1726 replies to this topic

[XphR]

It looks like my cat crashed on Junkion and they did their best to save it.. sadly failing in the process.

[Colonel Tequila]

I refuse to play a game with three weapon systems and only be able to play 2 of them properly, there are very few viable LRM boats.

How do we go about raising further awareness - A Poll???

I'm not very familiar with PGIs methods of community interaction, I haven't seen any official message from PGI that they acknowledge the communities feelings on the geometry change.

[CDLord HHGD]

Colonel Tequila, on 25 November 2013 - 04:14 AM, said:

I refuse to play a game with three weapon systems and only be able to play 2 of them properly, there are very few viable LRM boats.

How do we go about raising further awareness - A Poll???

I'm not very familiar with PGIs methods of community interaction, I haven't seen any official message from PGI that they acknowledge the communities feelings on the geometry change.

Isn't there some kind of 3rd party free petition out there. Probably usually used for political stuff, but repurposing it here can work. Set it up, post the link, and see how many people sign it. Then deliver to PGI after x number of days/weeks/signatures.

[Kyynele]

I have played 630 matches with my A1. Most of those after it wasn't crazy OP anymore. I haven't piloted it once since this change.

PGI has made some questionable decisions in the past, but this is the first truly heartbreaking one.

[Funky Bacon]

The changes do look good.... IF they where made for arena style combat (Solaris for example) where the pilot wanted to load as many missiles as possible onto his mech without any concern for safety, speed or armor, only max fire power. And the engineers are amateurs and where on a time limit so they did not have the time or experience to fiddle around with fitting it all inside the launcher, so they welded cheap launchers onto the side of the ears instead.

Kinda of like a bandit modified catapult built from scraps if you will.

However we are merc units with enough cash to buy and maintain our own mechs, and plenty of them. so doing a proper job on installing launchers should not be a big problem.

[Buff Stallion Pants]

I love the cosmetic changes to my K2, pity it mess up the looks to my other variants

[C E Dwyer]

zazz0000, on 05 November 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

Ugh dammit ppl, see what happens when u don't buy enough MC?

And to answer a previous question, when shooting with bay door closed, all launchers will wait for the doors to open.

well thats even dumber than I thought then at least there would have been some point to this other than to totally ruin the catapult

[C E Dwyer]

I'm waiting to see what kind of balls up they make of the stalker..though rather stupidly the atlas can run two lrm15 in one torso side and only gets a piddling little srm6 box on the hip..


inconsistant is what I say

[Amsro]

Trollapult still trolling.

A1 Derpcat incoming!

[Alex Warden]

yea well...i thought the point of the missle bays on the catapult was to cram in like millions of launchers... this change doesn´t make any sense to me...

i´ll call this "overambitious" to be polite

[DrSlamastika]

Still nothing about fixing this mess?

[Damia Savon]

Burke IV, on 18 November 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

ok, and sinse its in this thread im going to explain why the doors need to come off aswell. This is a game, comparing it to real life is not wise, however...

The catapult is a military vehicle. It needs to be able to operate in extreme conditions and under fire. Now look at those doors, imagine a stray shot goes right into the hinge and destroys the mechanism, but does no other damage to the mech. That door now will not open because PGI designed them to flap upwards instead of down. This cuts up to half the firepower off that mech. Had they dropped down, the door would still open under the force of gravity. This design would never get past the testing phase. After several waves of testing i expect the doors would either be removed completely or come with an ejection mecanism that would alow the lanchers to function even if the door becomes damaged or jammed. No military vehicle would ever have a system like those doors on it because of the reasons i have outlined. IMO

They look stupid pointing upwards.

You do realize that the catapult has had doors to protect its missile bays since the table top game and that they have always opened up. Part of the iconic image of the catapult is the upward opening doors. It is not something that PGI came up with. A lot of players, myself included, would be fairly ticked if there were no doors on the Catapult.

Frankly they look cool opening upwards. If they opening down then they would look like wimpy, floppy umm noodles.

