67 replies to this topic

[Flyby215]

Super Mono, on 09 December 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

Because of this the ballistic heavy Cataphract variants have now become ballistic fire-support mechs so what good will the Jagermech be when it's finally introduced?

IMO this point is a very valid argument; overlapping the same role, in the same weight class, is rather redundant in a game.

Most arguments appear to be based on the mech they chose isn't giving the performance they want it to have, but instead of adapting to it or changing strategies, are asking to change the stats on the mech to adapt their own play style.

**Edited to be less offensive.

Edited by Flyby215, 09 December 2012 - 11:58 AM.

[Dukov Nook]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 01 December 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

I agree. I also think the catapults extreme torso twist should be cut down, as a long range support mech it should have one of the worst torso twists, not a near 360 one.

except that extreme torso twist is the only thing that saves it once a lite comes calling.

[Super Mono]

Dukov Nook, on 09 December 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

except that extreme torso twist is the only thing that saves it once a lite comes calling.

With an Atlas you have to use careful defensive positioning and rely on teammates to help take care of smaller mechs, why shouldn't an artillery mech be expected to do the same?

[StainlessSR]

Super Mono, on 09 December 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

With an Atlas you have to use careful defensive positioning and rely on teammates to help take care of smaller mechs, why shouldn't an artillery mech be expected to do the same?

how would you feel if they gimped the atlas arm swing to only 1/4 of the screen? it would make the atlas usless, that is what has happened to the cataphract,

[Super Mono]

StainlessSR, on 09 December 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

how would you feel if they gimped the atlas arm swing to only 1/4 of the screen? it would make the atlas usless, that is what has happened to the cataphract,

I understand that, I was responding to Dukov talking about the Catapult's extreme torso-twist.

[Peiper]

+1

[StainlessSR]

Super Mono, on 09 December 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

I understand that, I was responding to Dukov talking about the Catapult's extreme torso-twist.

My mistake sorry.

[Corvus Antaka]

Dukov Nook, on 09 December 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

except that extreme torso twist is the only thing that saves it once a lite comes calling.

right...so the catapult that can hold 6 ssrm 2 when a light comes calling needs this extreme torso twist, but a BRAWLER mech that lives and dies by direct fire weapons doesnt?

try again.

[Zero Neutral]

I find that the best way to use my CTF is to death from above or below... most other mechs can't aim up or down via arms with enough fire power to counter... Torso firing mechs are at a disadvantage against a CTF on high or low ground because they can't aim high or low enough. I'm speaking of my 4X.

[SpiralRazor]

Lefty Lucy, on 09 December 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

But support shouldn't also equal "better than any other chassis in the weight class."

Yeah, except that its not. The Torso twist on the Catapult is completely fine....it exactly suits what that mech should be able to do.

The torso twist on the Cataphract should ALSO be increased, because its super gimped right now by there "correction".

Cataphract can also put out more firepower for longer then the Catapult, except for missile based DPS by virtue of being 5 tons heavier. I view the both as fire support....even the 4x cant fill the Assault role very well, it may have the damage, but it certainly doesnt have the staying power.

Besides which,, theres what, TWO heavy chassis?? Kinda jumping the gun on that statement.

Edited by SpiralRazor, 09 December 2012 - 11:08 AM.

[Super Mono]

SpiralRazor, on 09 December 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

Yeah, except that its not. The Torso twist on the Catapult is completely fine....it exactly suits what that mech should be able to do.

The torso twist on the Cataphract should ALSO be increased, because its super gimped right now by there "correction".

Cataphract can also put out more firepower for longer then the Catapult, except for missile based DPS by virtue of being 5 tons heavier. I view the both as fire support....even the 4x cant fill the Assault role very well, it may have the damage, but it certainly doesnt have the staying power.

Besides which,, theres what, TWO heavy chassis?? Kinda jumping the gun on that statement.

The Catapult has the best torso twist and can pitch its torso up and down the best. That is ridiculous for a single mech to be so overwhelmingly good.

Plus there's suppose to be 3 heavy mechs, but with how good the Catapult is who cares about the Dragon?

