233 replies to this topic

[Arctu]

Volthorne:

While I do not agree with Darren Tyler about the Catapult, his posts are not as agressive as yours. Please cut back on the personal attacks and focus on the topic.

Darren Tyler, on 19 June 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

I would disagree, personally I prefer a catapult over a stalker and I would say stalkers are inferior. But that is my opinion.

It would be great to hear your arguments about why you prefer the LRM Catapult to the LRM Stalker.

Guess I need to go first:
- Stalker has more tonnage available and also more missile tubes. You can deal more damage and/or fire more salvos.
- Stalker has more armor
- Stalker has better hitboxes (no oversized cockpit, side torsos that protect the center core)
- Stalker has more laser hardpoints. medium lasers are probably the best defense against light/medium mechs when considering their weight. You also get to fit a TAG rather easily
- Stalker can be fast enough to easily swim with the group. I don't think more speed is necessary, since you are not supposed to run off on your own.

So what does the Catapult offer you? Do you really utilize the speed advantage or the jumpjets so much, that it more than makes up for dealing less damage, having less ammunition and dying a lot faster?


-

[Volthorne]

Darren Tyler, on 19 June 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

Before you started with the childish insults which derailed this thread, we were at least having a discussion about head size of a catapult.

Yes, a "discussion". Notice the quotes marks?

dis·cus·sion
/disˈkəSHən/
Noun
The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
A conversation or debate about a certain topic.

In reality what was happening was everyone else having a discussion and you calling them noobs ("L2P"/"you're not using it right, obviously" and other such garbage) and doing your damned best to avoid any serious response when people called you out on your ******** - multiple times, might I add.

Quote

Your post just shows how immature you are. You are really getting desperate and straying far from the topic of this thread.

Ever heard the phrase "don't feed the troll"? Your continued insistence that I'm the immature one when the evidence clearly states otherwise is hilarious.

Arctu, on 19 June 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

Volthorne:
While I do not agree with Darren Tyler about the Catapult, his posts are not as agressive as yours. Please cut back on the personal attacks and focus on the topic.

To be fair, he never had any intention of contributing anything meaningful to begin with (evidence: pages 1-6). Yes, I did get a bit over aggressive, but I would take aggressiveness over being a toolbag any day. I will not apologize for doing my damnedest to keep the topic on a constructive path. I will apologize to everyone but Darren for the last 2 pages, though. Sorry you had to see that.

Edited by Volthorne, 19 June 2013 - 03:48 PM.

[ExtremeA79]

Arctu, on 19 June 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

Volthorne:

While I do not agree with Darren Tyler about the Catapult, his posts are not as agressive as yours. Please cut back on the personal attacks and focus on the topic.



It would be great to hear your arguments about why you prefer the LRM Catapult to the LRM Stalker.

Guess I need to go first:
- Stalker has more tonnage available and also more missile tubes. You can deal more damage and/or fire more salvos.
- Stalker has more armor
- Stalker has better hitboxes (no oversized cockpit, side torsos that protect the center core)
- Stalker has more laser hardpoints. medium lasers are probably the best defense against light/medium mechs when considering their weight. You also get to fit a TAG rather easily
- Stalker can be fast enough to easily swim with the group. I don't think more speed is necessary, since you are not supposed to run off on your own.

So what does the Catapult offer you? Do you really utilize the speed advantage or the jumpjets so much, that it more than makes up for dealing less damage, having less ammunition and dying a lot faster?