Whether or not they would be a massive hindrance is up for debate. First, I think, given the destructive nature of mech weapons, that an autocannon round, or laser hit will simple damage just a hinge. It also assumes that there are not some sort of passive explosive bolt to jettison a door if such a rare shot happens. Finally, militaries make stupid choices all the time in the names of looks, economy or whatever.

Where PGI "failed" is allowing multiple missile hardpoints and allowing any missile types to be mounted on those hardpoints to give you, the player, a variety of options. No canon Catapult LRM model mounts more than one on each arm. There are those with the Arrow or Rocket launchers but none with multiple LRM launcher.

The C1 has two LRM 15s and the 4 lasers. The C4 has two LRM20s and two lasers but adds more ammo. The A1 has the two LRM 15s and no back up weapons in favor of more armor and more missiles.

LRM 5s and 10s look out of place in pods that are supposed to represent 15s and 20s. Smaller size pods would also throw the look off and cause people to scream bloody murder. They could be designed to look decent but it would not look like a Catapult.

No Catapult was designed to operate SRM systems. SRMs of any size look dumb in those huge bays. Can you imagine a C1 with a properly sized SRM 2, 4 or SSRM 2 launchers on those arms? An SRM 6 launcher could look halfway decent.

When you start mixing and matching SRM and LRM launchers in the pods then you run into even more problems.

This massive missile flexibility is one reason why the first, and maybe only, Catapult hero mech is the Jester. I'm not going to go into the huge debate of alternative hero configurations. Most of them destroy the look of the catapult or move too far away from its role in my opinion and therefor are not Catapults.

If PGI had kept the hard points for LRMs only, then they could have sold the "Butterbee" hero mech that does mount two SRM 6s instead of the LRM pods with 4 ML. If you wanted to run some kind of splatcat then you could, after doling out MC. Think of how many weeks of whining and bitching could have been saved.

[baabaa214]

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).

Edited by baabaa214, 03 December 2013 - 10:15 AM.

[stjobe]

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).

Beatiful, easy to understand, and flexible. I like it. Please send it to support@mwomercs.com, because there's little hope any devs will see it here.

Oh, but please attach a note that the modules go inside the slots in the rack, or we'll end up with something looking exactly like that - missile modules attached to the outside of the rack...

Edited by stjobe, 03 December 2013 - 10:35 AM.

[Malleus011]

Well ...

They fiddled with the Autocannons on the K2.

...

Thanks?

...

It's just that everyone seems far more concerned about the missile boxes and PPCs ...

BTW, love the 'server rack' idea, I just prefer the thinner C1 box.

[Degalus]

K... after russ mentioned a fix in a twitterpost i was thinking he talk about the missel racks because he responded to the link of this thread.... but a fix for the ACs??... it was the only thing that was good on the visual patch for catapults....

[CDLord HHGD]

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).

Being a telecom engineer and knowing how the old school PBXs were designed, I kinda like this approach and can appreciate it's simplicity and modularity.

Edited by cdlord, 03 December 2013 - 11:15 AM.

[baabaa214]

Thank you for your input.

If you are interested seeing Cats check out my art page.
http://mwomercs.com/...aabaas-cgi-art/

[stjobe]

baabaa214, on 03 December 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

Thank you for your input.

If you are interested seeing Cats check out my art page.
http://mwomercs.com/...aabaas-cgi-art/

Yeah, those are gorgeous - you're a talented artist.

[Damia Savon]

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).

I love the basic idea though I think a single line of tubes in that huge box looks silly. I don't think you are able to do much about that.

I'd also like some other distinction between LRMs and SRMs aside from the number of tubes. Part of the point of the hideous changes to the missile pods was to allow visual identification of the weapons the mech has. With every thing crammed into the box there is no way to tell unless you get a look why the doors are open.

Honestly I don't see a decent solution as long as you can mix LRMs and SRMs in the same box or even on the mech itself.

Still your solution is one of the best looking so far.