1726 replies to this topic

[Tolkien]

Uite Dauphni, on 08 January 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

I thought the addons themselves didn't affect the hitboxes, though the arms being LRM20 sized makes their hitbox correspond to the LRM20 size, instead of the normal LRM15 size.

I've had people tell me that in their tests the addons do indeed affect the hit boxes of the catapult physically (as well as making it a much bigger target profile for the eyes to follow at range.)

I could be wrong, so if you really want to know grab a buddy with premium time and set up a private 1v1 to test it.

[MATRAKA14]

I was trying new builds for my C1 the first match with 4 MPL, 2 lmr15, 1 JJ.

If madcats can do it my cats can do it too.





Probably i got lucky, the match was difficult, and i got 3 good narqued mechs. The surprising fact is that the 60% 50% of the damage was made with the mpl (also 4 kills with mpl), maybe if they get quirked can make the C1 shine a bit.

Old smaller lrm15 launchers would help A LOT. You know the mech has the same size of assaults, and it's bigger than the stalker...

Edited by MATRAKA14, 08 January 2015 - 03:19 PM.

[zudukai]

will someone photoshop a TBR beside a CPLT? this really would showcase how wrong this is, how could anyone even mistake a TBR for a CPLT when they barely even look similar in size.

[MeiSooHaityu]

MATRAKA14, on 08 January 2015 - 03:16 PM, said:

I was trying new builds for my C1 the first match with 4 MPL, 2 lmr15, 1 JJ.

If madcats can do it my cats can do it too.





Probably i got lucky, the match was difficult, and i got 3 good narqued mechs. The surprising fact is that the 60% 50% of the damage was made with the mpl (also 4 kills with mpl), maybe if they get quirked can make the C1 shine a bit.

Old smaller lrm15 launchers would help A LOT. You know the mech has the same size of assaults, and it's bigger than the stalker...

For a C1, I ignore the LRM15 quirks. I run 2LLasers, 2MLasers, 2 LRM10s with 2 JJs and about 3 tons of ammo. It has Endo and I think an XL300

Good support skirmisher.

[MATRAKA14]

zudukai, on 08 January 2015 - 04:43 PM, said:

will someone photoshop a TBR beside a CPLT? this really would showcase how wrong this is, how could anyone even mistake a TBR for a CPLT when they barely even look similar in size.

(65T vs 75T)

MeiSooHaityu, on 09 January 2015 - 04:46 AM, said:

For a C1, I ignore the LRM15 quirks. I run 2LLasers, 2MLasers, 2 LRM10s with 2 JJs and about 3 tons of ammo. It has Endo and I think an XL300

Good support skirmisher.

Not enough ammo for almost a dedicated lrm mech, the lasers can do kind of ok but they dont work well as a primary offensive weapon, specially if the enemy mechs are fresh. The thing is different at the end of the match, and depending of the map.

The mech is just to big for doit well with direct fire.

Edited by MATRAKA14, 09 January 2015 - 05:23 AM.

[Vandul]

Ahh, my favorite 2013 thread.

[Tolkien]

MATRAKA14, on 09 January 2015 - 05:21 AM, said:

(65T vs 75T)

Thanks for posting that, it's always an eye opener to compare the catapult to heavier mechs (e.g. stalker) and see how big the profile is.

I had seen the front-on comparisons before and while those are already pretty convincing, I was still caught off guard by the side-on view in the left of the image.... from the side the catapult is very slightly shorter, but much fatter and deeper than the madcat. Also the legs on the catapult have a bad case of the thunder thighs compared to the already meaty legs of the madcat.

Another interesting point of comparison is the missile box size for the the 20 tube launcher on the catapult versus the 20 tube launcher on the madcat - it's a giant box that doesn't help shield the torsos when twisting!

All-in-all I think find the addition of those external missile pods to be visually ugly, and even unecessary from a game play point of view... we know it's a mech with 20 tubes in racks.. we don't know what's inside until we see it with the doors open anyway (or target it)... do we really need to have extra missile VCRs bolted on the outside if an extra missile system is rack-mounted inside?

