79 replies to this topic

[Jackal Noble]

What is the rationale behind targeting computers not affecting LBX cannons?
I mean, seems to me that would be the only saving grace to what are effectively, junk cannons.

Clan side, they are total junk outside of the 5 and the 20. The 10 is often seen boated on the KDK-3, but I assume that's either because people get bored with more efficient builds, or that they just don't know any better.
There are no Clan mechs that have any LBX quirks, save the Warhawk I'm pretty sure.

IS side - 10 in my opnion is the only LBX worth taking -, and even then it's gonna be on a LBX quirked mech. Cent, Mauler, etc. This is mostly due to the weight savings not shared by the other LBXes on the Inner Sphere side -

AC10 - 12 tons
LBX10 - 11 tons
AC5 - 8 tons
LBX5 - 8 tons
AC2 - 6 tons
LBX2 - 6 tons

- notice any disparities?

The other, newer LBXes are too heavy or too slot heavy for what they bring to the table vs other ballistics.

K, so back to MWO World where TC's affect some projectile ballistics and not others.
Do you think by allowing LBX behavior to be affected by Targeting computers would make this a more competitive weapons platform - tied to spread, speed and crit chance.
I think it would.
That or implement a hold-charge choke mechanic where holding the fire down tightens the spread to a point, similar to gauss charge. Yes, that mechanic that everyone hates, but would actually have a unique purpose in terms of the LBX series.

Also, IS-LBX5 and LBX-2 should have a ton shaved off, to 7 and 5 tons respectively, (or even 7.5 and 5.5) and IS LBX20 needs to lose a crit slot.

discuss? at least a little bit?

Edited by JackalBeast, 03 August 2017 - 04:08 PM.

[Khobai]

the sole rationale seems to be because targeting computers didnt work with LBX in tabletop. because FASA didnt want the LBX accuracy bonus to stack with the targeting computer accuracy bonus. But that reasoning doesnt apply to MWO.

in MWO, targeting computers should not only work for LBX, but should tighten the spread on LBX as well

[JagdpantherX]

Considering they aren't very good, yeah I completely agree. A small spread decrease with the TC would be nice.

And yeah, slots and tons need to go down on the IS LB 2,5,20, as they are all currently never worth it.

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 03 August 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

the sole rationale seems to be because targeting computers didnt work with LBX in tabletop. because FASA didnt want the LBX accuracy bonus to stack with the targeting computer accuracy bonus. But that reasoning doesnt apply to MWO.

in MWO, targeting computers should not only work for LBX, but should tighten the spread on LBX as well

Maybe i remember wrong but lbx had no inherent accuracy bonus and only cluster rounds couldnt do called shorts for obvious reasons and instead used cluster table.

Edited by davoodoo, 03 August 2017 - 04:25 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Maybe i remember wrong but lbx had no inherent accuracy bonus and only cluster rounds couldnt do called shorts for obvious reasons and instead used cluster table.

LBX got a -1 accuracy bonus

and yeah they couldnt do called shots and rolled on the missile hits table

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 03 August 2017 - 04:31 PM, said:

LBX got a -1 accuracy bonus

and yeah they couldnt do called shots and rolled on the missile hits table

lbx or cluster rounds??

found myself
Cluster Ammunition
For attacks made with cluster munitions, apply a –1 modifier to the to-hit number at all ranges. Resolve successful attacks as a cluster weapon (see LB-X Weapons, p. 120). When firing cluster munitions, LB-X autocannons cannot make aimed shots, and they also lose the benefits of the firing unit’s targeting computer (if any); see Targeting Computer, p. 143.

and thats due to being considered missile weapon for purpose of targeting.

Edited by davoodoo, 03 August 2017 - 04:44 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

and thats due to being considered missile weapon for purpose of targeting.

not all missile weapons got a -1 bonus though.

cluster rounds got a -1 bonus because theyre cluster rounds. its got nothing to do with being like missiles.

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 03 August 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

not all missile weapons got a -1 bonus though.

cluster rounds got a -1 bonus because theyre cluster rounds. its got nothing to do with being like missiles.

for purpose of targeting it used missile hits table so targeting computer couldnt make it any more precise, thats logical to me.

also unlike mrms which are closest comparison, lbx still had way faster velocity due to being ballistic weapon meaning it was easier to aim, while mrms got penalised for lack of guidance present in other missile systems.

