91 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Two SRM-2s (or a SSRM-2 and a SRM-2) and a Narc in the right arm, two SRM-6s (and something else, perhaps a third SRM-6?) on the left arm.

So five tubes on the right arm and 12+ on the left; all should easily fit into each box.

But don't change it back, make it work properly:

• The boxes have up to 15 or 20 tubes (depending on whether it's the C1 or C4 box)
  
• Any number of launch tubes up to that number should fit inside the box. 3xSSRM-2 should fit well inside, as should 3xLRM-5. Or, like in the pic above 2xSRM-2+Narc and/or 2 or 3 SRM-6.
  
• Only once the internal tubes are used up should anything be tacked on to the outside.
  
• And please, make those tacked-on launch tubes look like they belong on a 'mech - the side ones are sorta-kinda okay, but the slung-under ones are horrible.

[Rhakhas]

Please, please revert the changes to the catapult arms. Thank you.

[Malleus011]

stjobe, on 11 November 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

Two SRM-2s (or a SSRM-2 and a SRM-2) and a Narc in the right arm, two SRM-6s (and something else, perhaps a third SRM-6?) on the left arm.

So five tubes on the right arm and 12+ on the left; all should easily fit into each box.

But don't change it back, make it work properly:

• The boxes have up to 15 or 20 tubes (depending on whether it's the C1 or C4 box)
  
• Any number of launch tubes up to that number should fit inside the box. 3xSSRM-2 should fit well inside, as should 3xLRM-5. Or, like in the pic above 2xSRM-2+Narc and/or 2 or 3 SRM-6.
  
• Only once the internal tubes are used up should anything be tacked on to the outside.
  
• And please, make those tacked-on launch tubes look like they belong on a 'mech - the side ones are sorta-kinda okay, but the slung-under ones are horrible.

I agree that they should make it work properly, but after a week of silence from PGI, I'll settle for changing it back.

(And give the C1 back the correct launchers regardless)

[Cyberiad]

Going to go against the opinion of everyone in this thread but the new change makes sense to me. It's consistent with the hardpoints of every other mech now: in other mechs one launcher on the 'Mech model corresponds to one hardpoint, you can't fit two launchers onto one hardpoint. On other mechs, launchers are not present on the 3D model if the weapon is not present (ie. the Thunderbolts shoulder launcher). The Catapult A1's primary missile hardpoint is a 20 tube hardpoint, and a single hardpoint fits one launcher, putting a smaller launcher on it is simply not going to take advantage of the missile tubes of that hardpoint. Canonically, the A1 is supposed to carry 2x LRM20 anyways so any extra missile launchers it carries should, by canon be a modification of the chassis to add more launchers.

[Rhakhas]

Actually the A1 carries two 15s. Its the C4 that has the 20s, and that one had larger boxes to accommodate this. What they did was give both the A1 and the C1 the lrm 20 boxes, regardless of how many missiles they are actually mounting. And they could, very easily, separate the missile racks inside the boxes, provided the mech was running less than 15/20 tubes per arm. This was just really poor implementation, and honestly seems like a rushed job...

Edited by Rhakhas, 11 November 2013 - 07:40 AM.

[John MatriX82]

Very bad design choice.

They should have fitted all those launchers inside the arm, or make the arms smaller and different. Like it is now they are huge, pointless and easy to hit.

I guess it's really the time to get rid of the A1:
-first the removal of splash damage from srms,
-then the useless and dull tube-like firing pattern (the older one awarded those who closed up to the target)
-then the ghost heat because it was so difficult to restrict the hardpoints to the available tubes (making an A1 able to carry 28 SRMs instead of 36, since it had 15+15 tubes originally)
-now the C4 arms on the A1 with the added external hitboxes.

I already got rid of the C1 some time ago, the A1 is certainly the next on the list now..

[NuclearPanda]

John MatriX82, on 11 November 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Very bad design choice.

They should have fitted all those launchers inside the arm, or make the arms smaller and different. Like it is now they are huge, pointless and easy to hit.

I guess it's really the time to get rid of the A1:
-first the removal of splash damage from srms,
-then the useless and dull tube-like firing pattern (the older one awarded those who closed up to the target)
-then the ghost heat because it was so difficult to restrict the hardpoints to the available tubes (making an A1 able to carry 28 SRMs instead of 36, since it had 15+15 tubes originally)
-now the C4 arms on the A1 with the added external hitboxes.

I already got rid of the C1 some time ago, the A1 is certainly the next on the list now..

Don't get rid of your A1 yet. The Streakapult is still a VERY viable mech and fun to pilot.

Almost 90kph, jump jets and 6xSSRMs? I did almost 1300 damage in one match yesterday with it (1278 if I recall correctly) with 161 match score.

