92 replies to this topic

[jss78]

If ammo switching is too difficult, I think the pellet damage buff would be a good stop-gap solution.

I'm not sure the damage dropoff is even needed. The pellet damage buff combined with the normal spread over distance should do the trick. At short range the LB-10X will be superior and thus have a role, and at longer range suboptimal compared to regular AC's.

My fear is it's going to be one of those things, like MG fixes, that we will indeed get -- after asking for about two years.

Edited by jss78, 08 August 2017 - 04:23 PM.

[Rovertoo]

While Im a fan of upping damage, I think I would actually prefer upping RoF considerably. Less umph up front but say each LBX fires 20% faster than they do now, then they'd have decent hacksaw-like power, and I think would be pretty fun to use.

[Athom83]

El Bandito, on 08 August 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

IMO, buffing the LBX pellet damage to at least 1.3 is necessary for people to pick LBX as much as UACs and IS ACs.

Or just give it +30% to +50% damage to structure. If they do that then I'm switching the UAC/20 on my Marauder back to the tried and true 2 LB-10 build or even an LB-20.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

I'm all for a 50% damage increase on LBX that drops off with range. Give it something like a 150m 50% damage boost range then have linear drop from there to their optimal range until it hits its normal 1 damage, then do the normal drop off from optimal to max range.

Comparing UAC to LBX, UAC gives you a chance to double your damage in bursts while LBX gives you a constant 50% more damage but only at short ranges.

Forget any of that "its good against structure" noise, a UAC is much better against structure than an LBX since it just puts out double the damage instead of some bonus crit damage that you could have made up for with a small laser.

[Snowbluff]

I'm all against a straight 50% damage improvement. That'd be dumb.

A real buff? One to make it more consistent so you're not praying to RNG to hit the right component. Fixed spread. The spread is the same at point blank and max range.

Then if you want more damage, here's a real way to make it distinct from AC: Improve the crit damage further. Right now it does about 20% extra damage against (armorless) structure. At 50% crit damage more it might be tearing straight through components, but as I understand it, that's how it worked in TT. People like LMG for being good against structure and components, so I think with the spread buff and a crit buff this will fill kind of the same role but at longer ranges.

Forget about all of that "Forget any of that "its good against structure" noise," as UACs are about a 20% increase in DPS I checked, so 20% more damage versus structure currently isn't so bad, but it really should be higher since structure isn't always exposed, and the spread needs to be fixed to hit your target component.

Another interesting but might be give it the new Call of Duty shotgun mechanics: the first pellet that hits does most of the damage, with each pellet afterwards does a smaller portion of damage.

For example, you have 10 pellets. Each component that is hit by 1 pellet takes 5 damage (maybe too high for the initial hit, not sure), and .6 damage for each pellet after that. So if you just clip a mech, or just clip several components, the damage is splashed but you've actually did something decent to each one.

Edited by Snowbluff, 08 August 2017 - 07:34 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Dakota1000, on 08 August 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

I'm all for a 50% damage increase on LBX that drops off with range. Give it something like a 150m 50% damage boost range then have linear drop from there to their optimal range until it hits its normal 1 damage, then do the normal drop off from optimal to max range.

FFS, that's a redundant mechanic. It has spread. Spread reduces the per-component damage inherently. You don't need to have the damage per pellet fall off, too.

And it doesn't need to be 50%. Even just 20% is sufficient to give the weapon an edge up close.

[Lucifaust]

Snowbluff, on 08 August 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

I'm all against a straight 50% damage improvement. That'd be dumb.

A real buff? One to make it more consistent so you're not praying to RNG to hit the right component. Fixed spread. The spread is the same at point blank and max range.

Then if you want more damage, here's a real way to make it distinct from AC: Improve the crit damage further. Right now it does about 20% extra damage against (armorless) structure. At 50% crit damage more it might be tearing straight through components, but as I understand it, that's how it worked in TT. People like LMG for being good against structure and components, so I think with the spread buff and a crit buff this will fill kind of the same role but at longer ranges.

Forget about all of that "Forget any of that "its good against structure" noise," as UACs are about a 20% increase in DPS I checked, so 20% more damage versus structure currently isn't so bad, but it really should be higher since structure isn't always exposed, and the spread needs to be fixed to hit your target component.

Another interesting but might be give it the new Call of Duty shotgun mechanics: the first pellet that hits does most of the damage, with each pellet afterwards does a smaller portion of damage.

