37 replies to this topic

[Navid A1]

IS LBX2 is 4 slots currently, which is how it is in BT lore. This makes it an inferior option compared to AC2 or UAC2, both being smaller and better.

Poll link: https://mwomercs.com...slot-size-poll/

I wanted to know people's opinion about IS LBX2 slot size. (4 slots vs 1 for AC2 and 3 for UAC2)
If PGI were to change one and only ONE weapon in the entire game...

Do you think we should not open that can of worms at all (even if it is just one particular case)?
Do you agree with a change to 3 slots?
Do you agree with a change to 2 slots?

Edited by Navid A1, 25 March 2021 - 12:39 PM.

[FupDup]

I feel weird about it because of the "can of worms" effect it may have (setting a precedent and people feeling entitled to their favorite weapon getting the same treatment). I think that in almost all cases of a weapon being too heavy or too bulky it's better to try to solve the issue with the weapon's offensive stats instead so that it justifies the greater investment.

In this case, I like the idea some people have for making LBX ACs have bigger alphas than regular ACs at the expense of slower firing rates. The other AC/2 variants are all about continuous shooting and death by a thousand papercuts. A slow but punchy LB 2-X would distinguish it from the pack.

Reducing its slot size also doesn't really give it anything it does special. It would still kill people less efficiently at long ranges than other AC/2 variants due to the spread it has. The AC/2's heat is already low enough that the LB 2-X's heat advantage doesn't really come into play.

Edited by FupDup, 25 March 2021 - 12:45 PM.

[Heavy Money]

I don't mind if we open that can of worms. I also don't mind if we fix it via some other method, like FupDup suggests.

LB20X's might be a better example. They are a nice weapon, but on the IS side they are almost never used because you just can't fit the damn things. They can only go in side torsos with standard engines. This severely limits which mechs can even equip them. And those mechs are often better off running something else instead. This holds true despite the LB20X's lack of heat and ghost heat. Meanwhile, Clan LB20X's get used more often because they can be put in arms and used with clan XL engines.

Something needs to be changed about the IS LB20X because it doesn't get played. So, which can of worms do we open?

If we increase the damage, then we're moving away from TT values in weapon damages for the first time (for ballistics).
If we reduce the slots so you can actually equip the damn thing, same problem.

If we change its cooldown a bunch or something, then we're desynching it from the Clan version. This has precedent, as IS ballistics tend to be slightly better (but heavier and bigger.) So I guess this is an option. But is this actually a good fix? This will open up even more of a gap between it, AC20's, and UAC20's.

Personally, I would like to see its slot size go down. The reason is because the LB20 is a solid weapon. Its DPS and all is just fine. The reason it doesn't see more use is because you can't equip it. So since that's the limiting factor, that's what should be addressed imo.

Edited by Heavy Money, 25 March 2021 - 02:10 PM.

[FupDup]

Heavy Money, on 25 March 2021 - 01:51 PM, said:

...
If we increase the damage, then we're moving away from TT values in weapon damages for the first time.
...

We've moved away from TT damage (and heat, range, etc.) values many, many times already. I can't even think of an MWO energy weapon that still uses all of its TT stats.

[Heavy Money]

FupDup, on 25 March 2021 - 02:07 PM, said:

We've moved away from TT damage (and heat, range, etc.) values many, many times already. I can't even think of an MWO energy weapon that still uses all of its TT stats.

Sorry, I meant for Ballistics. Don't those all match still? They match their size at least.

[FupDup]

Heavy Money, on 25 March 2021 - 02:10 PM, said:

Sorry, I meant for Ballistics. Don't those all match still? They match their size at least.

For ballistics, MGs and RACs are way different.

Admittedly PGI has stuck to their guns (heh) when it comes to AC/UAC/LBX damage values.

[Zigmund Freud]

Heavy Money, on 25 March 2021 - 01:51 PM, said:

I don't mind if we open that can of worms. I also don't mind if we fix it via some other method, like FupDup suggests.

LB20X's might be a better example. They are a nice weapon, but on the IS side they are almost never used because you just can't fit the damn things. They can only go in side torsos with standard engines. This severely limits which mechs can even equip them. And those mechs are often better off running something else instead. This holds true despite the LB20X's lack of heat and ghost heat. Meanwhile, Clan LB20X's get used more often because they can be put in arms and used with clan XL engines.