-

I really dislike slow mechs, which is why I usually go light or medium. Catapult can go faster than the Stalker. Jumpjets are something I also really like even post nerf. (though it really pushes down the effectiveness of the catapult)
I use a XL engine for the extra speed and although it allows dying from Side torso destruction, chances are if you are engaged in close combat you are already dead so I went XL. It allows for good acceleration, speed, twist speed, and I feel it actually has a effect on Jump Jets too but it might just be me.
With the torso twist speed there is about 120 degree (I think) twist range which, again, coupled with the extra speed allows me to get targets locked quicker.
Although yeah speed might not matter to much to you, I like to fire and quickly move when the missiles hit to reposition myself. Which is quicker in a catapult.
Catapults have more missile slots (not hardpoints, the slots which missiles come out of) allowing to fire an entire volley instead of firing several volleys. This allows me to spend less time keeping track and is able to get more hits past AMS.
The head size hasn't really been a big major problem to me. I do occasionally get capped but it's every 10-20 matches, and it usually happens when most of my team is demolished, while the other team is 100% fine and they are all around us in close range. Even in a Stalker I would not really survive that, let alone win the match.

The last time I tried a Stalker was in March and I sold it a few weeks later. If they can go faster or have some other buff I will consider buying them again. But right now I am fine with my catapult and planning to buy a trebutchet.

[ExtremeA79]

Volthorne, on 19 June 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

Yes, a "discussion". Notice the quotes marks?

dis·cus·sion
/disˈkəSHən/
Noun
The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
A conversation or debate about a certain topic.

In reality what was happening was everyone else having a discussion and you calling them noobs ("L2P"/"you're not using it right, obviously" and other such garbage) and doing your damned best to avoid any serious response when people called you out on your ******** - multiple times, might I add.


Ever heard the phrase "don't feed the troll"? Your continued insistence that I'm the immature one when the evidence clearly states otherwise is hilarious.


To be fair, he never had any intention of contributing anything meaningful to begin with (evidence: pages 1-6). Yes, I did get a bit over aggressive, but I would take aggressiveness over being a toolbag any day. I will not apologize for doing my damnedest to keep the topic on a constructive path. I will apologize to everyone but Darren for the last 2 pages, though. Sorry you had to see that.

I wasn't trolling, and I sincerely believe that they were just not using it right. Right now I know alot more about ELO, so I can blame it also.

Other way around?
You have been relentless with the personal attacks, and some how that is not immature?
You have done little to keep this on a constructive path, little.

Might I also add that what you believe (me having no intention of contributing) is wrong. And unless you can read minds, you will probably always think that.

But whatever floats your boat. (which seems to have alot of holes)

Edited by Darren Tyler, 19 June 2013 - 03:59 PM.

[Sheraf]

The head of catapult is big because that mech is not suppose to show its face in the front line alot.

[ExtremeA79]

Sheraf, on 19 June 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

The head of catapult is big because that mech is not suppose to show its face in the front line alot.

That is what I have been saying.

[Volthorne]

Sheraf, on 19 June 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

The head of catapult is big because that mech is not suppose to show its face in the front line alot.

Why? Why should JUST the Catapult suffer from this issue? If it's because it mostly carries LRMs, then why is the Trebuchet not also affected? This kind of thinking baffles me because it is flat out WRONG.

Darren Tyler, on 19 June 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

That is what I have been saying.

You're also wrong for thinking so and STILL haven't provided any reasonable explanation (this makes 5+ pages of waiting now).

Edited by Volthorne, 19 June 2013 - 04:11 PM.

[Sheraf]

Volthorne, on 19 June 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

Why? Why should JUST the Catapult suffer from this issue? If it's because it mostly carries LRMs, then why is the Trebuchet not also affected? This kind of thinking baffles me because it is flat out WRONG.

The Treb is welcome to show up in the front line , actually anything with medium armor is welcome. The Catapult ability to launch LRM is better than the Treb. It would work better as a support mech just behind the bigger assualt mech in front as its shield

Edited by Sheraf, 19 June 2013 - 04:11 PM.

[ExtremeA79]

Sheraf, on 19 June 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

The Treb is welcome to show up in the front line , actually anything with medium armor is welcome. The Catapult ability to launch LRM is better than the Treb. It would work better as a support mech just behind the bigger assualt mech in front as its shield

I was just about to say this.