For example, you have 10 pellets. Each component that is hit by 1 pellet takes 5 damage (maybe too high for the initial hit, not sure), and .6 damage for each pellet after that. So if you just clip a mech, or just clip several components, the damage is splashed but you've actually did something decent to each one.

Sorry man, but both your suggestions I disagree with.

I think some basic buff to LBX stats, whether damage per pellet, rate of fire increase, more ammo, or less crit slots, is needed to make LBX a more viable choice to us. Or even a damage increase+dropoff.

Many of us are old, and competitive. We want an edge, and it would be nice if we could have more than one gun to give us that edge rather than all having to go with one (uac). Hence this thread. What wouldn't make LBX better, or at least not as serviceable as I'd like, are the things you suggested. The first makes it more niche weapon, and the second suggestion sounds exploitable and hard to work into the current game mechanics.

[Khobai]

LBX should get a 15% damage per pellet increase (1.15 per pellet) in addition to increasing the critical damage modifier from x2 to x3

Also targeting computers should buff LBX velocity/crit chance as well as further decrease LBX spread.

That gives LBX a slight boost vs armor but keeps it primarily good at destroying internal structure and critting equipment.

20%-50% damage buffs would be absurd. LBX is not that far behind... but also LBX isnt supposed to be a dps weapon. Its supposed to be a crit weapon. So it shouldnt outperform DPS weapons unless its hitting internal structure.

Edited by Khobai, 08 August 2017 - 08:17 PM.

[Lightfoot]

They did something in the last patch, not sure what, but mechs take critical hits much faster now. LBX are suddenly magical vs mechs with no armor. I am getting kills on Assaults with only yellow structure when using 2-3 LB-10X. I think this is incorrect, needs to be fixed, but there it is.

If you think LBX are too weak just mix them with armor cutters like lasers.

[Lucifaust]

Lightfoot, on 08 August 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

They did something in the last patch, not sure what, but mechs take critical hits much faster now. LBX are suddenly magical vs mechs with no armor. I am getting kills on Assaults with only yellow structure when using 2-3 LB-10X. I think this is incorrect, needs to be fixed, but there it is.

If you think LBX are too weak just mix them with armor cutters like lasers.

Well that hasn't been my experience with them but I'm glad you've enjoyed what LBX could be, especially with a small buff, they could be sported much more often. Call me crazy, but I think that'd be nice.

Khobai, on 08 August 2017 - 08:14 PM, said:

LBX should get a 15% damage per pellet increase (1.15 per pellet) in addition to increasing the critical damage modifier from x2 to x3

Also targeting computers should buff LBX velocity/crit chance as well as further decrease LBX spread.

That gives LBX a slight boost vs armor but keeps it primarily good at destroying internal structure and critting equipment.

20%-50% damage buffs would be absurd. LBX is not that far behind... but also LBX isnt supposed to be a dps weapon. Its supposed to be a crit weapon. So it shouldnt outperform DPS weapons unless its hitting internal structure.

I agree, lbx isn't that far behind. We need a small general buff to make them more viable, not to make them better than uac, as you say.

[Brain Cancer]

Lucifaust, on 08 August 2017 - 03:39 PM, said:

The damage drop off makes sense. The lbx is pretty much a shotgun after all. Trying to make it work at long range will just morph it over time into a lesser ac/uac as its spread will no doubt be reduced.

The MWO one is a shotgun.

The actual LB-X cluster round is more like a proximity-fused flak round that sprays a target with submunitions when it gets close enough and detonates. The Clan HAG (Hyper Assault Gauss) is the closest thing to functioning like MWO's LB-X rounds- it's tight clustering up close, but loses coherence and spreads as it goes outwards, scattering badly by long range.

A splash-damage round would actually be closer to how LB-X cluster rounds work than what we have now.

[Lucifaust]

Brain Cancer, on 08 August 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

The MWO one is a shotgun.

The actual LB-X cluster round is more like a proximity-fused flak round that sprays a target with submunitions when it gets close enough and detonates. The Clan HAG (Hyper Assault Gauss) is the closest thing to functioning like MWO's LB-X rounds- it's tight clustering up close, but loses coherence and spreads as it goes outwards, scattering badly by long range.

A splash-damage round would actually be closer to how LB-X cluster rounds work than what we have now.

That's all well and good, but academic, lad... how on god's good earth would they incorporate splash damage into what we already know as LBX?

[Snowbluff]

Lucifaust, on 08 August 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

Sorry man, but both your suggestions I disagree with.

