34 replies to this topic

[Suberoa Zinnerman]

I'm going to start this off with a quick story:

Back in the dim darkness of the Star League, there was the 2750 TRO which included the shiny new LB 10-X autocannon. A wonder of Star League technology, it didn't measure up to the incredible hax that was the gauss rifle and DHS of course made energies king, but it was still an excellent weapon by 3025 standards. Compared to the stock slug AC/10 it was a ton lighter (11 vs 12), a critical slot smaller (6 vs 7), generated less heat (2 vs 3) and had superior range (18 vs 15). All in all, it had a good statline plus it could fire solid or shotgun shells; the LB10X was used in many Inner Sphere designs.

But then many years later the Inner Sphere finally got the other sizes in LBX format; 2s, 5s and 20s. This is where things went off the rails.

While they had improved range over the stock models and reduced heat, their fittings are a disaster! The LB2X had the same tonnage as the stock AC2 but bloated up from 1 critical slot to 4(!). The 5X? Same tonnage, 5 critical slots (vs 4 for stock). The LB20X? 11 critical slots, no tonnage savings.

While I think there's issues with the smaller ones having inferior fitting to their stock counterparts, items with 4/5 critical slots are still manageable. The problem is at the LB20X level. It is perhaps worth mentioning that, to my knowledge, there are no canon IS mechs that load the LB20X stock, while the LB10X is fairly common. Perhaps because the LB10X has a tonnage and critical slot saving . . .

TLDR: IS LBX guns came pre-nerfed and never got fixed, rather like IS pulse lasers (which have been fixed in MWO, since their problem wasn't fitting but range)

And yes, I am aware that to date, MWO has been fastidious with maintaining canon values for tonnage and critical slots. I am going to argue that in the case of the LB 20-X (and perhaps also the small calibers by extension) they should abandon this policy.

11 critical slots is incredibly difficult to fit, particularly since MWO doesn't support critical splitting. It means that you can't fit the 20X in arms (thus no gigashotgun Krab or Shotjager), and most importantly LFEs are now arriving which means the STD engine is effectively obselete. With the exception of unusual builds that demand all critical slots in a torso (such as a triple AC/5, quad LRM-15, twin LB10s, etc) there will be no reason to run STD engines any more; every weapon with the exception of the LB20X and the HGauss will fit in the 10 available critical slots you can have in arms or LFE torsos. The HGauss has insane point damage to make up for fitting limitations. The LB20X does not.

Does the LB20X have any advantages that would compensate for the tonnage penalty of only ever using STD engines? For larger engines the tonnage savings of going from STD to LFE (never mind XL) probably gets you most of the way from a single LB20X to a pair of LB10Xes.

Having the LB20X with the fitting statline no worse than the stock AC/20 would allow for a much higher build diversity instead of limiting it to joke builds. Giving it the same -1 Ton, -1 Critical Slot of the LB10X would open up even more build diversity.

TLDR2: If the only thing the LB20X has going for it relative to the the stock AC/20 is shotgun blast while paying a penalty in fitting terms, it's going to be an abandoned weapon. Two LB10s will give you the same shotgun effect without forcing build limitations while the AC/20 is easier to fit (goes in arms, goes in LFE torsos) and has massive pinpoint damage.

[LORD ORION]

Older Rule is specifically stating LBX20, AC20, UAC20 and Heavy Gauss are allowed crit splitting between adjacent mech sections.
Newer Errata Rule is any weapon with 8 slots or more can be crit split between locations.

Needs to be fixed, any mech with XL is meant to be able to mount these weapons in the torso.

[Palor]

I had a similar reaction to the LBX 20's 11 slots, and then i was disappointed because I realized i would never use the weapon I was most looking forward to seeing.

[LordNothing]

having run dual lb20 clan builds i have to say that running std is a lot to give up for a mediocre redneck build. the easy solution is to go off lore with the weapon size/tonnage or buffing the hell out of the weapon (like a 3s cd). the hard solution is to crit split. the pgi solution is to ignore the problem and hope people dont notice.