Don't lose hope.

[John MatriX82]

NuclearPanda, on 11 November 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

Don't get rid of your A1 yet. The Streakapult is still a VERY viable mech and fun to pilot.

Almost 90kph, jump jets and 6xSSRMs? I did almost 1300 damage in one match yesterday with it (1278 if I recall correctly) with 161 match score.

Don't lose hope.

ahahha lol, I've never used a streak cat (only a STK-5M with like 3 LLs and 5 SSRM2s ) and I'll probably never will.. I'm not entirely happy to try the luck against the pros with that cockpit and 270m ranged weapons

[Malleus011]

I used to drive a Splatcat. I won't with the new geometry.

[GalaxyBluestar]

so it's just the launchers that are the problem?

i vowe to always aim at uac's sticking out embarressingly on the side torsos of every xl catapult and to laugh at the pathitic ppc nubs on the arms of every k2.

[Ransack]

LMAO.

I am happy that I no longer need to drive my Cats. Ugly. very ugly.

[Malleus011]

GalaxyBluestar, on 11 November 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

so it's just the launchers that are the problem?

i vowe to always aim at uac's sticking out embarressingly on the side torsos of every xl catapult and to laugh at the pathitic ppc nubs on the arms of every k2.

No, we've brought up the other issues as well, but the launchers are the most epic failure. It's triage; trying to get the worst problem fixed first. Thought I do hope they're addressing the entire re-build of the Cats and making sure they've done the best job possible (bring back old PPCs).

[DYSEQTA]

I tend to be one that is found defending PGI decisions that are less than popular as normally I can see the reason behind them. In the case of the Catapult missile boxes I cannot. This missile-launchers-on-missile-launchers joke needs to go, and quickly.

I will echo what many others have already stated in as much that no external launchers should be added to the box unless the internal 20 tubes are used up. The Catapult missile boxes are purpose built missile delivery systems, not some bolt on missile launching solution as found on many other mechs. This should be obvious.

This method applied to the Catapult ears might make sense for your Stalker update as they have tiny ears but on the Catapult it just makes it look like you have monkeys running your game design department.

Edited by DYSEQTA, 12 November 2013 - 03:13 AM.

[Damia Savon]

The *only* change that should have been made was to the look of the energy/ballistic weapons in the Cat's torso. Period.

I do understand the desire of PGI to want to standardize things but really, what *OTHER* mech in the game at the moment has massive, visible and incredible vulnerable launchers like the Catapult? You have managed to deal with two, very basic and simple launchers since closed beta. For Goddess' sake, why is the look of the launchers now such an amazingly huge problem that you need to change things. Are *3* models honestly that hard to work with?

The launchers are the primary weapon system of the Catapult and they already are huge "shoot me targets". It is *SO* very easy to turn other mechs into better LRM boats it is not even funny. You play a Catapult because you love the mech, especially the look of the mech. Huge LRM 20 boxes with their already massive hit boxes on Cat's just kills the looks of the mechs.

Frankly, issues with the look of the Catapult is because of *your* failure in design. Ideally LRM 5s, 10s, 15s and 20's should have differently sized boxes. The smaller boxes may change the look of the Catapult, but not to this extent. Again, if you can make up different energy and ballistic add-ons for the torso weapons then you can easily scale a freaking *box*. OF course no Catapult should have missile arms with a box smaller than an LRM15s. The other 5 and 10s go against the basic purpose of the mech.

On top of that, you have allowed any type of missile to be mounted on the hard points. That means that you can mount an SRM2 launcher inside the massive LRM weapon boxes. Sorry that is always going to look stupid. SRMs come in different numbers than LRMs and should have distinctive launchers and honestly not be fitted into the LRM boxes.

In the fluff, the size of the missile launchers are wedded to the model of the mech. By allowing massive customization of the mech you moved away from the mechanic that kept the Catapult just an LRM boat,its designed purpose. I understand why you did this because it would be incredibly crazy to have 6 models of LRM cats just to get the right missile/energy set you want. People would hate that. That is no excuse to deal nerf the look.


To the community, you are taking advantage of the mechanic, but fluff-wise the Catapult is an LRM boat. Only one special variant mounted SRMs. It would have made a perfect Hero mech since the SRMs would be radically different from LRMs. I understand trying different builds, and have done it myself, but the boxes are LRM launchers. It is stretching it to think that smaller launchers would need to be placed in huge boxes. It is silly, fluff-wise, that a single LRM system can carry SRMs, let alone multiple systems.

In my opinion, scaled launchers is the primary solution for the size of the LRM boxes. If people want to take advantage of multiple hard points then they are going to have to accept a change to the basic Catapult. That means stacked LRM boxes. It won't look as nice but that is the price you pay for going against the fluff.

