169 replies to this topic

[Penance]

p00k, on 18 February 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

it *could* stand for 10 pellets

sort of like how lrm10's used to stand for 10 damage but now stands for 10 missiles that do 18 damage

and no, don't have it do 1.5 or 2 per pellet. start with 1.2, and see what happens. if it still needs work, go to 1.3 or 1.4. 50-100% change in damage at one time is an awful way to balance things

it's both...10 pellets and 10 damage (1 per pellet).

OP is asking for an LBX 15

SpiralRazor, on 18 February 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

So SRM-6 stands for Six damage? Okay. And yeah, my point is that we dont have Laser 270 or LRM 1 anymore, but yes....we did.

The designations on missile weapons and projectiles are different. The numbers in missile designations represent the number of missiles per volley, on projectiles, the damage per hit.


I would personally like to use the LBX here and there, but it's a little too weak. From the animations, it looks like the pellets need to be rendered smaller, and the spread tighter.

Edited by Penance, 18 February 2013 - 09:44 AM.

[De La Fresniere]

The LB10-X is terrible and needs a huge buff, that much is clear.

I would start with a much tighter grouping. This would avoid wasting most of its damage (which is what happens right now) and give it an effective range better than its current pathetic one.

I don't think that'd be enough to make it competitive (especially not considering its price), though, so I'd also bring its damage up to 1.2 per pellet.

Without the better grouping, its damage would need to be brough up to 1.5 per pellet. It'd be like a lighter Gauss at point blank range, but still terrible beyond 200m.

[ItsAPotato]

The LBX is also an outstanding Gauss hunter. While I don't find it to crit any other weapon/equipment type any better than any other weapon, it DOES take out Gauss targets much faster.

That said, it definitely needs a price nerf, as 800k is a ridiculous price for the weapon.

[SpiralRazor]

ItsAPotato, on 18 February 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

The LBX is also an outstanding Gauss hunter. While I don't find it to crit any other weapon/equipment type any better than any other weapon, it DOES take out Gauss targets much faster.

That said, it definitely needs a price nerf, as 800k is a ridiculous price for the weapon.

It does not....because of the way critical damage works and the calculations involved.....

Anything except MGS and Flamers can take out a gauss faster then LBX10s.

800k is totally acceptable, if the weapon had the same utility and effectiveness here as it does on TT.


Face it, without TACs, crap effective range and low per packet effect, this weapon sucks.

Edited by SpiralRazor, 18 February 2013 - 09:49 AM.

[0X2A]

=>Keep the 10 damage (LBX/10)
=>Up the fire rate.
Imo

[LaserAngel]

I carry AC/10s on two of my Atlas (Laugh it up, it's the RS and K.) If I had slugs and crit seeking shotgun shells, that extra ton and critical space saved would make a world of difference. 2 tons of slug and a 1 of shot.

[De La Fresniere]

SpiralRazor, on 18 February 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

Anything except MGS and Flamers can take out a gauss faster then LBX10s.

Actually, the Gauss is the *one* item that an LB10-X will destroy faster than a regular weapon could.

But indeed, it's lacking on so many levels, that's nowhere near enough to make it anywhere near viable.

Edited by De La Fresniere, 18 February 2013 - 09:55 AM.

[SpiralRazor]

0X2A, on 18 February 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

=>Keep the 10 damage (LBX/10)
=>Up the fire rate.
Imo

Normally I am a proponent of firing rate, but nopes...this is purely a damage and effective range issue on the LB10s.

Straight firing rate increases wouldnt do much to alleviate the platforms problems unless you lowered the ROF to 1.7. But even THEN the whacked EFFECTIVE RANGE would be a real problem still...

I am a fan of truth in advertising.....540 should mean 540 and i should STILL be able to put half the pellets on a target at 1620.

Edited by SpiralRazor, 18 February 2013 - 09:57 AM.

[skelley92]

Keep the damage the same. Tighten up the spread and increase the rate of fire a little.

Also, an alt fire mode were you can select between firing shot or slug rounds.

[Penance]

I think the LBX although good in theory, is terrible in practice.
It does nothing an AC5, 10, 20 couldn't do with a different round, and I think that's what this game could benefit from. I get lore, but they could modify that slightly, and remove the LBX, and give us more ammunition options at load out...HE rounds, AP rounds, Slugs, Pellets.

therefore any AC could become an LBX.

[General Taskeen]

AnnoyingCat, on 18 February 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

remember what the 10 stands for?

Are we playing a board game?

I mean, seriously, how many people have played past Mech Warrior games and worried if a damage value of a weapon was exactly as a board game value? I certainly never did, if it was close cool, but balancing these things in a real-time environment means changing damage, rate of fire, and heat values. MW:LL knew that, devs of other Mech titles knew that, etc.

Edited by General Taskeen, 18 February 2013 - 10:02 AM.

[MonkeyDCecil]

I am not sure if the damage needs to be raised. But I know for sure that the spread needs to be lowered. As it is right now the weapons is useless past about 350 on large mechs and 250 - 300 on small mechs. I will say this for the LBX, I find it works great on lights.

[Symbiodinium]

The LBX-10 scatters damage and is primarily useful against light mechs, as you don't need to do a lot of damage, only hit them. It's so big and heavy, however, that it can realistically only be placed on heavies and assaults, and those mechs probably shouldn't be dedicating 11 tons and 6 slots to shooting at lights. That's a pretty narrow, awkward niche.

