34 replies to this topic

[kapusta11]

No?

[DeeHawk]

Specifically, what mech do you intend to squeeze it into?

[Kaptain]

LBX20. Arms of Victors, Highlanders, King Crabs and Blackjacks. Torsos of LFE hunchbacks and maybe LFE atlas.

HGR. LFE Marauder, LFE Mauler and maybe a LFE atlas.

[Metus regem]

Personally I think with how LB's work, it should be less crits than an AC/20 or UAC/20 both of which are 10 crits each... As it stands the LB-20X provides two advantages over the AC/20 and, one less heat and not Ghost Heat, where as over the UAC/20 it only has less heat right now... How ever considering what you have to give up (pin point damage and the option to use a LFE engine for weight savings), I do not consider the LB-20X to be anything other than vendor food.

The HGR on the other hand is a bit more tricky, as there are mechs and variants that mount HGR's with LFE's and isXL engines, thanks to crit splitting in TT it's not such a big deal, but here, it makes those mechs something we will never see.

[Jackal Noble]

LB20X for everybody! Oprah style.
I would be in favor of 1 less slot and 1 less ton than AC20. As it stands UAC20 is better, this would help with the LB viability.

[Andi Nagasia]

yes i think we should have 10Crit LBX20 and HeavyGauss
see Topic & Vote HERE(Lets Talk Crits! Lbx20 & Heavy Gauss!)

LBX20 is no wheres near as Strong as 10Crit UAC20, so theirs no reason to take LBX20,
having its Crit Size reduced Gives LBX20 a Chance to Compete with the UAC20 as they will be the same size,

Heavy Gauss, ive head people try to say if it was 10Crits it would be Broken,
as you could run it with a LFE and you would never take a Standard engine ever,
well if you want to have chance to die as if your LFE Engine was an IS-XL Engine sure,
-
Heavy Gauss does Explode and when it does it will take out your CT if you dont have CASE,
having Heavy Gauss being 10Crits wont take away how viatial it is, but it will allow it to fit with an LFE,
as it very much can in lore, and if you want added Protection you can still take a STD and CASE,

[ProfessorD]

I strongly agree with this. There are no weapons anywhere in game or on the test server that are powerful enough to justify taking up more than 10 crits.

Taking more than 10 crits introduces severe build restrictions. A weapon that takes up 11 or 12 crits deserves to be extremely powerful, since you're going to have to completely build around it.

[SPNKRGrenth]

Since unlike in TT you can't split crit slots between side torsos, yes I think 10 slots for both IS LB20s and Heavy Gauss should be tested. They're already very heavy weapons, each with their own drawbacks compared to a standard AC20, no need to make them not able to be mounted on most things besides. I for one enjoy seeing opponents with as varied weapons loadouts as possible, so seeing something other than an AC20, and soon to be nothing but UAC20s, would be both refreshing to fight against as soon as the newness of the upcoming tech wears off, and more fun to see just what is possible to do without sucking with odd loadouts.

Edited by SPNKRGrenth, 04 July 2017 - 04:32 PM.

[Kaptain]

I think from the LBX10 balancing over the years this is the obvious first step. The LBX10 is smaller, weighs less and generates less heat. Being smaller is a huge advantage as it actually lifts the build restriction of not being able to load two AC10 class auto cannons into a side torso. Even with these advantages people rarely choose the LBX over the regular 10.

At the moment the LBX20 is not only missing the advantages of its smaller counterpart it has a huge disadvantage in being larger. 1 crit wouldn't be that big of a deal if it wasn't so large already. Being 11 crits prevents this from being used in an arm. This is huge as the few use cases where people really want to run LBX20s include the arms of jump capable brawlers such as the victor and highlander. This also prevents LBX20 lore builds such as the bushwacker 1l(?) and nightstar SS(?). And on top of all that it add a build restriction that only a standard engine can be used.