Blech

Edited by Tolkien, 09 January 2015 - 09:22 AM.

[MATRAKA14]

Lets see if we can get somthing out of this.

[Strum Wealh]

zudukai, on 08 January 2015 - 04:43 PM, said:

will someone photoshop a TBR beside a CPLT? this really would showcase how wrong this is, how could anyone even mistake a TBR for a CPLT when they barely even look similar in size.

MATRAKA14, on 09 January 2015 - 05:21 AM, said:

(65T vs 75T)

Tolkien, on 09 January 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

Thanks for posting that, it's always an eye opener to compare the catapult to heavier mechs (e.g. stalker) and see how big the profile is.

I had seen the front-on comparisons before and while those are already pretty convincing, I was still caught off guard by the side-on view in the left of the image.... from the side the catapult is very slightly shorter, but much fatter and deeper than the madcat. Also the legs on the catapult have a bad case of the thunder thighs compared to the meaty legs of the madcat.

Another interesting point of comparison is the missile box size for the the 20 tube launcher on the catapult versus the 20 tube launcher on the madcat - it's a giant box that doesn't help shield the torsos when twisting!

All-in-all I think find the addition of those external missile pods to be visually ugly, and even unecessary from a game play point of view... we know it's a mech with 20 tubes in racks.. we don't know what's inside until we see it with the doors open anyway (or target it)... do we really need to have extra missile VCRs bolted on the outside if an extra missile system is rack-mounted inside?

Blech

65/75 = 0.86667
(0.866666666667)^(1/3) = 0.95342

If you scaled down a 75-ton TBR to create a "proportional 65-ton TBR", it would still have 95.34% of all of the linear dimensions (e.g. 95.34% overall height, 95.34% overall width, 95.34% overall length, 95.34% limb thickness, and so on) and 86.67% of the overall volume of the original.

Outside of standing the two back-to-back, you would not notice the difference.
On top of that, the difference in linear dimensions - a mere 4.658% - would represent a centimeters-range change in any dimension, and is effectively insignificant.

So, yes - as far as the relative sizes of the Catapult vs the Mad Cat are concerned, the two are more-or-less correctly-sized relative to one another.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 09 January 2015 - 09:39 AM.

[MATRAKA14]

[Tolkien]

Strum Wealh, on 09 January 2015 - 09:30 AM, said:

65/75 = 0.86667
(0.866666666667)^(1/3) = 0.95342

If you scaled down a 75-ton TBR to create a "proportional 65-ton TBR", it would still have 95.34% of all of the linear dimensions (e.g. 95.34% overall height, 95.34% overall width, 95.34% overall length, 95.34% limb thickness, and so on) and 86.67% of the overall volume of the original.

Outside of standing the two back-to-back, you would not notice the difference.
On top of that, the difference in linear dimensions - a mere 4.658% - would represent a centimeters-range change in any dimension, and is effectively insignificant.

So, yes - as far as the relative sizes of the Catapult vs the Mad Cat are concerned, the two are more-or-less correctly-sized relative to one another.

There are two important problems here - one is gameplay:

If they followed realistic volume scaling the locust would be 2/3 the height, 2/3 the width, and 2/3 the depth of the Catapult - ici la:



As a guy who has mastered 3 locusts I can tell you straight up that even at its current size it feels too big - if it was the baby elephant you see on the right (which is what we get if we start using accuate volumetric scaling to tonnage) it would be unusable.

Also I'm a little surprised at you - that you would argue along the lines of any sort of physical realities but overlook the concept of the catapult missile racks - they have 20 tubes inside each rack, that have no trouble holding an LRM20, but can't even hold 2 SRM 2's (the thing on the lower right ear is a streak 2.. seems at least 4 of those should be able to fit in the rack..... I can understand stuff beyond 20 tubes going outside, but the crazy bolt on VCR implementation here is the definition of 'tacked on'.