[ExtremeA79]

Sheraf can put things into words better than I can.

[Volthorne]

Sheraf, on 19 June 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

The Treb is welcome to show up in the front line , actually anything with medium armor is welcome. The Catapult ability to launch LRM is better than the Treb. It would work better as a support mech just behind the bigger assualt mech in front as its shield

So let me get this straight: you want the 'Mech with LESS total armour on the frontline because... It's easier to kill? I fail to see how that would be a good thing. The Trenchbucket has one less MLas than the Catapult, less armour, and less heat sinks for a marginal increase in speed.

Please explain this ***-backwards logic to me. I can understand wanting more Mediums on the field in general, but this is such a ****** reason I can't believe you even considered it.

[ExtremeA79]

Volthorne, on 19 June 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

So let me get this straight: you want the 'Mech with LESS total armour on the frontline because... It's easier to kill? I fail to see how that would be a good thing. The Trenchbucket has one less MLas than the Catapult, less armour, and less heat sinks for a marginal increase in speed.

Please explain this ***-backwards logic to me. I can understand wanting more Mediums on the field in general, but this is such a ****** reason I can't believe you even considered it.

Well if you look deeper, instead of just looking on the surface, you would see it would be better because A: doesn't have a bigger hit box B: its a little smaller. C:its faster D: has a lighter loadout.
Artemis works very well with TBT

Edited by Darren Tyler, 19 June 2013 - 04:53 PM.

[Volthorne]

Darren Tyler, on 19 June 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

Well if you look deeper, instead of just looking on the surface

There is no looking "deeper". There are logical reasons and statistics (both of which factor into balance). The logic behind giving the Catapult a ******* huge cockpit hitbox makes no ******* sense logically OR statistically, which makes for ****-poor blance. End of story.

[ExtremeA79]

Volthorne, on 19 June 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

There is no looking "deeper". There are logical reasons and statistics (both of which factor into balance). The logic behind giving the Catapult a ******* huge cockpit hitbox makes no ******* sense logically OR statistically, which makes for ****-poor blance. End of story.

You ask about the TBT and quickly switch back to the catapult...

And no, it does not make crap balance.

[Volthorne]

Darren Tyler, on 19 June 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

You ask about the TBT and quickly switch back to the catapult...

And no, it does not make crap balance.

Fine, here's an experiment.

Assuming you know nothing about the game: I give you two 'Mechs, of roughly the same tonnage, and both mount main weapons that require you stare directly at the enemy for 3-8 seconds to land a possible hit. One of them has better defensive weapons, but a massive and easy to hit weakspot that can get you killed in as little as one shot. The other has no such weakspot and mounts fewer defensive weapons.

Which do you pick?

I think it's pretty ******* obvious which 'Mech most people would pick. Now I'd love to hear how that doesn't make for ****** balance, because I just can't see it.

Edited by Volthorne, 19 June 2013 - 10:00 PM.

[Takony]

The hypocritical "support mech" arguments are total bullsh1t.

The Catapult head hitbox is too big, period.

Before HSR, it _might_ have been a "balancing factor" (I call BS on that too, tbh.), but currently, when shots mostly go where you aim, it is just an outdated thing of the past and should disappear, i.e. the head hitbox should be reduced to be _in line_ with the other mechs (Cataphract comes to mind).

Edit: lets not forget the quirks, which in the case of pults were severe nerfs across the board with zero buffs!
Hell, just yesterday even I headshotted 2 Catapults in the same match, and my accuracy with AC20 and PPC is just 62-66%.
Not to mention you can headshot them from the sides too, I remember vividly headshotting one from the right side with a snapshot when we just zipped by each other running parallel, in the opposite directions in upper River City: I was like WTF that's lame!

Edited by Takony, 20 June 2013 - 11:15 PM.

[ExtremeA79]

Volthorne, on 19 June 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

Fine, here's an experiment.

