61 replies to this topic

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Dee Eight, on 28 December 2018 - 09:18 PM, said:

Really...once they jumped the tech era and gave the IS mechs the LB-2, 5 and 20... they should have also given solid projectile versions of them to replace the standard ACs.

If IS had been given slug versions of its 2, 5, and 20-class LBX, nobody would've ever used them because they'd be objectively inferior to the standard ACs, offering additional build limitations because of bulk for no benefit other than a minimal heatgen reduction. The cluster shot versions are already marginal, except for the 10 which at least has its niche in being smaller and lighter than the standard version... and even that isn't anything to write home about.

Are you suggesting that PGI should've replaced the standard ACs with slug versions of the LBX? If they'd done that, every IS AC carrier not running 10s or Ultras would have been completely boned because of the slot increase. It'd be a direct nerf to every AC except the 10, and every build running them. It'd have broken a truly astonishing number of stock builds, requiring a ridiculous amount of work on PGI's end just to reconfigure 'Mechs already in the game. I can't even begin to unpack how stupid it would be to do that.

Edited by WrathOfDeadguy, 28 December 2018 - 09:46 PM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

The UAC on the IS side seems to fire more slugs than the Clan counterpart. Can anyone please confirm that?

Also, does LBX 10 fire 10 small pellets like the shotgun, which means it definitely needs the LBX spread reduction nodes whereas the LBX2 should fire 2 pellets, which might not necessarily need the said nodes. Am I right in some way here?

[LordNothing]

InspectorG, on 28 December 2018 - 07:36 PM, said:

8LB2 Ultraviolence. Keep the range around 500m, bore holes through CTs.

usually use cac2s, its a little hotter but its good out to 1km or so since there is no spread. and 16 damage every 0.72 seconds is pretty damn viable in a brawl too.

[Dee Eight]

WrathOfDeadguy, on 28 December 2018 - 09:44 PM, said:

If IS had been given slug versions of its 2, 5, and 20-class LBX, nobody would've ever used them because they'd be objectively inferior to the standard ACs, offering additional build limitations because of bulk for no benefit other than a minimal heatgen reduction.

No so... RANGE... 90m extra optimal on the 2 class, 70 on the 5 and 90 on the 20 is nothing to complain about.

Quote

Are you suggesting that PGI should've replaced the standard ACs with slug versions of the LBX? If they'd done that, every IS AC carrier not running 10s or Ultras would have been completely boned because of the slot increase. It'd be a direct nerf to every AC except the 10, and every build running them. It'd have broken a truly astonishing number of stock builds, requiring a ridiculous amount of work on PGI's end just to reconfigure 'Mechs already in the game. I can't even begin to unpack how stupid it would be to do that.

No, I am saying PGI should have given the IS PLAYERS the choice to use them just as clan players have that choice already. It might also have been the needed shove in PGI's programming arse to introduce crit splitting.

[LordNothing]

FRAGTAST1C, on 28 December 2018 - 09:53 PM, said:

The UAC on the IS side seems to fire more slugs than the Clan counterpart. Can anyone please confirm that?

Also, does LBX 10 fire 10 small pellets like the shotgun, which means it definitely needs the LBX spread reduction nodes whereas the LBX2 should fire 2 pellets, which might not necessarily need the said nodes. Am I right in some way here?

i think the clans have slightly higher jam chance than the is do. as far as shell count goes the is typically fires one less shell than the clan version.

Edited by LordNothing, 28 December 2018 - 10:10 PM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

LordNothing, on 28 December 2018 - 10:00 PM, said:

i think the clans have slightly higher jam chance than the is do. as far as shell count goes the is typically fires one less shell on the clan version.

If I'm reading that right, the Clan UAC fires fewer slugs but jams more. Which stupid Clan college did that inventor get his degree from?

Then again, they weigh less and occupy fewer slots (?)

[LordNothing]

i generally consider the is versions to be better.

[Dogstar]

I wanted to add a thought - do you chain fire or group fire your 2s?

Personally I prefer having all my 2s in a group with chain fire because then I get to click madly for a relentless stream of fire type effect, or hold it down for a slow and steady fire, and you can always fire just one if you're a bit tentative about the range.

One thing I've noticed with UAC2s and madly clicking chain fire is that eventually they will definitely ALL jam and then you have to back off. Try comparing a 5xUAC2 Night Gyr with a 4xAC2 Sun Spider to see this in action, the Night Gyr will be forced to back off sooner (or later) compared to the Sun Spider.

Quad plus ballistics for the win!

[FRAGTAST1C]

I think keeping chain fire and group fire as alternatives is wise as opposed to going for one or the other. If you're suppressing, then chain firing is better whereas if you want to do damage to single components, then firing all of them at the same time would be wise, I think.

