102 replies to this topic

[Xandre Blackheart]

Uri Brauer, on 16 July 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

It should be pointed out that making asymmetric Catapults is both immoral and fattening.

Which is why it tastes and feels so good.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Rashhaverak, on 16 July 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

If you really want to fulfill the support role, then I might ask you to consider that the only reason you need any energy weapons is so that you can stand off against any scout that comes upon your position, and so that you are not entirely useless when you actually do run out of ammo.

Given that fact, you might opt for only two mediums and stack more ammo.

I wonder if you could really set the catapult up as heavy fire support and replace the four MLs with a PPC?

I so can't wait to have access to a real mechlab!

You can, but there is also something else to consider. How much ammo is TOO MUCH ammo? If you're consistently ending the match with unexpended ammo, it's a good guess you could drop some. I consider what I put in the mech to be a good starting point to work from. There may be a need to go up, I doubt it's too much already though.

As for the large laser, it does allow you some added firepower if you do end up out of ammo, without having to get too close, so I see it as a reasonable compromise. Without testing it of course, no one can tell.

[bobow98]

Nice discussion, I'll have to give a few of these a try. Keep it up.

+1

[Xandre Blackheart]

Eventually, I hope (or dread because it means I haven't been distracted by beta, shiny beta) to do a theory craft for all 4 founder mechs and the roles they fit into (or best in my un-humble opinion fit into). The Atlas is done, Still need to do the Jenner and Hunchback.

[Rain Man the Excellently]

You are not theorycrafting, you are theorizing. Theorycrafting is a word some nerdy WoW player created so his bad math sounded better than someone else's bad math.

[JHare]

Ubertron X, on 15 July 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

LRM 15 with Artemis: 06+09+09+09+09+12+12+15+15+15+15
Plain LRM 20: 06+06+09+12+12+12+12+16+16+20+20

The only number on which the "pimped" LRM15 is better is if you roll a 3 on the missile hits table, otherwise the LRM20 will always yield the same or a better result.

The upper limit favors LRM20. But your averages mean LRM15+Art is a better deal in long run
rolls 6 7 8 (44% of all rolls)
LRM15+ 9 12 12
LRM20 12 12 12

LRM20 has slight advantage in damage, but you save on weight and get more salvoswith the LRM15+Art

Edited by JHare, 16 July 2012 - 05:59 PM.

[trycksh0t]

My Support-a-Pult, as opposed to my Brawl-a-Pult, is similar to yours, but not entirely. Upgrade to a 260XL and DHS, throw on 8.5t of FF armor, and you can shoehorn in a LL, 2 ML, 2 LRM20s w/4 tons of ammo and 2 additional DHS, while keeping the JJ. Dropping the Cats jets is fairly silly, they're one of it's greatest assets.

Edited by trycksh0t, 16 July 2012 - 06:37 PM.

[Jakob Knight]

JHare, on 16 July 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

The upper limit favors LRM20. But your averages mean LRM15+Art is a better deal in long run
rolls 6 7 8 (44% of all rolls)
LRM15+ 9 12 12
LRM20 12 12 12

LRM20 has slight advantage in damage, but you save on weight and get more salvoswith the LRM15+Art

This might be true as long as you are not intending on using the LRMs for indirect fire support. This is because the Artemis IV is LOS, and does not have any effect if the target is out of sight to the launcher. In this case, NARC may be considered as an alternative, but does require both the spotter and launching unit have it equipped.

Again, this is based on the only real info we have, which is the TT game. Actual implementation in MWO may be a flat modifier without checks to LOS, or the Artemis system might not even be included in the game. We won't know until the game comes out.

[Arcady]

I actually plan to avoid the Catapult for various reasons (mostly I play support in LoL and want a chance to get in there and kill things up close) so I'm going to support those who argue for the "butterbee" urban combat cofiguration, 4 SRM6s should chew through just about anything.

[Jakob Knight]

Arcady, on 16 July 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

I actually plan to avoid the Catapult for various reasons (mostly I play support in LoL and want a chance to get in there and kill things up close) so I'm going to support those who argue for the "butterbee" urban combat cofiguration, 4 SRM6s should chew through just about anything.

Except that the Catapult can only mount two missiles systems at present (all hardpoints were reportedly reduced to a 1:1 rate). Thus, the most you could do is mount an SRM6 in each arm, for a total of two. This may change later on, but don't count on anything you don't already see on a mech to start with.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Rain Man the Excellently, on 16 July 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

You are not theorycrafting, you are theorizing. Theorycrafting is a word some nerdy WoW player created so his bad math sounded better than someone else's bad math.