Edited by LordNothing, 16 July 2017 - 01:03 PM.

[Fleeb the Mad]

The IS LBX guns in MWO all need something to make up for the fact their spread pattern is outright inferior to the single slug. Even if they had the same critical requirements, they're not better.

The IS LBX 20 being that one crit larger has a huge impact on its use, as it can't fit on any mech that had an arm-mounted AC-20 without the crit sharing. Even the LBX 5 has issues with any machine that uses two in one location.

It seems to be lose-lose all around.

[Y E O N N E]

They even took away the 3 extra rounds per ton of ammo that the LB-20X had on PTS.

Just...mediocre.

[Tordin]

I love the lore, canon, find TT interesting but seriously. Make the LBX 20 10 slots tops. LBX 2 are 4, LBX 5 are 5 and LBX 10 are 6 slots. Then BAM LBX 20 are 11 slots..
Will make it alot more viable or else only STD heavies and assaults will be able to mount it.

[Humpday]

"cannon" and "TT" need to go away, we have HBS with battle tech for that now. Those "rules" interfere with FPS play.
Honor it it to the min. But let the rest be death match.

[MechaBattler]

Humpday, on 16 July 2017 - 02:37 PM, said:

"cannon" and "TT" need to go away, we have HBS with battle tech for that now. Those "rules" interfere with FPS play.
Honor it it to the min. But let the rest be death match.

At the same time we don't want to turn this into Hawken or Titanfall. They need to preserve some of the lore's distinctiveness.

With that said. I think in the case of the LBX20 it could sorely use the slot reduction to 10. Barring that it would need a big stat increase to make it worthwhile.

[The6thMessenger]

Suberoa Zinnerman, on 16 July 2017 - 12:08 PM, said:

It is perhaps worth mentioning that, to my knowledge, there are no canon IS mechs that load the LB20X stock, while the LB10X is fairly common. Perhaps because the LB10X has a tonnage and critical slot saving . . .

King Crab KGC-005

LB20X should only have 9 slots, and 13 tons, -1 ton and -1 slot vs the AC20, if it ever were going to be a choice at all, IMHO. I mean that's even why i pick LB10X in the first place, cause honestly that spread damage isn't really good.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 July 2017 - 03:10 PM.

[Innocent]

I would be fine reducing the LBX 20 by 1 crit slot if you give ATM's no minimum range.

[Brain Cancer]

The LB-10X is what it is now only because it was produced before everything else.

No, seriously. Originally, Star League tech was supposed to be the "returning armies of Kerensky" tech, but were later replaced by the utter technological stepup that is Clantech (TRO 3050) in TT. Thus, a "better AC/10" with no drawbacks wasn't a problem. It first showed up in TRO 2750, along with the rest of the upgrade tech we have prior to the Civil War update for the IS.

Afterwards, rather than invalidating the entire standard AC line, they made the rest of the IS LB-X line the bulkier stuff it is today- but they couldn't go back and change the LB-10X, leaving it the superior weapon it is. If they could, the LB-10X would be a bigger gun than the standard ones as well.

Of course, the real problem is PGI cannot into split-crit coding, which points to a whole lot of fundamental lostech issues in the coding of MWO.

[Tarogato]

Even if the LB20 was 10 crits... why would you ever use it? No matter how you look at it, it's just a worse AC20.

I submit that if you had a strong justification for taking a 0-slot LB20 over a 0-slot AC20, then you might also have good reason to take a 11-slot LB20 over a 10-slot AC20. What could be strong enough justification? Crit damage, maybe rate of fire. If you have a legit strong reason to take the LB20, then don't need to reduce its crit count.

[The6thMessenger]

Tarogato, on 17 July 2017 - 12:03 AM, said:

Even if the LB20 was 10 crits... why would you ever use it? No matter how you look at it, it's just a worse AC20.

I submit that if you had a strong justification for taking a 0-slot LB20 over a 0-slot AC20, then you might also have good reason to take a 11-slot LB20 over a 10-slot AC20. What could be strong enough justification? Crit damage, maybe rate of fire. If you have a legit strong reason to take the LB20, then don't need to reduce its crit count.