In conclusion the LBX10 is rarely taken over its FLPP counterpart, despite its advantages include relaxed build restrictions. The LBX20 at 11 crits simply has unreasonable build restriction disadvantages as to choose it over its more FLPP and Higher DPS counter parts.

Edited by Kaptain, 05 July 2017 - 12:00 AM.

[MadRover]

If the game was balanced around the lore then Clan would be even stronger and the complaining about them would be even louder. So for the sake of balance (and to keep some of the complaining down) I'm going to say no.

[Messiah Complex]

really I dont get why all the LBX dont follow the same pattern as the LBX 10, one less crit, one less ton. It would open up a few options for mechs in lower weight classes to atleast have some form of Ballistic other than machine guns. As for the current 11 crits required for LB 20 and HG the trade off for having to have a standard engine on top of the MASSIVE weight just makes them pretty useless. For the Gauss why would I take that when I could have an UAC 20? HGauss has a charge time and explosion chance with low range where as the UAC 20 doesnt blow up, only does 5 less but instantly and can double tap for 40+

[Metus regem]

Messiah Complex, on 05 July 2017 - 06:42 AM, said:

really I dont get why all the LBX dont follow the same pattern as the LBX 10, one less crit, one less ton. It would open up a few options for mechs in lower weight classes to atleast have some form of Ballistic other than machine guns.

Well for starters, the AC/2 is only one crit, so we can't have a 0 crit weapon...

Aside from that, the reason why all the other LB series AC/s don't follow the same pattern as the LB-10X is to do with what the LB-10X did to the AC/10 in table top when it was introduced. The LB-10X was capable of firing both canister rounds and solid shot, this dual function allowed it to bust open armour then go and try to crit out the juicy insides, as anything other than gyros and engines only took one critical hit to disable. Now with the LB-10X having better range, running cooler and taking up less slots than the normal AC/10, it out right replaced it until the inclusion of special munitions that are often gimmicky and often not worth taking. Now to be fair, the LB-10X had the stats that the AC/10 should've had in the first place...

As for lower weight ballistics, well he have LAC/s (Light Auto-Cannons) should PGI chose to introduce them, how ever should PGI introduce LAC/s for IS Mechs, I think we will see AC/2 and AC/5 vanish overnight, as a LAC/2 and LAC/5 offer almost the same range profile, only a little less range, for noticeable weight savings, a LAC/2 is only 4t with at LAC/5 5t.

[So You Say]

I wanted to put an LBX-20 on my Orion with a LFE. No go due to the slot requirements. You can do this on a Orion IIC now. Why the restriction on the IS side? Make it possible to at least carry an LBX20 on heavies of this caliber.

[Messiah Complex]

Metus regem, on 05 July 2017 - 07:53 AM, said:

Well for starters, the AC/2 is only one crit, so we can't have a 0 crit weapon...

Obviously this wouldnt lose a crit slot, but it could easily be one ton less as it still only does 2 damage and spreads it compared to a typical ac2 which is much more noticable compared to the 10 and 20. AC5 is in a good spot of weight and crits the UAC 5 is in a good spot making the LBX 5 outclassed from the start unless they make it weigh less and take up on ton less. LBX 20 honestly I dont care if it loses 1 ton of weight vs the AC20 but it shouldnt weight more and it definitely shouldnt be taking up more space. For 11 Crit slots It better be a super devastating weapon since it forces you to run it in a side torso with a standard engine with out much room for any other armaments.

[Metus regem]

Messiah Complex, on 05 July 2017 - 06:29 PM, said:

For 11 Crit slots It better be a super devastating weapon since it forces you to run it in a side torso with a standard engine with out much room for any other armaments.

That's the whole thing, in TT being 11 crits wasn't as much of a big deal, as you could split the crits between two sections...