The third problem with the catapult as is, and the one that I actually care most about (I'm not sure if this is true for everyone but I think a lot of people in here feel the same way) is visual aesthetic - those bolted on missile tubes are ugly as sin. I'm basically at peace with some mechs like the catapult and the hunchback being a little chunky beside some of the other chassis, but the look of the Catapult A1 and C4 with the bolted on missile VCRs is just kinda bad. If the game overall was grungier and all the mechs looked like they were slapped together by a part time mechanic with an acetylene torch it would fit in, but no.

To summarize - don't bother arguing for realistic scaling or light mech pilots will find out where you live and send mean telegrams, if you are going to bother for any sort of realism why not argue for the kind where a giant LRM 20 rack can hold 20 tubes, and finally even if those pods didn't make the silhouette massive they are fugly and don't fit the art style of the game.

Edited by Tolkien, 09 January 2015 - 02:43 PM.

[MATRAKA14]

Tolkien, on 09 January 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

To summarize - don't bother arguing for realistic scaling or light mech pilots will find out where you live and send mean telegrams, if you are going to bother for any sort of realism why not argue for the kind where a giant LRM 20 rack can hold 20 tubes, and finally even if those pods didn't make the silhouette massive they are fugly and don't fit the art style of the game.

Its not bothering about realistic scaling, its bothering about target size. if the madcat its smaller, faster, more armored and with more firepower, it becomes absolutely better than the catapult, if at least the catapult can be smaller, or faster the balance problems mitigate a bit for having some reason or special situation to take a catapult.

Think about a locust with the size of a cicada and less speed, now why do you want a straight worst mech?

And yes, if you reed the one year old thread we bother all the time with the extra launchers and the lrm 20 size launchers. the old lrm 15 launchers look far better as you can see in the comparations.

[Strum Wealh]

Tolkien, on 09 January 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

There are two important problems here - one is gameplay:

If they followed realistic volume scaling the locust would be 2/3 the height, 2/3 the width, and 2/3 the depth of the Catapult - ici la:



As a guy who has mastered 3 locusts I can tell you straight up that even at its current size it feels too big - if it was the baby elephant you see on the right (which is what we get if we start using accuate volumetric scaling to tonnage) it would be unusable.

Also I'm a little surprised at you - that you would argue along the lines of any sort of physical realities but overlook the concept of the catapult missile racks - they have 20 tubes inside each rack, that have no trouble holding an LRM20, but can't even hold 2 SRM 2's (the thing on the lower right ear is a streak 2.. seems at least 4 of those should be able to fit in the rack..... I can understand stuff beyond 20 tubes going outside, but the crazy bolt on VCR implementation here is the definition of 'tacked on'.

The third problem with the catapult as is, and the one that I actually care most about (I'm not sure if this is true for everyone but I think a lot of people in here feel the same way) is visual aesthetic - those bolted on missile tubes are ugly as sin. I'm basically at peace with some mechs like the catapult and the hunchback being a little chunky beside some of the other chassis, but the look of the Catapult A1 and C4 with the bolted on missile VCRs is just kinda bad. If the game overall was grungier and all the mechs looked like they were slapped together by a part time mechanic with an acetylene torch it would fit in, but no.

To summarize - don't bother arguing for realistic scaling or light mech pilots will find out where you live and send mean telegrams, if you are going to bother for any sort of realism why not argue for the kind where a giant LRM 20 rack can hold 20 tubes, and finally even if those pods didn't make the silhouette massive they are fugly and don't fit the art style of the game.

You're conflating two separate arguments: (1) how to deal with the CPLT family's arm geometry, and (2) the overall scaling of the CPLT family vs other 'Mech chassis (namely, the Mad Cat).

On the first point: I agree that all of the launch tubes should be made to fit within the arm housing, regardless of the number of launch tubes.
Specifically, I would like to see PGI follow either the suggestion of Funky Bacon or the suggestion of baabaa214 (with my personal preference leaning toward the latter).

Funky Bacon, on 12 November 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

How about one of these two versions? Sure you can't really see the change in mechlab or in-game, but at least it doesn't look like something from Scrapheap Challenge: Mechwarrior Edition.



Try this for better quality tho.