I think some basic buff to LBX stats, whether damage per pellet, rate of fire increase, more ammo, or less crit slots, is needed to make LBX a more viable choice to us. Or even a damage increase+dropoff.

I don't see how improving it's performance over range and considerably improving consistency while maintaining it's functionality is the opposite of being niche. That's making it clearly less niche. Your damage is effectively improved when the spread is made more consistent.

Listen, you said to increase the damage, and give it more drop off. You said to make it a niche weapon, forcing it further to be a close quarters only weapon.

The second suggestion is a bit far fetched, but it would make it work more like a shotgun, damaging more components more easily.

Brain Cancer, on 08 August 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

The actual LB-X cluster round is more like a proximity-fused flak round that sprays a target with submunitions when it gets close enough and detonates.

This is actually what inspired the fixed spread; when a proximity round would go off, the general spread pattern would be similiar because it happened at a set distance. Having a fixed spread radius would simulate this effect without coding a fuse.

Edited by Snowbluff, 08 August 2017 - 09:25 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Yeonne Greene, on 08 August 2017 - 07:45 PM, said:

FFS, that's a redundant mechanic. It has spread. Spread reduces the per-component damage inherently. You don't need to have the damage per pellet fall off, too.

And it doesn't need to be 50%. Even just 20% is sufficient to give the weapon an edge up close.

I suggest the damage reduction over range so that it doesn't just perform as a high powered sandblaster at range. I also suggested the lower use at longer ranges to better justify getting a full 50% boost up close.

I'd never take the thing with a 20% boost to firepower, I'm comparing LBX to UACs rather than normal ACs, UACs have potential for 100% more damage though also jams, still resulting in what I assume is about 50% more DPS give or take. I'd like for LBX to also get a 50% boost to their damage to make them competitive.

UAC would be heavier, provide more total burst damage, more precision at range, no drop off, but not be entirely reliable.

LBX would take up more slots, provide a solid and reliable punch, but only work at close range.

UACs still would be the superior weapon in general, but brawlers would have their gun for up close. AC's pretty much inferior to a UAC much the same way as the Clan ACs are worse than their UACs, except that IS ACs are a bit lighter and take up less slots than their UACs.

If we compare LBX to SRMs then the LBX is no where close to SRMs, a 50% boost would even the playing field.

[Y E O N N E]

Dakota1000, on 08 August 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

I suggest the damage reduction over range so that it doesn't just perform as a high powered sandblaster at range. I also suggested the lower use at longer ranges to better justify getting a full 50% boost up close.

You need it to be a workable sand-blaster to some extent; look at how much it weighs. Anybody investing that much of their available resources into the gun better get some flexibility out of it or it's too niche to be taken. Cases in point: Heavy Gauss, the entire rest of the LB-X line except the IS LB-10X (smaller/lighter and splat builds don't care about spread as much) and the cLB-20X (because they don't have a slug 20 and because splat builds don't care about spread as much). It won't replace UACs simply because the UAC is doing all of its damage to one place, pending aim, while the LB-X is always going to be spreading it until you get to that close-range sweet-spot.

A 50% damage increase that drops off immediately is not enough to convince me to run a standard engine on any 'Mech to fit an LB-20X, either. I would rather just keep the LFE and use the freed up resources to fit more SRM tubes (you would only ever run LB-X with splat under your change parameters), which would make the results of the damage increase nil since I can just run faster. To put it into perspective:

RGH-1C
> LFE 280 + 2x SRM4 + 2x SRM6 + AC/20 == 63 damage @ 70 kph
> STD 260 + 4x SRM4 + LB-20X (30 dam) == 64.4 damage @ 65 kph
> LFE 280 + 4x SRM6 + LB-10X (15 dam) == 66.6 damage @ 70 kph

What have I gained? Nothing. The top build is still the one with the AC/20 since the 20 points is concentrated in one place as far as the round travels while the LB-X are spreading at the optimum while doing about the same damage to begin with.

And, really, with any sort of damage increase it's just the ON1-IICs, MC IIs, and Scorches that benefit, being the only competitive-grade builds that run LB-20X (save the odd game where EmP brings an HBK-IIC with a pair) to begin with.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 08 August 2017 - 10:06 PM.

[Khobai]

to be fair you didnt include the fact the LBX does bonus damage to internal structure

that extra damage to internal structure is the reason why LBX doesnt need that big of a buff to begin with.