Something needs to be changed about the IS LB20X because it doesn't get played. So, which can of worms do we open?

If we increase the damage, then we're moving away from TT values in weapon damages for the first time.
If we reduce the slots so you can actually equip the damn thing, same problem.

If we change its cooldown a bunch or something, then we're desynching it from the Clan version. This has precedent, as IS ballistics tend to be slightly better (but heavier and bigger.) So I guess this is an option. But is this actually a good fix? This will open up even more of a gap between it, AC20's, and UAC20's.

Personally, I would like to see its slot size go down. The reason is because the LB20 is a solid weapon. Its DPS and all is just fine. The reason it doesn't see more use is because you can't equip it. So since that's the limiting factor, that's what should be addressed imo.

Many people, me included, were saying since PTS that LB20X should be AT LEAST same slots size or one slot smaller that AC20. It would never be OP because of all the spread comparing to AC's pinpoint, but at least it would be fun. Right now if you want to bring it, you have to go for STD engine, and there's no reason to require such a sacrifice for such a weapon. It's not HGauss.

I do like the idea of giving LBX more alpha than equal AC, since it spreads anyway. Don't have to be a lot, 2.5, 6.25, 12 and 24 dmg or even less would be enough to make them more viable.

[The6thMessenger]

Navid A1, on 25 March 2021 - 12:34 PM, said:

IS LBX2 is 4 slots currently, which is how it is in BT lore. This makes it an inferior option compared to AC2 or UAC2, both being smaller and better.

I honestly think that this is the case with LB5X and LB20Xs as well. The LB20X can only get away with it because it's the high-end damage, and vs AC20, it can be fire twice and has had synergy with SNPPC.

[mike29tw]

I support changing damage values of LBX.

Actually, I would like to consider changing the damage values of all AC if possible. One of the reason I dislike using 5s and 10s of the ACs is because of the awkward cooldown making them incompatible with other weapon types. If you want to use 5s and 10s in any capacity in heavies/assaults, you pretty much have to boat them, ala Mad Cat Mk. II.

I enjoy mixing weapon types and families and discovering new working combinations, and AC5s and 10s exclude other weapon types. I'd like that to change if possible. For example, having IS AC5s sync up with IS medium pulse and then balance IS AC5s damage accordingly would open up a lot of potential new builds.

[Wildstreak]

Heck no, I figure others know this seems aimed at only helping certain variants (not 1 particular case) that could get help through other means and does indeed open a massive can of worse than worms. Some responses prove this and others would very likely follow.

LBX2 like other weapons do have buffs over TT as well.

Time would be better spent trying to make sure the old argument is not raised again along with discussing minimum range issues on some weapons.

Edited by Wildstreak, 25 March 2021 - 05:03 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Navid A1, on 25 March 2021 - 12:34 PM, said:

IS LBX2 is 4 slots currently, which is how it is in BT lore. This makes it an inferior option compared to AC2 or UAC2, both being smaller and better.

Poll link: https://mwomercs.com...slot-size-poll/

I wanted to know people's opinion about IS LBX2 slot size. (4 slots vs 1 for AC2 and 3 for UAC2)
If PGI were to change one and only ONE weapon in the entire game...

Do you think we should not open that can of worms at all (even if it is just one particular case)?
Do you agree with a change to 3 slots?
Do you agree with a change to 2 slots?

Man, I suggested this to Kras in ASHcord a couple weeks ago. But I also think the slot reduction should extend at least to the LB-5X as well. I think 1-slot each would be sufficient to make them usable.

[D A N G E R O U S]

I do not know (I am not for or against).

But I think it might be best to wait for results from the upcoming PTS before we consider something as big as Critical Slot size adjustments.

Reason why I bring this up, is there was a few mechs that had Critical Slot Adjustments, and builds became invalid. (An example of this, was the Battlemaster getting a hand actuator). I do not mind this change, but there were some bugs that went out for a short period of time due to this.