SIr. Are you implying that I am NOT nerdy and have good math?!

I challenge you to a startrek quote contest! Someone else will have to keep score.... I am bad at math

[Grey Rabbit]

Quote

Except that the Catapult can only mount two missiles systems at present (all hardpoints were reportedly reduced to a 1:1 rate). Thus, the most you could do is mount an SRM6 in each arm, for a total of two. This may change later on, but don't count on anything you don't already see on a mech to start with.

That 1:1 weapon swap rule throws a monkey in my wrench. I know it doesn't fall under a support role mech, but my plan was for something similar to what I had played in MW4 that I found pretty successful. I just looked up the Butterbee from above and realized it wasn't as original as I had thought, though I used SSRM 4s.

I was actually thinking about mixing in some scout skills and modules for when I did want to play as a support role. I would think that more detection and extra detection avoidance could bring a little more survivability for someone who's trying to avoid a direct confrontation. That's assuming that there are skills and modules that do that, of course. Support vs support can be such an ugly affair when it's evenly matched, it may give an advantage there, also.

-Rabbit

[Lipot]

I love how you thought about your layout a bit but as a scout pilot I can safely say that the lack of jump jets and using a large laser instead of keeping all four of your mediums will be in my favour. The weight saved by switching to an XL engine is a good idea but by also going with an endo-steel frame or ferro-fibrous armour when you get a chance would help you as well. Out of the stock layout of a Catapult, I would do that then throw on the ecm suite. I would bump the ammo up by 1 or 2 more tons and put the rest straight into armour. Without the jump jets, there are too many ways to get around a Catapult and exploit the weak rear armour. The Catapult's jump abilities are what allows it to maintain a highly effective fire support while being able to out maneuver most hostile mechs.

[Rain Man the Excellently]

Xandre Blackheart, on 16 July 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

SIr. Are you implying that I am NOT nerdy and have good math?!

I challenge you to a startrek quote contest! Someone else will have to keep score.... I am bad at math

I only berated you for the title of your thread. Nothing was implied beyond that. I didn't read your post, so I have no opinion on it. I think that trying to optimize a 'mech load out is silly anyways, since I feel you should kit out your 'mech so it fits your individual play style and role. A convinced generalized norm for what is best is simply foolish. Besides I like to think we're all smart enough, and we all should be able to figure out what's best for our 'mechs rather than rely on someone else's optimization theory (aka "theorycrafting" to the illiterate). But I understand that it's just laziness that brings people optimization threads.

[PewPewMatt]

I personally cannot wait to get my hands on my Catapult, loved it in previous games, am sure to love it in MWO.

I luuuurve Support roles and I look forward to Supporting you guys on the battlefield, see you all there!

[Brenden]

Why not drop two Medium Lasers so that you have enough tonnage to put in two LRM-20s?

[Garth Erlam]

As a Jenner pilot, a well piloted C1 is a damn nightmare for me. Volley firing LRM's shakes the hell out of someones view, strips the armour off you, and then you get to contend with 4 ML's and jumpjets up close.

I think the C1 variant is by far the most underrated 'Mech/Chassis in Btech.

[Brenden]

Garth Erlam, on 18 July 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

As a Jenner pilot, a well piloted C1 is a damn nightmare for me. Volley firing LRM's shakes the hell out of someones view, strips the armour off you, and then you get to contend with 4 ML's and jumpjets up close.

I think the C1 variant is by far the most underrated 'Mech/Chassis in Btech.

You got that right, and as a Jenner Pilot, that means you have a rather sad amount of metal to protect you from those face melting lasers, correct? Oh, to have a Shadow Hawk, then I could anihilate the C1 and it's screaming missiles. What about you Dev. Garth?

[Strikhedonia]

Catapult's need jump jets when operating in a fire support role. That added mobility is essential for shoot and scoot. Any Catapult who stays in one place can be targeted by counter-battery fire. The jump jets allow you to quickly relocate to another hide for your next shot.

[Brenden]

Sarah McCallum, on 18 July 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Catapult's need jump jets when operating in a fire support role. That added mobility is essential for shoot and scoot. Any Catapult who stays in one place can be targeted by counter-battery fire. The jump jets allow you to quickly relocate to another hide for your next shot.

And occasionally perform a DFA, don't you think? Also, people don't give the C1 enough credit, and would perfer to op it out with for one with PPCs.