Assuming you know nothing about the game: I give you two 'Mechs, of roughly the same tonnage, and both mount main weapons that require you stare directly at the enemy for 3-8 seconds to land a possible hit. One of them has better defensive weapons, but a massive and easy to hit weakspot that can get you killed in as little as one shot. The other has no such weakspot and mounts fewer defensive weapons.

Which do you pick?

I think it's pretty ******* obvious which 'Mech most people would pick. Now I'd love to hear how that doesn't make for ****** balance, because I just can't see it.

You did not include armor. jump jets, twist, and which one can carry more firepower (LRM's)
I think you purposely not induced those things to support your argument.

Takony, on 20 June 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

The hypocritical "support mech" arguments are total bullsh1t.

The Catapult head hitbox is too big, period.

Before HSR, it _might_ have been a "balancing factor" (I call BS on that too, tbh.), but currently, when shots mostly go where you aim, it is just an outdated thing of the past and should disappear, i.e. the head hitbox should be reduced to be _in line_ with the other mechs (Cataphract comes to mind).

Hell, just yesterday even I headshotted 2 Catapults in the same match, and my accuracy with AC20 and PPC is just 62-66%.
Not to mention you can headshot them from the sides too, I remember vividly headshotting one from the right side with a snapshot when we just zipped by each other running parallel, in the opposite directions in upper River City: I was like WTF that's lame!

Um, ELO?

[Volthorne]

Darren Tyler, on 20 June 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

You did not include armor. jump jets, twist, and which one can carry more firepower (LRM's)
I think you purposely not induced those things to support your argument.

Because those don't even matter that much when it comes to one 'Mech having a GIANT ******* OHKO SPOT? Clearly you just want the Catapult to be **** because you have a vendetta against it for whatever the **** unacceptable reason you can come up with. I'm done trying to make you see exactly how WRONG you are.

Quote

Um, ELO?

I don't even...?

Edited by Volthorne, 20 June 2013 - 12:29 PM.

[ExtremeA79]

Volthorne, on 20 June 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Because those don't even matter that much when it comes to one 'Mech having a GIANT ******* ONESHOT SPOT? Clearly you just want the Catapult to be **** because you have a vendetta against it for whatever the **** unacceptable reason you can come up with. I'm done trying to make you see exactly how WRONG you are.


I don't even...?

Doesn't even matter? That does matter whether you like it or not. And I have a C4 catapult and enjoy it very much.

[Sheraf]

Arctu, on 19 June 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

Volthorne:

While I do not agree with Darren Tyler about the Catapult, his posts are not as agressive as yours. Please cut back on the personal attacks and focus on the topic.



It would be great to hear your arguments about why you prefer the LRM Catapult to the LRM Stalker.

Guess I need to go first:
- Stalker has more tonnage available and also more missile tubes. You can deal more damage and/or fire more salvos.
- Stalker has more armor
- Stalker has better hitboxes (no oversized cockpit, side torsos that protect the center core)
- Stalker has more laser hardpoints. medium lasers are probably the best defense against light/medium mechs when considering their weight. You also get to fit a TAG rather easily
- Stalker can be fast enough to easily swim with the group. I don't think more speed is necessary, since you are not supposed to run off on your own.

So what does the Catapult offer you? Do you really utilize the speed advantage or the jumpjets so much, that it more than makes up for dealing less damage, having less ammunition and dying a lot faster?


-

The jumpjet help alot, especially for LRM, allow you yo get into the right position you want to launch at. Sometimes just jump and launch LRM make a difference between hit the wall, and able to shoot pass the wall

The Stalker has more armor, and big side torsos, but that also where all the weapons are, take one down and it at 50% fire power. Stalker most have 10 LRM tube each arm only compare to 15 of Catapult, with exception of Stalker 3H which has 20 tubes vs. the Catapult C4 which also has 20 tube, but C4 has greater range of torso twist and more speed, ability to jump, can carry more modules.