Suggestion: Decrease the tonnage of the LBX-10 to ~6 and crit slots to ~4. Same DPS as an AC2 or AC5, but it can't be focused on specific components very well. That would make it usable by mediums (and some lights) as an anti-light/medium mech weapon that isn't affected by ECM. Bonus: strong against ECM Ravens.

Edited by Symbiodinium, 18 February 2013 - 10:10 AM.

[SpiralRazor]

Penance, on 18 February 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

I think the LBX although good in theory, is terrible in practice.
It does nothing an AC5, 10, 20 couldn't do with a different round, and I think that's what this game could benefit from. I get lore, but they could modify that slightly, and remove the LBX, and give us more ammunition options at load out...HE rounds, AP rounds, Slugs, Pellets.

therefore any AC could become an LBX.

Penance, on 18 February 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

I think the LBX although good in theory, is terrible in practice.
It does nothing an AC5, 10, 20 couldn't do with a different round, and I think that's what this game could benefit from. I get lore, but they could modify that slightly, and remove the LBX, and give us more ammunition options at load out...HE rounds, AP rounds, Slugs, Pellets.

therefore any AC could become an LBX.

Removing it messes with mechs that comes stock with one.

[p00k]

SpiralRazor, on 18 February 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Trust me, it will be nothing NOTHING like the Nov 6th patch bro... LBX 10 is a niche weapon for niche users, even at 2.0 damage. Messing with Criticals is pointless, as will be proven out in play just like I and several others have predicted.

Straight damage buffs solve problems when it comes to multi projectile weapons. Also, not to zoom in on the damage, but that

it's a niche weapon for niche users right now because it's, well, awful. inferior in most ways to its alternatives. and i'm not sure what "messing with criticals" people claim, but if you mean it's ability to "critseek" then you won't find any argument here, or anywhere i suspect; i think it's fairly established that the best way to affect crits is with weapons that do 10 damage at a time (though 5 will often suffice), and the better way is to just choose the weapon that can kill a mech outright

yes, straight damage buffs are what the lbx needs. it's the only reason the srms remain viable, by simply doing a crapload of damage for their tonnage. however, as a matter of game balance strategy, dramatic sweeping changes to any stat, be it damage, range, rof, etc, are bad ideas. doubling core values counts as a dramatic, sweeping change. imagine if instead of lowering the ppc's heat from 9 to 8, they dropped it from 9 to 4.5? or doubled its damage from 10 to 20?

as i said, if i had to throw a number out there, i suspect 1.5 would probably be about right. but again, dramatic changes as a policy are a bad way to balance games

[Vassago Rain]

0X2A, on 18 February 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

=>Keep the 10 damage (LBX/10)
=>Up the fire rate.
Imo

It's useless because it does 1 damage per pellet. It can't break through armor, it spreads the damage all over, it has a pathetic range, it costs half as much as a commando, low ammo per ton...

There's absolutely no reason to ever take this gun. Ever.

When I see an LBX mech, I go fight his buddies.

[Penance]

SpiralRazor, on 18 February 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

Removing it messes with mechs that comes stock with one.

SpiralRazor, on 18 February 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

Removing it messes with mechs that comes stock with one.

Yes & No.

Sure, it's loss changes things up, but in theory could just be replaced with an AC10 that fires buckshot. but i see what you're saying and understand that aspect of it.

But the weapon is most effective at extremely short ranges....like those moments where mechs come together to kiss.

[Khobai]

LB10X needs the following buffs:

1) firing pattern should be a cylinder rather than a cone so its effectiveness doesn't decrease at range.
2) cluster ammo damage should be increased by 50% (let's see how that works and go from there)
3) cluster ammo should do double critical damage to components (just a flat x2 modifier to critical damage)
4) LB10X should have the ability to switch between firing cluster and slug ammo

"But then why would anyone use the AC/10?"

No one should ever have to use AC/10s. The whole reason the LBX and UAC autocannons were introduced is because standard autocannons were AWFUL. FASA knew it so they released better versions of the autocannons to balance the autocannons with other weapons. But they couldn't get rid of the standard autocannons because they were already used in stock designs.

[p00k]

also, the fact that it costs 800k cbills should NOT factor into game balance. if you want to complain, make it cheaper. because it's a one time cost (not that R&R is still in effect anyways). it should not be "better" than weapons that only cost 400k. cbills in this game come easy, and 800k is, quite frankly, still chump change. even a casual player can get 800k in a short night of gaming

Khobai, on 18 February 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

No one should ever have to use AC/10s. The whole reason the LBX and UAC autocannons were introduced is because standard autocannons were AWFUL. FASA knew it so they released better versions of the autocannons to balance the autocannons with other weapons. But they couldn't get rid of the standard autocannons because they were already used in stock designs.

of course this isn't tabletop, and devs don't want certain weapon options to make others totally obsolete. hence the dilemma in how to implement clantech, since item for item clantech essentially makes all IS technology obsolete.

Edited by p00k, 18 February 2013 - 10:18 AM.

[WildeKarde]

I think I'd like to see a buff to the damage point blank for may 25% increase (say up to 150m), then normal damage up to 350m and then 75% from 350m to 540m. Make it more like a shotgun - it's for getting in close to the enemy.

We're talking only on the LB10 but any changes here will have a knock on effect when we get the other size of LB weapons.