21 replies to this topic

[Barghest Whelp]

Hi.

This is probably a very noobish question, but from what I can read on the BT wiki http://www.sarna.net...10-X_Autocannon an LB 10-X AC can fire solid slugs as well as cluster rounds.

The question is, if I load up my mech equipped with an LB 10-X AC with standard AC 10 ammo, will I be able to fire them? Or do they require special ammo which has not yet been implemented?

I know that solid rounds present a problem due to the fact that the LB 10-X AC weighs one less ton, and takes up one less slot, but the way I understand the BT wiki, the LB 10-X AC is supposed to have less range?

I dunno, any answers would be greatly appreciated.

[nungunz]

Currently it's only cluster rounds

[Xeren KelDar]

Barghest Whelp, on 07 January 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

Hi.

This is probably a very noobish question, but from what I can read on the BT wiki http://www.sarna.net...10-X_Autocannon an LB 10-X AC can fire solid slugs as well as cluster rounds.

The question is, if I load up my mech equipped with an LB 10-X AC with standard AC 10 ammo, will I be able to fire them? Or do they require special ammo which has not yet been implemented?

I know that solid rounds present a problem due to the fact that the LB 10-X AC weighs one less ton, and takes up one less slot, but the way I understand the BT wiki, the LB 10-X AC is supposed to have less range?

I dunno, any answers would be greatly appreciated.

Actually for exact tabletop rules the LB 10x is better in every way. It is lighter, smaller, and shoots further. It replaces the normal AC 10 completely with its only disadvantage being cost (its double that of a normal AC 10). Like nungunz said though in MWO the LB fires only cluster rounds.

[twibs]

Canon aside, I think if LBX is given solid projectile, I think that damage of 7 or 8 would be good to balance it to AC/10

[Novawrecker]

twibs, on 08 January 2013 - 01:04 AM, said:

Canon aside, I think if LBX is given solid projectile, I think that damage of 7 or 8 would be good to balance it to AC/10

I do not think that will balance the LB-10X to keep it in line with the AC10. I believe that they should provide less shots per ton for both slug and cluster rounds (like 10 per ton, instead of 15) to all ammo assigned to the LB, as well as lessen the range of the cluster rounds. This way there is still incentive to play the AC10 despite the LB having the advantage of being able to use both rounds types.

Edited by Novawrecker, 09 January 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[Sennin]

Though solid ammo is not implemented in MWO (I honestly doubt it will ever be due to the standard AC/10 role argument) the fact that it requires two different ammo types to be fully used in it's intended capacity is it's greatest drawback. It's needs additional tons of ammo to be effective and it's far from an ideal situation when you have expended all of one ammo type while your immediate threat reqiures the opposite. I cant count how many times I have wished for a solid slug in my LBX when I came upon a largely fresh target.

[Grey Ghost]

Why would it be so devastating if the LB-10X AC got it's slug ammo making it the pure upgrade to the AC/10 exactly? Something wrong with people selling their AC/10's at a loss and then buying LB-10x AC's & ammo to replace them?

[twibs]

Because it's kinda stupid to keep redundant weapon systems in the game. AC/10 needs love too, and I kinda like the little ******.

[Barghest Whelp]

Grey Ghost, on 08 January 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

Why would it be so devastating if the LB-10X AC got it's slug ammo making it the pure upgrade to the AC/10 exactly? Something wrong with people selling their AC/10's at a loss and then buying LB-10x AC's & ammo to replace them?

Well, if they implement BV in the MM and for CW in the future, then perhaps this could be done. In the TT rules the LB-10X AC is balanced out by BV, and that works really well for the TT from what I've heard.

As it stands right now, the LB-10X AC is good for learning how to aim with balistics. I used to have them equipped on almost all my mechs, and it really helped me become a better shot with ballistics. Now that I'm better I've swapped to other weapons though.

In some cases I've exchanged them for 2xAC 5, and in some cases an AC10. For the 1X I actually replaced it with an AC20. But generally, I feel that once you've learned to shoot properly the LB-10X AC is less useful.

[BruteLeo]

I love big guns but the fire rate of the uac 5 is the kicker except when it jams. Wish the bigger guns had more decent firing rates

[Novawrecker]

Sennin, on 08 January 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Though solid ammo is not implemented in MWO

I hate to disagree with a fellow faction member, but they already have the solid rounds in the game: standard AC10 rounds. Just need to code it so it can be assigned to the LB-10X as well as the AC10.