For example the Bushwacker 1L used a LB-20X in the RA, spilt into the RT, the catch was the firing arch for that LB-20X was that of the RT, as you took the most restrictive firing arch. Now a more extreme example of what I'm talking about is the Crusader 8S that uses both an isXL and a HGR, the HGR is mounted in the LT with crit splitting into the CT. Yes that's right an 3 slot XL engine with the HGR in the same side torso, thanks to crit splitting. How ever since for what ever reason PGI is unable to do crit splitting, things like this need to be kludged together through reduction in crits (this doesn't actually hurt any lore builds), is in my opinion the best possible option.

[Monkey Lover]

Hgauss I understand but the Lbx20 lol, such a bad weapon on top of it being heavy and taking up to many slots. I have no idea what they were smoking.

[Widowmaker1981]

PGIs insistence on following tabletop stats is a big problem for LBX, especially since LBX dont do what they are supposed to do - in TT they are better than normal ACs since they can pick and choose single slot or cluster, in MWO they are only cluster and since thats worse in almost all situations, LBX are worse than standard ACs.

Other than artificially overquirked mechs, there is exactly one reason that the LBX10 has ever been used over the AC10, and that is that it is 1 ton lighter and 1 slot smaller. Taking LBX ACs when they actually take MORE critspace than standard is really, really stupid.

What PGI SHOULD have done is screw lore stats for LBX ACs and follow the 10 class example for all ratings - 1 ton lighter and 1 slot smaller (except the LBX2 on slots, since it cannot be 0 slots). It wont break a single stock build since spare slots and spare tonnage can just be filled with an extra ton of ammo. Following lore in this case simply means they have coded 3 new weapons that will never be used by anyone with half a brain to work with.

Edit: HGauss is a slightly different thing, but with its horrible range limitations i wouldnt be opposed to 10 slots, since as it stands im not considering using them at all.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 07 July 2017 - 09:06 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Hgauss I understand but the Lbx20 lol, such a bad weapon on top of it being heavy and taking up to many slots. I have no idea what they were smoking.

they were probably thinking that crit slots arnt the biggest problem with either of those weapons, and theyd be right.

making them 10 crit slots instead of 11 doesnt make either of them good weapons. theyd both still be bad weapons even with the extra tonnage you save from a non-STD engine.

since changing crit slots doesnt fix the weapons, changing crit slots should be a last resort, not a first resort.

try everything else to fix them first. if everything else fails then change the crit slots.

Edited by Khobai, 07 July 2017 - 04:18 PM.

[SPNKRGrenth]

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 04:14 PM, said:

they were probably thinking that crit slots arnt the biggest problem with either of those weapons, and theyd be right.

making them 10 crit slots instead of 11 doesnt make either of them good weapons. theyd both still be bad weapons even with the extra tonnage you save from a non-STD engine.

since changing crit slots doesnt fix the weapons, changing crit slots should be a last resort, not a first resort.

try everything else to fix them first. if everything else fails then change the crit slots.

The LBs don't need to be "fixed" though, for the case of MWO, all they need is crit slots and tonnage to be lower than standard AC versions and you already have a reason to use them. Maybe have a tighter spread, or make their canister shells work how they're meant to instead of just shotguns. Toss in higher ghost heat limits and then they have their own desirable strength.

Sure ammo switching would be awesome, but that's never happening in MWO regardless of how long the game lasts. Maybe we'll see an MWO 2 in a new engine with greatly expanded support for fancy things and better optimization, but until then I'd prefer even a temporary solution.

It sounds like you're saying to not do the simplest short term band-aid fix, on account of it can be done quickly and easily. I'm all for long term goals, but in the meantime I would prefer something I can actually use with a few simple number changes to hold me over.

Changing crit slots would not slow down work on some better fix or rework, but it would let LBs have some use as an alternative, instead of ONLY a laughable joke for IS.

I'm not going to even touch calling them bad as if they have no use, that's for another thread.

[Khobai]

Quote

The LBs don't need to be "fixed" though

Sure they do. The clan LB20X is 9 slots and its friggin horrible. 11 slots isnt the biggest problem with the LBX20.

And making the heavy gauss 10 slots doesnt fix its abysmal cooldown, range, or chargeup issues.