[General Solo]

Group fire for more dps and less chances to miss, more damage per firing window
Chain is for when you are overheating or want to save ammo when you suppress/low chance shots

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 29 December 2018 - 03:26 AM.

[El Bandito]

FRAGTAST1C, on 28 December 2018 - 10:07 PM, said:

If I'm reading that right, the Clan UAC fires fewer slugs but jams more. Which stupid Clan college did that inventor get his degree from?

Then again, they weigh less and occupy fewer slots (?)

Nah, Clan UACs shoot more slugs per round and has more jam chance. These drawbacks were created by PGI to offset their superior weight/slot requirements. Not to mention superior CUAC range.

Edited by El Bandito, 29 December 2018 - 04:58 AM.

[jss78]

On my quad-AC/2 Jager the slot requirement kills the LB-2X for me.

With the 1-slot AC/2's, I can fit an XL-280, Endo AND Ferro.

[VonBruinwald]

jss78, on 29 December 2018 - 05:05 AM, said:

On my quad-AC/2 Jager the slot requirement kills the LB-2X for me.
With the 1-slot AC/2's, I can fit an XL-280, Endo AND Ferro.

How much ammo are you bringing? I can fit quad lbx-2 and 7tons of ammo with endo and ferro using a STD 260. You don't need extra sinks on that build and 7tons deals plenty of damage.

(See my post with screenshot and build (first page)).

[FRAGTAST1C]

Guess I'll go with the Mauler as my reward mech then. I can do a lot of dakka builds with it and also, something like AC20+LBX20 or some other combination thereof. Maybe even a brawler if I'm feeling like it with some SRMs.

The Nightstar Champion looks really promising but I think the Mauler is better.

[Dee Eight]

jss78, on 29 December 2018 - 05:05 AM, said:

On my quad-AC/2 Jager the slot requirement kills the LB-2X for me.

With the 1-slot AC/2's, I can fit an XL-280, Endo AND Ferro.

And die to a side torso kill...

[BrunoSSace]

I use lbx when I'm lagging, cause I can just aim center mass and the spred and crits do the rest. But one question, why the hell are lbx 2s so big?

[Mister Maf]

BrunoSSace, on 29 December 2018 - 06:57 AM, said:

I use lbx when I'm lagging, cause I can just aim center mass and the spred and crits do the rest. But one question, why the hell are lbx 2s so big?

Supposedly (according to someone else on the forums who told me this), FASA regretted making the LBX10 a blatant upgrade to the AC/10 on the tabletop game, so they made all the other LBX calibers have a tradeoff and for some reason refuse to release balance updates like other tabletop wargame companies do to fix the LBX10. PGI meanwhile insists on sticking rigidly to these weight and critspace values.

Edited by Mister Maf, 29 December 2018 - 01:35 PM.

[VonBruinwald]

Mister Maf, on 29 December 2018 - 01:34 PM, said:

Supposedly (according to someone else on the forums who told me this), FASA regretted making the LBX10 a blatant upgrade to the AC/10 on the tabletop game, so they made all the other LBX calibers have a tradeoff and for some reason refuse to release balance updates like other tabletop wargame companies do to fix the LBX10. PGI meanwhile insists on sticking rigidly to these weight and critspace values.

And yet they made the Clan LBX-10 even lighter and smaller with the same performance stats (and BV) as the IS version.

Pretty sure FASA have acknowledged that rebalancing would require a complete overhaul of Clan tech, and there's no way they're going there... you think the MWO clanners get salty....

[Helreginn]

I find AC2s better. In Inner Sphere for sure mainly because of the slots but also the pinpoint and the heat difference/crit potential of the LBX2s is too minimal to make up for the strengths of the AC2. AC2s requiring only 1 slot over the 4 for LBX2s is huge when you boat them which is the only effective way to play the weapon. Having access to full ferro on my Mauler MX-90 for example allows more ammo and better speed.

If they were the same slots it might be different as it is for Clans but Clan UAC2s are superior there and also require less slots.

[Y E O N N E]

VonBruinwald, on 29 December 2018 - 02:22 PM, said:

And yet they made the Clan LBX-10 even lighter and smaller with the same performance stats (and BV) as the IS version.

Pretty sure FASA have acknowledged that rebalancing would require a complete overhaul of Clan tech, and there's no way they're going there... you think the MWO clanners get salty....

Had Falkwulf, whom I think works for CGL or worked for FASA, trying to tell me that the cERLL and such are what was installed on the Royal variant Star League 'Mechs...

...which is patently false.