26 replies to this topic

[BigFatGator]

Anyone? Makes little sense.

(Clarification- the IS LBX20 is 1 more crit slot vs. AC20 and LBX5 is 1 more slot vs. AC5, while the LBX10 is 1 crit slot less vs. AC10)

[Composite Armour]

I'm too lazy to post a meme but it boils down to "because TT/Lore"

[Jun Watarase]

They were copied from tabletop stats and PGI is bad at balancing so LBXs still suck 5 years after closed beta started. True story.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

If the LBXX-AC had a total potential of 30 damage and the LBV-AC had 7.5 (1.5 per pellet), then the extra ton might well be worth it. Indeed, 1.5 for Clan versions and 2.0 for IS might not be a horrible starting point for balance iteration.

[Jun Watarase]

People suggested that LBXs do more damage per pellet 5 years ago in closed beta. PGI has ignored everyone since then.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Jun Watarase, on 25 November 2017 - 09:10 AM, said:

People suggested that LBXs do more damage per pellet 5 years ago in closed beta. PGI has ignored everyone since then.

I'm well aware, being one of those people. It still can't hurt to keep offering the suggestion.

[davoodoo]

Due to how crits work in tt, lbxes were massively more useful than regular ac, however that realisation came only after original lb10x came out.
Also lb10x was there as 1 of the ways to counter supremacy of energy weapons that dhs brought.

Edited by davoodoo, 25 November 2017 - 10:33 AM.

[FupDup]

Don't forget the LB 2-X that takes up 4 slots, or +3 compared to the AC/2. Four times the space!

[Jun Watarase]

FupDup, on 25 November 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

Don't forget the LB 2-X that takes up 4 slots, or +3 compared to the AC/2. Four times the space!

Level 2 tech was a opportunity for them to make the game better balanced, but FASA dropped the ball by making things worse.

[Khobai]

Quote

Don't forget the LB 2-X that takes up 4 slots, or +3 compared to the AC/2. Four times the space!

but its really good at shooting down aircraft/helicopters in tabletop

which is funny because lbx is one of the worst weapons at shooting down UAVs in MWO

Quote

People suggested that LBXs do more damage per pellet 5 years ago in closed beta. PGI has ignored everyone since then.

yeah because people were like

MAKE LBX DO 50% MORE DAMAGE PER PELLET

if I was PGI id ignore that too

10%-20% wouldve been a reasonable ask and probably all LBX actually needs. 50% was just excessive.

Edited by Khobai, 25 November 2017 - 03:18 PM.

[jss78]

FupDup, on 25 November 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

Don't forget the LB 2-X that takes up 4 slots, or +3 compared to the AC/2. Four times the space!

There the curiosity is the AC/2 though. A six ton weapon taking one crit slot is a real outlier in tabletop.

As far as this whole topic, I think maintaining that backwards compatibility of builds to TT is kind of...cute. Not strictly necessary though.

I always supported that idea of increasing lb-x pellet damage. It'd give them a distinct role as the brawling variant of each ac.

[Sjorpha]

IS lbs should follow the formula of the lb10, one less ton and 1 less crit. Lb2 should be 1 crit like the ac2

[Funky Bacon]

Long story short. (unless I'm mistaken) LBX-AC/10 was the first LBX weapon created in TT (tabletop) and it turned out it was really good and since you can't change the rules just like that and break all stock builds using it they made all the future LBX weapons bigger and same weight instead of smaller and lighter as a way to balance out their ammo swapping ability and longer ranges that made them superior to standard AC's.

PGI for better or worse mostly follow the rules of TT which is why the other LBX weapons are bigger instead of smaller.

I think MW4 was the game that originally changed it up and turned LBX weapons into a more close range shotgun-like weapon and MWO somewhat followed suit with pellets that spread while still retaining the superior range. (not that superior range means much when you spread damage all over or wont even hit with all pellets)

[The Lighthouse]

The implementation of LBX in this game is the prime evidence that PGI really has no clue what they are doing, and the clear example of utter failure of translation from TT to MWO, and the clear example why you just don't follow TT value blindly.