Edited by davoodoo, 03 August 2017 - 04:48 PM.

[Khobai]

the point is LBX doesnt get a -1 bonus to hit in MWO.

So targeting computer should buff LBX in MWO.

[Lanzman]

In tabletop one of the major advantages of the LB-X autocannon were that they were lighter than standard ACs. Baffles me that that isn't reflected in MWO. That said, I have an Annihilator with dual LB20x and it's a monster.

[Khobai]

Quote

In tabletop one of the major advantages of the LB-X autocannon were that they were lighter than standard ACs. Baffles me that that isn't reflected in MWO

huh? they weigh exactly the same as tabletop

the problem isnt what they weigh

its the fact they cant switch firing modes

I mean the whole reason the LBX20 takes up 11 crits in tabletop is because its better than an AC20 because it can fire both slugs and cluster rounds at better range and for less heat than an AC20.

Edited by Khobai, 03 August 2017 - 05:21 PM.

[Jackal Noble]

Please MWO forumites... I am appealing to you all. Don't let this die in the Swamps of Threadorium.

Make fixing LBXes (particularly IS disparity) a hot topic.
If you have a hot seat to Russ's ear .....scream.
If you hashtag things, hash your *** off.
If you're a developer.... what are you doing reading? You should be writing amendment code. Right meow.

[KodiakGW]

Lets also consider these numbers:

Speed
LBX2 - 1330
AC2 - 2000

LBX5 - 1330
AC5 - 1150

LBX10 - 1100
AC10 - 950

LBX20 - 1330 (1100 for Clan)
AC20 - 650

Anybody else think these speeds are inconsistent?

[Jackal Noble]

KodiakGW, on 03 August 2017 - 05:18 PM, said:

Lets also consider these numbers:

Speed
LBX2 - 1330
AC2 - 2000

LBX5 - 1330
AC5 - 1150

LBX10 - 1100
AC10 - 950

LBX20 - 1330 (1100 for Clan)
AC20 - 650

Anybody else think these speeds are inconsistent?

That is....somewhat bizarre.

[Lostdragon]

I like the charge to choke idea.

[Jackal Noble]

Lostdragon, on 03 August 2017 - 05:24 PM, said:

I like the charge to choke idea.

Ya me too.

I've got an idea! remove gauss charge and move it over to LBXes -
no charge = no choke - +5% spread
half charge = 1/2 choke - 5% spread
Fully charged = ful lchoke - -15% spread.
Everybody wins!

Arbitrary numbers and percentages of course, but cool idea. The hold charge mechanic would be another matter entirely, should one be allowed to hold that choked shot? I would think so, but we're all used to the charge going away with the gauss if it's held to long. Or would it fire once the choke threshold has been reached?

Still, that aside I strongly think TC's should incorporate some aspect of LBX cannons for both sides.

[El Bandito]

Wont PGI just increase LBX damage by 50% already? SPLAT is what I want to hear at close range.

[DaMuchi]

10 calibre beats 20 in a critical range bracts of 200m> and it is a pot lighter due to ammo per tonne. Boating 10 calibre is A LOT lighter due to the ammo as opposed to 20

[Jackal Noble]

El Bandito, on 03 August 2017 - 05:45 PM, said:

Wont PGI just increase LBX damage by 50% already? SPLAT is what I want to hear at close range.

Switchable ammo first, then.

[Wintersdark]

El Bandito, on 03 August 2017 - 05:45 PM, said:

Wont PGI just increase LBX damage by 50% already? SPLAT is what I want to hear at close range.

This.

We need a per-pellet damage increase to make LBX's work like shotguns in an FPS. There's basically no other simple solution to the hard reality that LBX autocannons are strictly worse than slug autocannons. "Crit weapon" doesn't do it, and this is clearly, demonstrably true after YEARS of evidence.

No amount of spread reduction is going to do it: Reduce the spread too much, and you're just making a slug autocannon in all but name.

Just go to 1.2 damage per pellet across the board first, see what that does.

JackalBeast, on 03 August 2017 - 05:50 PM, said:

Switchable ammo first, then.

That isn't going to happen. Just stop with switchable ammo.

If switchable ammo could happen, it would have a long time ago and we wouldn't still have the stupid placeholder Clan Autocannons.

ATM's would have the proper switchable ammo instead of the weird combined ammo they have now.