Version 1. Kind of a modular layout thingy for all of them. Simple enough but not that great of a looker. Having different modules for each Variant may require a bit of work and more models to be loaded in game.

Version 2. Looks better and is the same for C4 and A1. C1 would use whatever it uses now.
The side pods are only used by the A1 and can only load max an LRM-10 or SRM-6. Top and bottom can load LRM-15

baabaa214, on 03 December 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

This is my take on the correcting the Catapult and the the pods that were added.
Instead of sticking these pods under the arms and on the pods. This is what I would suggest to fix this.

It is based on server racking.
Rack 6 missile insert.
Rack 5 missile insert.
Rack 4 missile insert w/Heatsink single.
Rack 2 missile insert w/Heatsink (single/double).
Rack Heatsink (single or double).

On the second point,: as noted above, the scaling of the CPLT relative to the Mad Cat is is not so far off as to be much of a concern.
For that matter, the scaling of the CPLT vs the STK isn't that far off, either:

• 65/85 = 0.7647
  
• (0.76470588235)^(1/3) = 0.91446020391

In general, all of the linear dimensions of the CPLT should be within roughly 10% of those of the STK, with perhaps a few differences (such as the STK's main body being SLIGHTLY longer (front-to-back) but SLIGHTLY narrower (width-wise) & SLIGHTLY shorter (height-wise), so as to maintain both the STK's proportions AND the proper volumetric (and, thus, linear scale) relationship with the CPLT).

And, yes, the Light 'Mechs ARE scaled incorrectly & are too small relative to where they should be, and should be rescaled (which universally means being up-scaled) to bring them into line with the other 'Mechs.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 09 January 2015 - 04:04 PM.

[MATRAKA14]

What about scaling launchers:


Srm2/6 lrm5


Srm6 / lrm10 / multiple srms or lrm5s


Lrm 15 / 3 lrm5s / 3 srm6s


Lrm 20 / 2 lrm10s

Edited by MATRAKA14, 09 January 2015 - 04:15 PM.

[Tolkien]

Strum Wealh, on 09 January 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:

You're conflating two separate arguments: (1) how to deal with the CPLT family's arm geometry, and (2) the overall scaling of the CPLT family vs other 'Mech chassis (namely, the Mad Cat).

On the first point: I agree that all of the launch tubes should be made to fit within the arm housing, regardless of the number of launch tubes.
Specifically, I would like to see PGI follow either the suggestion of Funky Bacon or the suggestion of baabaa214 (with my personal preference leaning toward the latter).




On the second point,: as noted above, the scaling of the CPLT relative to the Mad Cat is is not so far off as to be much of a concern.
For that matter, the scaling of the CPLT vs the STK isn't that far off, either:

• 65/85 = 0.7647
  
• (0.76470588235)^(1/3) = 0.91446020391

In general, all of the linear dimensions of the CPLT should be within roughly 10% of those of the STK, with perhaps a few differences (such as the STK's main body being SLIGHTLY longer (front-to-back) but SLIGHTLY narrower (width-wise) & SLIGHTLY shorter (height-wise), so as to maintain both the STK's proportions AND the proper volumetric (and, thus, linear scale) relationship with the CPLT).



And, yes, the Light 'Mechs ARE scaled incorrectly & are too small relative to where they should be, and should be rescaled (which universally means being up-scaled) to bring them into line with the other 'Mechs.

As a pilot of every weight class, I don't think the lights need to be scaled up at all - if a player has a good match in a locust, commando, or adder, they *earned* it as is. If you haven't tried it, master a locust chassis... you'll come out a changed person.

Anyway, to the missile arrangements, I like the options shown there but just to play devil's advocate I would be perfectly happy to have the catapult missile boxes show 20 tubes no matter what the configuration - yes it hides exactly what they are carrying until you gather target info but is that really such a big loss to get those VCRs off of there?

