15 replies to this topic

[Armored Yokai]

LBX is a underperforming weapon just because of the TT stats and lack of single shots and i think they should be changed to allow more build options.

LB 20X AC - 10 criticals and 13 tons (People should be able to mount them in the arms

LB 10X AC - Fine as is

LB 5X AC - 4 Crits 7/7.5/8 tons

LB 2X AC - 3 crits 5/5.5/6 tons

if Clan also has problems vs these they should just get slightly increased range

Edited by Armored Yokai, 03 January 2018 - 03:38 PM.

[Seranov]

Increased range is meaningless unless there is a spread reduction to go with it. You already can spread the pellets all over an enemy mech from ~250m even with the LBX nodes when using the 10 or 20, increased range would just encourage people to waste ammo. The Clan LBXes are pretty much fine where they are at the moment, as they're the only Ballistic option that doesn't burst fire. That means they are the easiest to land your shots with, before the enemy can torso twist.

I don't disagree that the IS' LBXes could stand to use fewer crits and possibly lower tonnage, however.

[The6thMessenger]

I just like the crit slot changes. But damage per pellet or just plain pellet count should increase. Honestly they are just terrible shotguns.

[Andi Nagasia]

this has been brought up before,
it seems the reason PGI is reluctant to change Tonnage or CritSlots on weapons,
is to keep them in line with BattleTech Construction rules(meaning any build in MWO can be ported into TT)
it seems like this is an effort to allow any BattleTech Product to be semi compatible with each other,
(as so players wont get confused on Equipment Weights/Crits between MWO/MW5/TT(CGL)/BattleTech(HBS)

that at least seems to be the jist of it,

not that LBX class of weapons dont need a buff(as i personally agree they need some love)
but LBXs are more likely to get decreased cooldowns before decreased Tonnage or CritSlot reductions,

[ESC 907]

How's this: You get your LB fixed, and WE (Clans) get our AC fixed?

[El Bandito]

Andi Nagasia, on 03 January 2018 - 04:45 PM, said:

this has been brought up before,
it seems the reason PGI is reluctant to change Tonnage or CritSlots on weapons,
is to keep them in line with BattleTech Construction rules(meaning any build in MWO can be ported into TT)
it seems like this is an effort to allow any BattleTech Product to be semi compatible with each other,
(as so players wont get confused on Equipment Weights/Crits between MWO/MW5/TT(CGL)/BattleTech(HBS)

Bah, MW4 didn't care about details like accurate slot number, and it was successful. PGI simply lacks imagination.

Edited by El Bandito, 03 January 2018 - 05:43 PM.

[Athom83]

Or just make it like how that LB20 Hellbringer bug was, where it stayed as a single 'projectile' up till optimal then spread out.

[Mystere]

Armored Yokai, on 03 January 2018 - 03:27 PM, said:

LBX is a underperforming weapon just because of the TT stats and lack of single shots and i think they should be changed to allow more build options.

LB 20X AC - 10 criticals and 13 tons (People should be able to mount them in the arms

LB 10X AC - Fine as is

LB 5X AC - 4 Crits 7/7.5/8 tons

LB 2X AC - 3 crits 5/5.5/6 tons

if Clan also has problems vs these they should just get slightly increased range

Considering tonnage and criticals are the last of the lore elements still being followed, I say:

NO!

Edited by Mystere, 03 January 2018 - 06:33 PM.

[FupDup]

Mystere, on 03 January 2018 - 06:33 PM, said:

Considering tonnage and criticals are the last of the lore elements still being followed, I say:

NO!

I'd classify it more similar to game rules rather than lore (an important distinction).

Failing that, I think that PGI and/or CGL could just invent their own new line of upgraded LBX weaponry ("Improved LBX") that has the LB 2/5/20 follow the same pattern as the original LB 10-X and then just remove the old legacy LBX's.

[Mystere]

El Bandito, on 03 January 2018 - 05:42 PM, said:

Bah, MW4 didn't care about details like accurate slot number, and it was successful. PGI simply lacks imagination the capability to implement ammo switching.

FTFY. And I'm being entirely too kind to PGI.

[Armored Yokai]

Andi Nagasia, on 03 January 2018 - 04:45 PM, said:

not that LBX class of weapons dont need a buff(as i personally agree they need some love)
but LBXs are more likely to get decreased cooldowns before decreased Tonnage or CritSlot reductions,

I think regular ACs should have their cds decreased by 30-50% to make them more Auto based and while having range fall off/projectile speed reduced while LB focus on range/velocity/crit but since they lack single shots they need something else to stay on par with regular ACs

Edited by Armored Yokai, 03 January 2018 - 06:40 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Easy fix for LB-ACs: increase damage per pellet. Start somewhere in the 1.2-1.5 range and iterate around whichever number was chosen based on performance metrics.

Difficult fix for LB-ACs: work out how to do the coding for either (1) air burst cannister rounds or (2) select-fire ammo types.

Of the two, PGI will never do the second, leaving the first as the obvious place for them to buff LB-ACs and make them have an actual purpose.

[Davegt27]

why don't we keep things as is for a time

[xe N on]

In FPS with one body hit zone, shotguns are viable. Normally shotguns are close up high damage weapons. Even with spread, each pellet hit does damage to the body.

Shotguns are useless in MWO because you normally focus on one mech part. Pellets, that hit other part are wasted. The whole concept of a shotgun-like LBX is completely bad.

Quote from Sarna: The cluster round fragments in flight, peppering the target with hundreds of explosive submunitions.

So, LBX should fire cluster rounds that explode to shrapnels next to the target. Gamewise LBX therefore should work like CER-PPCs.They fire one round that if it hit does damage to the component hit but additional spread damage to adjacent components.

For example: LBX 10 would do 8 damage PPFLD, but 5 damage spread.

Edited by xe N on, 05 January 2018 - 01:29 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

I've heard it in the forums that PGI wanted backwards compatibility with MWO to TT, yet the system could not accommodate 2x LB20X on the arms like that of the 005 King Crab. Lol.

Converting 1 ton and 1 slot of LB20X into 1 ton of ammo and back from MWO and TT isn't really that hard. Just put a footnote on the construction rules that applies differently from MWO, I mean they chose not to implement crit-splitting, even added C-ACs when there shouldn't be anything of the sort. Why would a simple change, some kind of a small verbal contract, is hard to do?

The Roughneck and Sunspider, along with other made up variants -- even make damage values different, they could break and add lore when they want.

The only explanation why LB20X is as it is today is because they want it to be bogus.

[Shifty McSwift]

If all ACs functioned as burst/stream fire, then LBX taking up more slots in general would make sense, and the AC/LBX gap would make sense along with the functionality being balanced at that baseline would allow for a semblance of standardisation in other areas.

The weird differences make it seem like they are different weapons rather than basically the same gun firing different rounds, which is how it should be right?