Curious Sennin, you see a weapon capable of using two different ammo types as a drawback? Odd, I see that as a very useful advantage. It would improve on the current LB by leagues, or at least in my opinion. In the tabletop it completely outclassed the standard AC10 and with reason. I can see, however, how outclassing the AC10 in MWO can be frowned upon though ...

twibs, on 09 January 2013 - 02:04 AM, said:

Because it's kinda stupid to keep redundant weapon systems in the game. AC/10 needs love too, and I kinda like the little ******.

And yet, both can still exist in the game and be useful if they change the LB's ammo per ton as well as reduce the range on cluster rounds.

Edited by Novawrecker, 09 January 2013 - 10:35 AM.

[Sennin]

Novawrecker, on 09 January 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

I hate to disagree with a fellow faction member, but they already have the solid rounds in the game: standard AC10 rounds. Just need to code it so it can be assigned to the LB-10X as well as the AC10.

Curious Sennin, you see a weapon capable of using two different ammo types as a drawback? Odd, I see that as a very useful advantage. It would improve on the current LB by leagues, or at least in my opinion. In the tabletop it completely outclassed the standard AC10 and with reason. I can see, however, how outclassing the AC10 in MWO can be frowned upon though ...



And yet, both can still exist in the game and be useful if they change the LB's ammo per ton as well as reduce the range on cluster rounds.

Well I had a great response but my internet is acting horribly and erased it when I went to post.

Regarding solid ammo...I was refering to there not being solid ammo for the LB-10X in MWO.

The bottom line is I agree the LB-10X should replace the AC/10. It was meant to do so and Clan technology is the evident proof. As for the ammo being a drawback I was saying that if there was a drawback it would be that you need to carry more ammo to maintain the weapons greatest strength, thus taking up addition tonnage and critical slots.

Sorry, sometimes I am not as good with structuring responses as I would like to be.

Edited by Sennin, 09 January 2013 - 07:22 PM.

[Novawrecker]

Ahh. I understand what you mean now.

I agree with you, the LB should completely replace the AC10, but as an online game., I also understand how outshadowing a weapon for another of very smiliar types can be frowned upon. I hope they listen to the many suggestions several posters have provided them regarding how to balance that out, all while still having the LB carry both round types, and still have incentive for the AC10 to be around.

Time will tell,

[slayerkdm]

Its my favorite ballistic weapon, sadly, no change I can see, would make it better than an Ultra5. I love shotgunning mechs with my LBX10. However, if you want to kill something, the Ultra does it much better. The jamming is not that big a deal. You really need an energy weapon back up with either weapon. So if it jams, you are a laser mech. When it doesnt, you can kill heavies and Assaults if you double up your Ultra5. The LBX will never be able to to do that.

I love it, but its inferior, and I cant see solid slugs fixing it. Then again, I dont see the point of the Auto5 or the Auto10.

[Grey Ghost]

I honestly can't imagine anyone will care if the AC/10 falls out of wide spread use eventually. I don't even see how it would hurt the game either.

[Carrioncrows]

The only way I see them making the LB-10X fire solid shells is if they doubled the cycle rate on it.

For instance
LB-10x
3 sec cycle for cluster
6 sec cycle for solid

AC-10
3 sec cycle for solid

[MasterBLB]

In Mechwarrior universe LBX-10 is direct improvement to older AC10,therefore there is no need to force it to be "balanced".It's meant to be lighter,smaller AC10.It's the same like now,we just don't use musquets but assault rifles.
However,for the game sake instead any nerfs for LBX increase ammo per ton for AC10 up to 18-20,we can assume while inventing LBX-10 they discovered how to create less space-required shells for the older gun.
That would make sense to keep both these weapons in game,with canonical stats and without any need for any nerfs,but still they can different stigthly each other,and due to increased ammo per ton AC10 might still be an alternative to LBX.

[Kmieciu]

LBX should get solid ammo, AC/10 should get armor piercing ammo: http://www.sarna.net.../Armor-Piercing

Edited by Kmieciu, 13 January 2013 - 08:34 AM.

[Grey Ghost]

Kmieciu, on 13 January 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

LBX should get solid ammo, AC/10 should get armor piercing ammo: http://www.sarna.net.../Armor-Piercing

See that now, in 9 years the AC's will have something the LB-X's won't. 2022 (3059 BT) here we come!

[TruePoindexter]

Grey Ghost, on 13 January 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

See that now, in 9 years the AC's will have something the LB-X's won't. 2022 (3059 BT) here we come!

It's the alternate ammo types that keep standard AC's relevant in the age of Ultra/LBX AC's. It's not enough though and by the time Rotary AC's are on the scene standard AC's are all but forgotten.