To limit the amount possibly of bugs that go out- I think we should focus on the first weapon balance PTS-- evaluate the data, and then move on from there for things that go beyond "simple" xml changes.

[Y E O N N E]

Reducing slot count on a piece of equipment will never make a build invalid on account of construction rules.

[D A N G E R O U S]

Y E O N N E, on 25 March 2021 - 07:21 PM, said:

Reducing slot count on a piece of equipment will never make a build invalid on account of construction rules.

While you are most likely correct, I do not know if we can say "never"

Since I do not know exactly how things are coded, let me give a potential possibility.

Lets say an Inner Sphere mech : MAD-3R

Using this as an example: Lets pretend someone has this loadout on their mech before the patch goes live.

In the right torso there are 12 critical slots.
The first LB2 is in slot 1
The second LB2 is in slot 5
The third LB2 is in slot 9

In this scenario, what happens if we shrink the critical slots that LB 2-X AC down to 3 slots down from 4 (coding wise)?
Does MWO keep the weapons in the following slots?
The first LB2 is in slot 1
The second LB2 is in slot 5
The third LB2 is in slot 9

If so, what happens to Slot 4, and Slot 8? Does MWO automatically move the weapons up or is there an indexing problem?

[Y E O N N E]

D A N G E R O U S, on 25 March 2021 - 08:13 PM, said:

While you are most likely correct, I do not know if we can say "never"

Since I do not know exactly how things are coded, let me give a potential possibility.

Lets say an Inner Sphere mech : MAD-3R

Using this as an example: Lets pretend someone has this loadout on their mech before the patch goes live.

In the right torso there are 12 critical slots.
The first LB2 is in slot 1
The second LB2 is in slot 5
The third LB2 is in slot 9

In this scenario, what happens if we shrink the critical slots that LB 2-X AC down to 3 slots down from 4 (coding wise)?
Does MWO keep the weapons in the following slots?
The first LB2 is in slot 1
The second LB2 is in slot 5
The third LB2 is in slot 9

If so, what happens to Slot 4, and Slot 8? Does MWO automatically move the weapons up or is there an indexing problem?

Note, I said nothing about the code. The code can be broken in all manner of ways. What I said was that you will never be in violation of the construction rules if you reduce the slot-count on equipment; it's mathematically impossible. If you increased it, you would be.

You might still have to make a token change to every single 'Mech with the altered weapon so you can clear an "INVALID".

[General Solo]

Sure , reduce LBx2 slots by one.

Could we also reduce light PPC slot by one

[D A N G E R O U S]

Y E O N N E, on 25 March 2021 - 09:00 PM, said:

Note, I said nothing about the code. The code can be broken in all manner of ways. What I said was that you will never be in violation of the construction rules if you reduce the slot-count on equipment; it's mathematically impossible. If you increased it, you would be.

You might still have to make a token change to every single 'Mech with the altered weapon so you can clear an "INVALID".

While it’s true you said nothing about code, my original post said:

D A N G E R O U S, on 25 March 2021 - 07:06 PM, said:

I do not know (I am not for or against).
To limit the amount possibly of bugs that go out- I think we should focus on the first weapon balance PTS-- evaluate the data, and then move on from there for things that go beyond “simple” xml changes.

Please keep in mind that I am not “for” or “against” the proposed LBX2 change, I would just rather we get through the Community Driven Weapon Balance PTS first (since it is supposedly a “simple” XML change). That already will be a big change and needs evaluation.

After that, I “personally” would not mind discussion on stuff that isn’t just a “simple” XML change... like mech resizing... or critical slot changes... or mech agility... engine re-sync...

Let’s fire off all cylinders at the task at hand?

[HenryFA]

Reduce LBX20 slots, so we can fit it on our king crabs...

[General Solo]

Mmm may be reducing slots on weapons is another way to balance them.

Viva a la Light PPC

-1 slot

Edited by General Solo, 26 March 2021 - 01:35 AM.

[jjm1]

It's hard to comment about a weapon as obsolete as this one.

Rather than bring it in line with AC-2s, it could be adjusted in other ways so it gets its own niche and fits to mechs that can't equip enough AC-2s to be worth it. A bit like how clan heavy lasers take up a lot of space for the same tonnage.