If people want to mouth SRMs then add on boxes to the LRM boxes are the only solution. The boxes for the SRMs on the Battlemaster do not look too bad. Again it changes the look for the worse but it makes a lot more sense if you are mounting weapons to a mech that was never designed to carry them. If you are going with just SRMS then you have to live with stacked SRM boxes and a mech that does not look the same as the traditional mech.

Naturally a direct fire SRM box should not suffer from any delays that the LRMs do when opening the doors at all.

As for the K2, I agree that bringing the old PPCs would make the mech look better with PPCs. I think the new look is perfect for Laser weapons over the tiny stubs that we have on the arms now. The K2 should have actual looking guns on the arms, not tiny boxes.

Though not patch related, the torso twist for Cats should be the same across the models. Cats are incredibly vulnerable already with their main weapons easily targeted, a huge head hitbox and gigantic torso hits. The ability to twist to target their weapons at short range targets is a necessary defense system. Twisting itself is not because you are still exposing your sides to damage and relying on your primary weapons as shields.

[SgtKinCaiD]

A fix is incoming for the next patch, check Russ Bullock twitter.

[Kazairl]

Please help. My A1's missile pods seem to fall off every time I attack a hostile mech.

[NuclearPanda]

John MatriX82, on 11 November 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

ahahha lol, I've never used a streak cat (only a STK-5M with like 3 LLs and 5 SSRM2s ) and I'll probably never will.. I'm not entirely happy to try the luck against the pros with that cockpit and 270m ranged weapons

Try it sometime. Max armor helps, so does torso twisting w/ JJs. It's actually quite an effective mech, and a VERY awesome destroyer of lights/mediums.

[Tooooonpie]

NuclearPanda, on 12 November 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

Try it sometime. Max armor helps, so does torso twisting w/ JJs. It's actually quite an effective mech, and a VERY awesome destroyer of lights/mediums.

You got a build you can link man?

[NuclearPanda]

Tooooonpie, on 12 November 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

You got a build you can link man?

Ummm, I can work something up quick on smurfy I'm sure. Give me a few minutes and I'll edit my post.


http://mwo.smurfy-ne...a7f6c94346ef6a5

Biggest engine, speed tweak makes it VERY fast. You can tweak with Endo if you really want to free up for more DHS if you really want. 700 ammo is more than enough for Streaks (I run with 800 though I think on my actual build but this is pretty damn close to what I use currently). The ammo in the side torso doesn't really matter cause you're running an XL engine and if that blows up you're dead anyways.

So when you get speed tweak AND fast fire? Wooooo boy! As I said before, I ran close to 1300 damage on Saturday evening, and frequently average around 600 damage at least.

*DOUBLE EDIT!*

Oops!!! Totally forgot that you need BAP. Give me a second to re-update. BAP is necessary for close range battling ECM mechs!!! brb with new link!

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...abb92cba31a43fb

That looks more like it. I knew I remembered I wasn't able to max out tonnage but it's not a big deal

Or w/ Artemis targeting (I think I had this on anyways because I switch between this, 6xLRM5's, and 6xSRM6's)

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...2214a2c84285592

Edited by NuclearPanda, 12 November 2013 - 07:02 AM.

[Josef Koba]

I've no objection with the APPEARANCE of the new model. But I do object to the changes for other reasons. I'm not as familiar with canon as are many of my fellow posters, so I can't speak to how many LRMs each version of the Catapult is supposed to have and the number of tubes, etc. It seems to me, though, that given that the mech is designed to house it's main armament (with the exception of the K2 maybe) in its "ears" one would expect all of its missile launchers to be within the ears. In terms of tonnage and slots, the ears themselves have plenty of space, so I don't see the point of adding exposed weapons. Three SRM2s weigh a lot less than one LRM20. It might make more sense to base it off the number of tubes, as has been noted earlier.

Since the doors give a negative to your armor if they're opened, it makes sense that the launchers would be contained within. Otherwise, why not just take the doors off? It's kind of like adding an exposed TOW launcher to the existing TOW launcher on the M-2 Bradley.

And speaking of doors, wouldn't it make more sense to allow these new exposed launchers to fire without the delay? I haven't taken my A1 out since these changes so I don't know if that's the case or not, but if they're not being protected by the doors, then they shouldn't delay in launching.

This change doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can get behind the larger ears for cohesive design or whatever, but the changes to the the location of the launchers (i.e. outside the boxes) seems silly and arbitrary. It MIGHT look cool, but it offers no advantage. Things that offer no advantage in combat are usually killed off pretty quick (pun).