FASA really screwed up so badly.

[FupDup]

jss78, on 25 November 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

There the curiosity is the AC/2 though. A six ton weapon taking one crit slot is a real outlier in tabletop.

As far as this whole topic, I think maintaining that backwards compatibility of builds to TT is kind of...cute. Not strictly necessary though.

I always supported that idea of increasing lb-x pellet damage. It'd give them a distinct role as the brawling variant of each ac.

AC/20: 10 slots
AC/10: 7 slots
AC/5: 4 slots
AC/2: 1 slot

There's a trend going on here...

The AC/2 is certainly an outlier though, but not in terms of slots. For one thing it should've been 2.5 damage, since each class of AC halves its damage but the AC/2 rounds down. It should also be zero heat if you follow the formula of the bigger ACs, but once again it got rounded (this time rounded up instead of rounded down like every other AC). Lastly, it came with just 90 damage per ton of ammo instead of 100 DPT like the other ACs in TT.

And while we're at it I'll note that the range increases are different as well. The AC/10 and AC/2 gain +6 hexes compared to their previous counterpart, but the AC/5 gains only +3.

Edited by FupDup, 25 November 2017 - 06:40 PM.

[Khobai]

the main issue with the AC2 is the tonnage though

6 tons was just stupid for a weapon that only does 2 damage and has to use ammo too

lasers are 1 ton and do 5 damage and dont use ammo

I mean thats a no brainer...


Do I take 1 AC2 and 1 ton of ammo for 2 damage or do I take 7 lasers for 35 damage

Oh i think ill go with the AC2...



And even at 4 tons, the Light AC2 is still bad. So the AC2 probably shouldve been 2-3 tons tops.

Edited by Khobai, 25 November 2017 - 06:45 PM.

[Kin3ticX]

becuz mah battletek

edit: One of the Thanatos was supposed to come stock with an LBX-20 but PGI changed it to an AC20. It seems programming the 1 slot to move into the torso is a lot of trouble.

Me peronsally, I would have taken the time used to make the useless stealth armor and used that to polish up issues like this.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 25 November 2017 - 06:58 PM.

[Nimiki]

I think another issue is that, LBX-AC's are supposed to be able to ammo-swap, so they're technically an upgrade which would justify the extra space. However, this feature isn't implemented in MWO, so it would be nice if they were adjusted accordingly.

[Jun Watarase]

Nimiki, on 25 November 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

I think another issue is that, LBX-AC's are supposed to be able to ammo-swap, so they're technically an upgrade which would justify the extra space. However, this feature isn't implemented in MWO, so it would be nice if they were adjusted accordingly.

Cluster ammo is only really good if you have a LBX-10/20 and are trying to use it for crit seeking or you are using LBX-2s and 5s for shooting down VTOLs, ASFs, etc.

LBX-2s are awful for crit seeking. They didnt manage to make the UAC 2 or 5 good either.

[Tincan Nightmare]

FupDup, on 25 November 2017 - 05:45 PM, said:

AC/20: 10 slots
AC/10: 7 slots
AC/5: 4 slots
AC/2: 1 slot

There's a trend going on here...

The AC/2 is certainly an outlier though, but not in terms of slots. For one thing it should've been 2.5 damage, since each class of AC halves its damage but the AC/2 rounds down. It should also be zero heat if you follow the formula of the bigger ACs, but once again it got rounded (this time rounded up instead of rounded down like every other AC). Lastly, it came with just 90 damage per ton of ammo instead of 100 DPT like the other ACs in TT.

And while we're at it I'll note that the range increases are different as well. The AC/10 and AC/2 gain +6 hexes compared to their previous counterpart, but the AC/5 gains only +3.

Well the problem was that there is no weapon in TT that does .5 damage, so it was either round up or round down. An AC3 would probably have been better, but FASA evidently disagreed.