I was only conflating the scaling and pod size issues because it was used as an argument to justify the relative scaling of the madcat and catapult by another poster. I'll say it again that I'm at peace with mechs like the catapult and the hunchback being a bit chunkier compared to similar mechs, especially now that the quirkening has given extra armor and structure to the parts that tend to be oversized. I just want those darn VCRs to disappear - the catapult was a beautiful mech model before this.

MATRAKA14, on 09 January 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

What about scaling launchers:
...

It looks interesting, and might bring some extra information to an opponent, but the catapults ears are sort of it's iconic silhouette feature - part of me almost wants them to keep the big boxes no matter what they are packing inside (I just don't want the bolt aftermarket accessories that have all the charm of a spoiler kit on a toyota tercel)

Edited by Tolkien, 09 January 2015 - 04:16 PM.

[wanderer]

MeiSooHaityu, on 09 January 2015 - 04:46 AM, said:

For a C1, I ignore the LRM15 quirks. I run 2LLasers, 2MLasers, 2 LRM10s with 2 JJs and about 3 tons of ammo. It has Endo and I think an XL300

Good support skirmisher.

For CW, I end up ignoring the missiles completely. Stuff like 2xLPL + 2ML and various other large/medium mixes work decently with boosts to range, cooldown, AND beam duration from the C1's quirks. Bonus: People frequently reflexively shoot the empty arms anyway, and they don't do a bad job soaking up some incoming fire.

[Tolkien]

wanderer, on 09 January 2015 - 09:04 PM, said:

For CW, I end up ignoring the missiles completely. Stuff like 2xLPL + 2ML and various other large/medium mixes work decently with boosts to range, cooldown, AND beam duration from the C1's quirks. Bonus: People frequently reflexively shoot the empty arms anyway, and they don't do a bad job soaking up some incoming fire.

The C1 is still a great mech since it has the torso energy mounts that can be put to good use, likewise the K2. The complaint is mostly visual for me and that's only around the multi-launcher variants (A1, and to a lesser extent C4).

[MATRAKA14]

Tolkien, on 09 January 2015 - 04:16 PM, said:

It looks interesting, and might bring some extra information to an opponent, but the catapults ears are sort of it's iconic silhouette feature - part of me almost wants them to keep the big boxes no matter what they are packing inside (I just don't want the bolt aftermarket accessories that have all the charm of a spoiler kit on a toyota tercel)

They are iconic indeed but not that big, the correct ones are the old ones with the lrm15 size, in closed beta all the catapults had the lrm15 size launchers except the C4, the only variant designed to use lrm20 or 2 lrm10. Back then if you had less tubes the misiles where fired in boleys, the C4 was the only one able to shot 20 misiles at the same time per launcher.

At least BIG LAUNCHERS MUST GO FOR THE DEFAULT LRM15 SIZE ONES. Also well done dynamic ones (respecting the original close beta look) are the best solution for the mech, because the ears can't shield, if they are to big they punish the use of srms a LOT, each launcher has 40 armor and its bigger than 2 hunchs from a hunchback.
Lrm20 launchers must go. also the good catapult builds dont use more than 15 tubes, the c4 is the only on quirked for lrm20 and its really bad.

Also pgi is making different size launchers for the new "mechlab treatment", you can check the ravens they have the same kind of dynamic launchers.

Tolkien, on 10 January 2015 - 05:24 AM, said:

The C1 is still a great mech since it has the torso energy mounts that can be put to good use, likewise the K2. The complaint is mostly visual for me and that's only around the multi-launcher variants (A1, and to a lesser extent C4).

The best and most competitive catapult it's the A1 (with 6 lrm5+A), the K2 can be more or less competitive with 2 gauss or 2 ac 20 for specific team matches, but with other builds its on par with the c1 and jester, the c4 it's the worst one by far.But with all that the chassis is not good enough to be considered out of really specific rules and only if you are limited to IS mechs, the launcher reduction would help, and with some good quirks the chassis could shine again, only a bit compared to the meta game.

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

MATRAKA14, on 09 January 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

I would so run this almost every day I could! (throws money at screen)

[Grey Ghost]

MATRAKA14, on 09 January 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

What about scaling launchers:

*snip*

Works for me.