51 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

10-slot LBX/20, please.

It's not worth 11 slots.









Really, do I have to say more?

[FupDup]

We've been over this. PGI ain't gonna alter the weight or slots of any item ever. It's too sacred, or something.

Best we can do is turbobuff its XML stats to make it worth it.

...Then again, this issue is also about STD engines being so poopy. If STD's didn't stink so much, having to mount one for certain weapons wouldn't be seen as a handicap. 11-slot weapons are a symptom of the engine imbalance disease.

[Mcgral18]

As PGI will likely not do that...30 damage instead


Worth the cost? Probably not, but it's a start

[Tordin]

I too wanted them to shrink the slot requirment.
I mean:
LBX 2 - 4 slots
LBX 5 - 5
LBX 10 - 6

AND...

LBX 20 - 11 slots!

WTF?

There might be a reasoning behind it (same for the Heavy Gauss, also 11 slot), I just cant find it....

As others have suggested, at LEAST increase the crit chances/ multipliers, increase dmg per pellet and/ or decrease the spread a bit more (avoid making em slug, b'cause whats the point thn?)

Edited by Tordin, 05 August 2017 - 11:47 AM.

[FupDup]

Tordin, on 05 August 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

There might be a reasoning behind it (same for the Heavy Gauss, also 11 slot), I just cant find it....

The reasoning is 'because Tabletop.'

[Escef]

Tordin, on 05 August 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

There might be a reasoning behind it (same for the Heavy Gauss, also 11 slot), I just cant find it....

You're best off asking the guys over at Catalyst Game Lab, they're more likely to have an answer for you. PGI is just maintaining their policy of preserving table top Battletech tonnage and crits.

[Battlemaster56]

What about crit splitting, what's stopping Pgi from implementing such a system? I doubt it require alot of time on it and it helps out alot mechs with ballistic arms.

[CK16]

I could agree to this if they found a way to crit split. Since LBX-20 have been arm mounted...But I won't support HGR's UNLESS! They do not allow it mounted in the arms, torso only (reason being, no a could mount a HGR because after one shot it would always rip the arm off any mech.)

[Monkey Lover]

Even with 10 slots it wouldn't be worth using. The 11 slot is just laughable.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 05 August 2017 - 12:29 PM.

[Tordin]

Escef, on 05 August 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

You're best off asking the guys over at Catalyst Game Lab, they're more likely to have an answer for you. PGI is just maintaining their policy of preserving table top Battletech tonnage and crits.

I respect that, and they should. But they might revise / retcon some things. Something. But then again that might make no sense in the Battletech game...

Monkey Lover, on 05 August 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

Even with 10 slots it wouldn't be worth using. The 11 slot is just laughable.

Well, alot of builds with ballistics in torsos could fit along with a Light Fusion Engine. Yeah I know, big goose waffles in the torso are suicide. Well then even more reason to use an XL for the gooses that fit, since you will be scrap metal anyway.

Edited by Tordin, 05 August 2017 - 12:45 PM.

[Zenthious]

Prosperity Park, on 05 August 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

10-slot LBX/20, please.

It's not worth 11 slots.

For once, I agree. I can't find a single IS mech capable of wielding this weapon in an arm slot. You have to sacrifice a lot of weight in order to use this already heavy LBX cannon. That means you're pretty much relying on a single LBX20 to do all the work for the mech. I have this setup on a Hunchback right now. I'm not unhappy with the mechanics of it at all. You just have to give up a lot in order to run one. Whereas, Clan can dual wield them in arm slots. If that's the trade I have to make for love of RAC5, then I guess that's ok, but I sure would love to combo IS LBX20 with other ballistics. Right now that's only feasible with a machine gun, pretty much.

Edited by Zenthious, 05 August 2017 - 01:06 PM.

[LordNothing]

FupDup, on 05 August 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

The reasoning is 'because Tabletop.'

its really not following the tt rules because we cant do crit splitting. if this were easy to implement then it would be the best solution. dropping the crits is likely just an xml number change. the former would allow things like arrow iv, mechs with arm ballistic slots that couldn't mount ac20s can do so now (those mechs may need to be retrofitted with ac20 models), and it would be a great qol feature. the latter is easy, doesn't require new code or model adjustments. there is the 3rd alternative and thats major buffage and that also falls into the easy category.

whichever gets implemented really doesnt matter that much, but the gun needs something.