+15% damage per pellet at most and increase the crit damage multiplier from x2 to x3. thats all it needs.

that would fix most LBX weapons. although maybe not the LB20X because the 11 crit slot issue is somewhat unique of an issue.

if dynamic critsplitting isnt added than the LB20X probably needs to be reduced to 10 crit slots.

Edited by Khobai, 08 August 2017 - 10:22 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 08 August 2017 - 10:17 PM, said:

to be fair you didnt include the fact the LBX does bonus damage to internal structure

that extra damage to internal structure is the reason why LBX doesnt need that big of a buff to begin with.

+15% damage at most and increase the crit damage multiplier from x2 to x3

that would fix most LBX weapons. although maybe not the LB20X because the 11 crit slot issue is somewhat unique of an issue.

if dynamic critsplitting isnt added than the LB20X probably needs to be reduced to 10 crit slots.

I don't find the additional damage to structure matter that much. I have so much firepower at splat ranges that the shot is going to remove the component regardless and at longer ranges I still have to take one more shot than I would with an AC/10 because the extra damage does not make up for the fact that only 6 of 10 pellets hit the spot.

As for the 20X's unique case, it's not quite so unique. The LB5-X and LB2-X both soak up a ridiculous amount of resources for how impotent they are; The IS LB10-X is at least smaller and lighter. The bottom line is that the rest aren't good enough against armor to be worth the extra slots and the spread, in addition to the already high weight. Nobody cares about "late game 'Mechs" because anything can finish off an open target and there are much more weight-efficient and flexible options than even a x3 crit-multiplied LB-X at any range.

[SpectreHD]

Would it be within PGI's coding ability to do this?

Hold mouse button for a very quick "charge" without expiration (like Gauss rifles) for slug. Quick click of the mouse for cluster?

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Yeonne Greene, on 08 August 2017 - 10:04 PM, said:

You need it to be a workable sand-blaster to some extent; look at how much it weighs. Anybody investing that much of their available resources into the gun better get some flexibility out of it or it's too niche to be taken. Cases in point: Heavy Gauss, the entire rest of the LB-X line except the IS LB-10X (smaller/lighter and splat builds don't care about spread as much) and the cLB-20X (because they don't have a slug 20 and because splat builds don't care about spread as much). It won't replace UACs simply because the UAC is doing all of its damage to one place, pending aim, while the LB-X is always going to be spreading it until you get to that close-range sweet-spot.

A 50% damage increase that drops off immediately is not enough to convince me to run a standard engine on any 'Mech to fit an LB-20X, either. I would rather just keep the LFE and use the freed up resources to fit more SRM tubes (you would only ever run LB-X with splat under your change parameters), which would make the results of the damage increase nil since I can just run faster. To put it into perspective:

RGH-1C
> LFE 280 + 2x SRM4 + 2x SRM6 + AC/20 == 63 damage @ 70 kph
> STD 260 + 4x SRM4 + LB-20X (30 dam) == 64.4 damage @ 65 kph
> LFE 280 + 4x SRM6 + LB-10X (15 dam) == 66.6 damage @ 70 kph

What have I gained? Nothing. The top build is still the one with the AC/20 since the 20 points is concentrated in one place as far as the round travels while the LB-X are spreading at the optimum while doing about the same damage to begin with.

And, really, with any sort of damage increase it's just the ON1-IICs, MC IIs, and Scorches that benefit, being the only competitive-grade builds that run LB-20X (save the odd game where EmP brings an HBK-IIC with a pair) to begin with.

I'm looking at them like tools for a job. UACs are the mid/long range sandblasters (and for IS a bit more precise) while LBX are the close up shotgun weapons. Right now UACs are able to do their mid/long range thing while also being as good as or better than LBX up close. I'm suggesting a large scale boost to LBX damage to justify taking one at all by making it the best weapon at its specific niche in brawling.

I suggested the fall off mostly because I'm thinking of every LBX that isn't the IS LBX20, which just has no reason to take because it forces a STD engine, so at least I'm looking to give the LBX10 some nice benefits. IS LBX20 would need further boosts on top what the others have, it could end up with even higher damage, higher rate of fire, or just remove the damage fall off entirely so that the pellets are just 1.5 damage instead of 1 but otherwise act like they do now. Even still, taking an LBX20 would be a stretch, but potentially worth it on some odd builds.

[Khobai]

Quote

As for the 20X's unique case, it's not quite so unique. The LB5-X and LB2-X both soak up a ridiculous amount of resources for how impotent they are

they dont require you to take std engines though