11 replies to this topic

[MechaBattler]

I think the IS LBX line up didn't get much attention because most people don't care for the LBX10. And that has the advantage of one less slot and ton. But the other LBXs have increased slots and no weight savings. So I guess everyone is okay with writing them off as a loss?

Especially the LBX20 with it's massively restrictive 11 crit slot requirement. I tested LBX40 build on my Warhammer. I found that it does not share the same heavy GH penalty as it's single shot sibling. However for good reason. Even in a close up brawl it just can't concentrate enough of the combined 40 damage. Still that bonus isn't enough. You can't take advantage of how cool it fires because a standard engine affords you little weight for additional weapons.

[Metus regem]

MechaBattler, on 10 July 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

I think the IS LBX line up didn't get much attention because most people don't care for the LBX10. And that has the advantage of one less slot and ton. But the other LBXs have increased slots and no weight savings. So I guess everyone is okay with writing them off as a loss?

Especially the LBX20 with it's massively restrictive 11 crit slot requirement. I tested LBX40 build on my Warhammer. I found that it does not share the same heavy GH penalty as it's single shot sibling. However for good reason. Even in a close up brawl it just can't concentrate enough of the combined 40 damage. Still that bonus isn't enough. You can't take advantage of how cool it fires because a standard engine affords you little weight for additional weapons.

Some food for thought, the IS UAC/20 didn't have ghost heat either...


As for the IS-LB problem I've been very vocal on all the threads about them... About the only way I can see to fix the 20, is to make it either 8 or 9 crits, with my preference being 8 crits.

[Samedi Wretch]

I think it should be dropped to 10 crits. I'm fine with the heavy gauss staying at 11 because it feels like such a niche weapon, but if the LB's can't be put in arms or paired with LFE's in torsos there isn't much reason to bring them. I believe in TT the crits could be shared across arms and torsos, so dropping it to 10 crits would have it perform more similarly to the original intent. Now if only they could switch between ammo types...

[Kaptain]

I would have liked to see the LBX20 at least tested at 10 slots (same with hgr) and then reduce the cool down on lbx 2/5/20s by 10-20% giving them a place as raw (vs burst) dps weapons. This gives regular auto cannons a place as ppfl, lbx as raw dps and ultras as burst dps.

[Stridercal]

Tabletop wins the day, and will continue to win the day.

Stop trying to change the fixed core of this game, because PGI won't do it.

(Now, if you want to complain about the lack of crit-sharing, that's fine, and i approve.)

[ScrapIron Prime]

Right, tabletop = genre lore.

The best change we can hope for is that LBX-5 and LBX-2 will have cooldown stats buffed to the point of raising their DPS so much that people will consider taking them. Otherwise we'll never see them used.

[J0anna]

I suspect the LBX 2/5/20 will get the same treatment the LBX 10 got, it might just take a while(no one uses them until PGI buffs them). This is the side effect of having IS AC's as single shot, it makes the LBX a worthless weapon. As least the clan weapons allow you to shoot and twist. I would love it if PGI made all the IS LBX 1 slot less than AC's, but won't hold my breath on it. Besides the UAC's are very good without ghost heat, so I'll just take that and be happy for now.

[Chagear]

I also looked at the LBX ACs and wondered, "Why are the new additions not in line with what the LBX AC 10 is compared to the AC 10?"
I mean, these weapons were developed by, at least partly, by looking at the smaller and lighter clan tech, right?

Shouldn't the new weapons look more like:

LBX AC 20 - 9 slots 13 tons
LBX AC 5 - 3 slots 7 tons
LBX AC 2 - 1 slot 5 tons
*note* As the AC 2 cannot get smaller, might get more weight savings, so maybe 4.5?

I am not too solid on the lore from this era, however, a cannon that spreads damage, takes up more slots, and weighs the same amount is a failed weapon system. Especially when there is already a weapon system in the game does not do this of the same type.

Seems like the precedent set by the LBX AC 10 was ignored.

[Kaptain]

Chagear, on 15 July 2017 - 10:41 PM, said:

LBX AC 20 - 9 slots 13 tons
LBX AC 5 - 3 slots 7 tons
LBX AC 2 - 1 slot 5 tons
*note* As the AC 2 cannot get smaller, might get more weight savings, so maybe 4.5?

I do like the idea of one less ton and one less slot on LBX2/5/20. However, I would be perfectly ok with LBX20 going to 10 slots, everything else staying the same, and LBX2/5/20s getting cool down buffs.

Edited by Kaptain, 15 July 2017 - 11:50 PM.

[SPNKRGrenth]

Stridercal, on 11 July 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

Tabletop wins the day, and will continue to win the day.

Stop trying to change the fixed core of this game, because PGI won't do it.

(Now, if you want to complain about the lack of crit-sharing, that's fine, and i approve.)

They already changed the core of the game by not having ammo switching. The fixed core is already unbalanced by the lack of an important mechanic that's part of the balance of tabletop. So using your own mindset of tabletop is what to aim for and hold true to at all costs, the game has already fallen flat on it's face with the LB-X ACs. Do you contend this? And do you argue that in the absence of a critical part of tabletop LB-X AC balance, nothing else should be done with the weapon in other areas to even partially even out that imbalance?

Edited by SPNKRGrenth, 16 July 2017 - 12:13 AM.

[Stridercal]

On scale of one to autistic AF, your post gave me pause, and made me wonder if I came off as insane. Double checked, nope.

Tabletop is the GOAL, but basing an argument around PGI doing something I completely...? That's just, like, wow man.

[The Basilisk]

Kaptain, on 10 July 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

I would have liked to see the LBX20 at least tested at 10 slots (same with hgr) and then reduce the cool down on lbx 2/5/20s by 10-20% giving them a place as raw (vs burst) dps weapons. This gives regular auto cannons a place as ppfl, lbx as raw dps and ultras as burst dps.

But that is not the point of LB-X weapons.
They are not intended as Burst DPS, raw DPS or what ever DPS weapons.
They are intended as critseekers.

Basic dps weapons are the standart ACs.
Burst are UAC with the downside of more tonnage and jamming chance making them unpredictable while LBX-es are critseekers and flyswatters with the downside of beeing bulky. (You know like a shotgun is actually a pretty poor close range weapon due to the long barrel, while it looses firepower and substainable suppression capabilitys on medium to high ranges.)

So yes, without the capability to switch ammo the LB-X is a tool weapon intended to be used with other weapon systems, not as main weapon.

3LPLs and dual LB5X to secure the kills on heavy mechs able to use that loadout.
On Annihilator some PPCs to breach the armor and some smalcaliber lbx to shoot through the breach.

Lots of ppl will not bother to do such a thing because it violates their agendas concering optimization, boatability and the go to and be all and must have and what not.

As far as I'm concerned lights bother me less, I get extra dmg from crits and secure some kills so LB-X == Money

Edited by The Basilisk, 21 July 2017 - 12:51 AM.