9-crit, 13-tons, i'm gonna use it. It's AC20 + 1 tons of ammo, it's useful like that for an urbie.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 17 July 2017 - 12:52 AM.

[Birthright]

Tarogato, on 17 July 2017 - 12:03 AM, said:

Even if the LB20 was 10 crits... why would you ever use it? No matter how you look at it, it's just a worse AC20.

I submit that if you had a strong justification for taking a 0-slot LB20 over a 0-slot AC20, then you might also have good reason to take a 11-slot LB20 over a 10-slot AC20. What could be strong enough justification? Crit damage, maybe rate of fire. If you have a legit strong reason to take the LB20, then don't need to reduce its crit count.

I prefer using LBX20 over AC20 on my clan mechs that go in rly close like <250m because it shares a cooldown with SRM6 and medium pulse lasers.

U rush in close range, u alpha strike, u twist, u alpha strike again, all weapons have the same cooldown (4 seconds).

With AC20 i either miss half my shots or it takes me way to long to aim = way to much facetime, not to mention the double tap which results in a jammed weapon for about 2 hours.
It also does not synch its cooldown as well as the the LBX20.

I tried AC20 many times but i always perform better with LBX20 in those close range mechs.
And that is simply because you land many crits on the CT and u can torso twist like a god with that loadout.

[Vonbach]

It takes up too many slots and weighs the same for spread damage its DOA.

[Karl Streiger]

Tarogato, on 17 July 2017 - 12:03 AM, said:

Even if the LB20 was 10 crits... why would you ever use it? No matter how you look at it, it's just a worse AC20.

I submit that if you had a strong justification for taking a 0-slot LB20 over a 0-slot AC20, then you might also have good reason to take a 11-slot LB20 over a 10-slot AC20. What could be strong enough justification? Crit damage, maybe rate of fire. If you have a legit strong reason to take the LB20, then don't need to reduce its crit count.

The sound!?
no ghost heat - for 40s point blank shots!?

[The6thMessenger]

Karl Streiger, on 17 July 2017 - 04:07 AM, said:

The sound!?
no ghost heat - for 40s point blank shots!?

At that range, you might as well find 4 missile hardpoints and go 4x SRM6A. Damage is spread anyways, kind of moot.

[Y E O N N E]

Birthright, on 17 July 2017 - 01:45 AM, said:

I prefer using LBX20 over AC20 on my clan mechs that go in rly close like <250m because it shares a cooldown with SRM6 and medium pulse lasers.

U rush in close range, u alpha strike, u twist, u alpha strike again, all weapons have the same cooldown (4 seconds).

With AC20 i either miss half my shots or it takes me way to long to aim = way to much facetime, not to mention the double tap which results in a jammed weapon for about 2 hours.
It also does not synch its cooldown as well as the the LBX20.

I tried AC20 many times but i always perform better with LBX20 in those close range mechs.
And that is simply because you land many crits on the CT and u can torso twist like a god with that loadout.

This isn't really a useful comparison when you are talking about the Inner Sphere versions of the weapons. Yes, there is a very good reason to take the Clan one: it fires as a single shot, synchronize better with SRMs and allowing you to start twisting.

But that's all because the Clan AC/20 does not fire a single shot. The Inner Sphere AC/20 does. So when you have the choice of a single shot that does all of its damage to one spot versus a single shot that does all of its damage splashed across the entire 'Mech, the choice is already clear: you take the AC/20. Now add on the fact that the LB20-X cannot fit in an arm and cannot be run in a torso without a STD engine, and the choice becomes even more obvious.

The only thing the LB20-X has going for it is a 30 meter range improvement, but who cares? That's still operating in the same range bracket and it's still a shotgun instead of a slug.

[Khobai]

Quote

Even if the LB20 was 10 crits... why would you ever use it? No matter how you look at it, it's just a worse AC20.

I might use if it could switch fire modes.

If it could switch between being a 3 round burst AC20 and firing cluster rounds. Cluster rounds would need to be able to crit things out better too.