[The6thMessenger]

Prosperity Park, on 05 August 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

Really, do I have to say more?

9 slots, 13 tons.

I'm not gonna trade the 20 PPFLD and the better effective range of the AC20 -- cause they're at the same weight, for a weapon that only works best when cleaning up near dead mechs, done so at an even dangerously closer range.

Full interest of disclosure, i just want the LB20X on the arm of the Urbie.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 August 2017 - 02:14 PM.

[Coolant]

would be huge to be able to have lbx20s in torso with a Light Engine...

[Pjwned]

FupDup, on 05 August 2017 - 11:41 AM, said:

We've been over this. PGI ain't gonna alter the weight or slots of any item ever. It's too sacred, or something.

Best we can do is turbobuff its XML stats to make it worth it.

...Then again, this issue is also about STD engines being so poopy. If STD's didn't stink so much, having to mount one for certain weapons wouldn't be seen as a handicap. 11-slot weapons are a symptom of the engine imbalance disease.

Except that STD engines are actually not the problem and they're fine, the problem is that being forced to use a heavy STD engine along with a very heavy ballistic weapon with short range often enough means that something in the mech's build is going to be lacking; it can be okay on something like an Atlas brawler--which mounts a STD engine just fine by the way--but that's about it just because of the nature of the weapon.

Normally I say that slots & tonnage should not be messed with ever, but in the case of LBX20 (and heavy gauss) which are supposed to benefit from crit splitting, I would say that simply reducing the slots to 10 wouild be fine.

There wouldn't be a slippery slope for other equipment either because literally the only good enough reason for doing that is no crit splitting, and also as a little bonus they're also buffed a little bit which wouldn't hurt but of course would not be a good enough reason alone.

As far as making LBX cannons actually good at what they're supposed to do, that's a different issue that requires a bit more work in (further) readjusting critical damage and equipment health values and maybe some other tweaks too.

[Andi Nagasia]

i would love for the LBX20 to be 10Crits,
it would be a short term solution to the current Problem,

however, i also agree with those who have discussed Crit Splitting,
i would like to be able to take a LBX20 in my CN9s arm,

[Brain Cancer]

Prosperity Park, on 05 August 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

10-slot LBX/20, please.

It's not worth 11 slots.

Really, do I have to say more?

Yes. You have to say "PGI, put the money down to be able to actually use your own coding in a competent manner, including finding the original coder and getting the work properly documented".

Otherwise, kludges will only increasingly mess with the game experience, as they already have broken parts of it.

Crit-splitting is required. Full stop. No exception. It's already ended up messing with the Nightstar, and it'll just get worse from there. Heck, it no-go'd the first 3050-era Catapult variant, because without it, no Arrow IV, no in-game arty other than the detested redsmoke trash.

WIth proper documentation, they can even fix the ammo-swap debacle and get us proper LB-Xs, that actually fit according to the rules. PGI can't break the crit/tonnage rules because otherwise, it becomes an impossible-to-build in TT and ruins the whole "everything is a valid build across the games" thing Catalyst desires.

Otherwise, the game's literal lostech coding will break down further and further in attempts to keep up, and the game will suffer even worse in the process.

[ForceUser]

Im just sitting here doing consistent 1k damage matches with 5 kills and 550k cbills in my dual lb20 black widow and figuring if people want to *buff* the weapon Ill be all smiles. Only reason I do so badly in the mech is because I run out of ammo. It and the dual lb20 hunchback iic are the two biggest sources of pleasure currently in this game for me. Make it so that i can run it on K2s, jagermechs, etc and with more ammo?

Mother of all that is holy i am literrally rick hard right now.

Im just sitting here doing consistent 1k damage matches with 5 kills and 550k cbills in my dual lb20 black widow and figuring if people want to *buff* the weapon Ill be all smiles. Only reason I do so badly in the mech is because I run out of ammo. It and the dual lb20 hunchback iic are the two biggest sources of pleasure currently in this game for me. Make it so that i can run it on K2s, jagermechs, etc and with more ammo?

Mother of all that is holy i am literrally rick hard right now.

[Kangarad]

what you seek is crit splitting... if pgi could do that .. that would be great.

[BrunoSSace]

I want and need this.