions, the LBX is considered by most to be far inferior and usually only used on very specialty builds. Same thing will happen with the IS mechs. Some specialty builds will mount them but everything else will use either standard ACs for the PPFLD or UACs for the Burst damage. It isn't really that big of deal.

[Wintersdark]

pyrocomp, on 14 June 2017 - 03:44 PM, said:

The proposed solution is a damage buff and spread increase. And leave the size as is. The aim is not to press PGI to make LBX the same size and weight (or less) than regular ACs, but to give a reason to sometimes pick LBX over AC10 on the mechs than can fit AC10s. And reduction does nothing to help LBX. even if the spread will be 0 LBX still will be worse than regular ACs.

This.

You want LBX's to be viable weapons even when you could choose an equivilant AC.

Clan side, at least that's the case: UAC's can doubleshot, but also spread damage and are not front loaded, whereas the LBX's lack the double damage capability, but are front loaded and (generally) cooler.

IS needs a similar deal. They need LBX's to be viable choices, a reason to take them short of "because I can't take the better one"

[Wintersdark]

Viktor Drake, on 14 June 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

On a more serious note, there is always going to be some weapons that aren't as good as others and to be honest, LBX cannon are one of those. Even on Clan mechs which only have a choice between high jam UACs and LBX versions, the LBX is considered by most to be far inferior and usually only used on very specialty builds. Same thing will happen with the IS mechs. Some specialty builds will mount them but everything else will use either standard ACs for the PPFLD or UACs for the Burst damage. It isn't really that big of deal.

While it's true that there will always be weapons that aren't as good as others, this does not always need to be the case.

In many instances, for example, Clan LBX's are actually preferable. SRM/ballistic brawler? LBX is cooler and front loaded. The LBX20 is superior to the UAC20 in a fair number of situations. The LBX10 isn't as nice of a gain because the UAC10 is such a nice weapon (or at least was) but it too has it's place for a brawler.

The LBX2 and 5... well... *shrugs* These are definitely simply inferior, as they spread more than the UAC's do and lose precision.


Anyways, I digress.


It's not ok to "simply accept some weapons will always be inferior". That's a cop out. Sure, it's probably going to be the case, but there's no reason it HAS to be the case. If all LBX's gained 1.2 damage pellets, they'd suddenly be way less bad.

[Metus regem]

Wintersdark, on 14 June 2017 - 07:12 PM, said:

This.

You want LBX's to be viable weapons even when you could choose an equivilant AC.

Clan side, at least that's the case: UAC's can doubleshot, but also spread damage and are not front loaded, whereas the LBX's lack the double damage capability, but are front loaded and (generally) cooler.

IS needs a similar deal. They need LBX's to be viable choices, a reason to take them short of "because I can't take the better one"

The issue for the up coming IS Lab's and UAC's is the UAC's weigh only 1t more, but cost one Crit slot less... The exclusion being the UAC/10, it weighs 1t more than the AC/10, but gains double tap. It is also the core of the issue we've been talking about, why take a LB-20X that will force you into a standard engine, when you can take an AC/20 or UAC/20 with a LFE for torso mounts. With out a real reason to take the LB-20X other "I like it" I can't help but feel it would be a waste of time for PGI to code it into MWO.

[Brain Cancer]

The solution is to make pellets actually worth using.

I'm still all for massively increasing how much critical damage they do (to at least 5 per, eliminating "bonus damage" to structure), meaning even a LB-2X is dangerous and an LB-20X will scour internals relentlessly on a hit that gets past armor. In an MWO backwards-forwards world where armor-killers are best at crits while critseekers are trash, the process needs reversal.

[kf envy]

Leonidas the First, on 12 June 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:

It has been years since I played the table top version and that was even before the time jump ever occurred. When I saw Civil War announced my mind immediately filled with all of the build possibilities based on my guesses of what the new weapon specs would be. Last night I decided to search for the table top stats for thee new weapons and was suddenly a little worried. In general the advatage of the table top LBX weapons was having interchangeable slug and cluster (higher crit chance) ammo. This capability not available in MWO so we are left only with the increased crit chance does not really balance out the negative of damage spread and reduced range. The LBX 10 we have already had was 1 ton and 1 crit space less than the standard AC/10 (matching the table top rules) giving it the advantage of being able to stuff two them in a side torso.

According to table top cannon other IS LBX weapons are either the same weight and require the same crit spaces or they are heavier and require more spaces. Without the interchangeable ammo these weapons are likely to be considered useless by all but stock/lore players. If MWO modifies these weapon stats, as they have done for other weapons, and reduces tonnage by 1 or .5 and or crit space requirements by 1 or 2, then these weapons might find a consistent role on the battle field and not end up being a huge waste of development time for PGI. If such alterations are made then builds such as 3 LBX 5s in a side torso with a Light or XL engine become possible in chassis such as the MAD-3R or MAL MX-90, or 4 in the side torso of the BNC-3E with a STD engine, which may be interesting for some players.

PGI cant code the LBX correct to have change fire mode from cluster to slug. that's why the clans have "AC" that's there baind aid fix for the slug round of the LBX but even then PGI went and goofed the clan ver of the LBX 2nd fire mod.