[Lefty Lucy]

Levesque, on 09 December 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

Disagree. Disagree hard. This is one of the delightful oddities of the chassis, and I think each chassis needs at least one.

If there were a way to limit the right arm's range of motion, but keep the left unencumbered arm's range of motion, that would be _extra_ ideal.

As it is, I find the cataphract to be a very capable brawler.

(Some people just can't agree with the rest of you!)

So the "delightful oddity" of the Catapult is that it's just straight up better for all roles than any medium or heavy? Good balance, brah.

Although, this is starting to morph into a "nerf the catapult" discussion, which IMO is not really necessary. It *is* necessary, however, to buff the cataphract back up a bit in order to help bring it into its own.

[DasProjektil]

Flyby215, on 09 December 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

That's the best argument I've seen yet; overlapping the same role in the same weight class would be redundant and poor design on the game-makers part.

Everyone else I see are basically arguing that the mech they choose to pilot isn't giving the performance they want, but instead of adapting to the mech, or changing to a different mech, or changing strategies, the solution is apparently to change the game to adapt your style rather than adapting your style to the game.

Better known as "whining".

Better call the waaaaaaaaaambulance.

I'm no long term Battletech veteran but I'm sure there are several 'Mechs that are "redundant".
And by the way, the Jagermech is still much different from the Cataphract.
As Mr144 wrote: "You want zero convergence issues and vertical targeting?...go Jager"

There are "redundant" 'Mechs in the game right now. Take the ECM-Commando and the ECM-Raven. They both serve the same purpose and one could even argue that the Raven is just better...
In such cases it comes down to personal preference to decide which 'Mech you want to pilot
So please quit your negative attitude and don't throw in non-constructive feedback just to insult people.

Edited by DasProjektil, 09 December 2012 - 11:37 AM.

[Flyby215]

DasProjektil, on 09 December 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

I'm no long term Battletech veteran but I'm sure there are several 'Mechs that are "redundant".
And by the way, the Jagermech is still much different from the Cataphract.
As Mr144 wrote: "You want zero convergence issues and vertical targeting?...go Jager"

There are "redundant" 'Mechs in the game right now. Take the ECM-Commando and the ECM-Raven. They both serve the same purpose and one could even argue that the Raven is just better...
In such cases it comes down to personal preference to decide which 'Mech you want to pilot
So please quit your negative attitude and don't throw in non-constructive feedback just to insult people.

Point taken. My apologies... I edited the original post to make it less offensive.

Differences in the look, feel, and behaviour of each mech is what makes each unique, but as my original argument, I disagree with the idea that the Cataphract needs to be changed. I would really like my Catapult to twist 360 so that brawlers can't catch me; but it doesn't, so I adapt my strategy to not allow brawlers to get close in the first place (either through teamwork or battlefield awareness).

If the mech has a slow torso twist, then perhaps teaming up with a medium or light to help with the fast-moving enemies, or stay at long range to reduce the amount the torso needs to twist. Adjust one's strategy to the mech, not the mech to the strategy.

Edited by Flyby215, 09 December 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[Mr 144]

Flyby215, on 09 December 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Point taken. My apologies... I edited the original post to make it less offensive.

Differences in the look, feel, and behaviour of each mech is what makes each unique, but as my original argument, I disagree with the idea that the Cataphract needs to be changed. I would really like my Catapult to twist 360 so that brawlers can't catch me; but it doesn't, so I adapt my strategy to not allow brawlers to get close in the first place (either through teamwork or battlefield awareness).

If the mech has a slow torso twist, then perhaps teaming up with a medium or light to help with the fast-moving enemies, or stay at long range to reduce the amount the torso needs to twist. Adjust one's strategy to the mech, not the mech to the strategy.

But it's not the speed...it's a full 20 degrees less articulation than any other mech, regardless of weight class. My initial analysis (which Lefty posted in the OP) lists the HBK and Catapult as the extreme examples, but never intended to be a baseline goal. Those two chassis' are simply the oddities, so were listed seperately. All other mechs fall into a very specific total horizontal targeting range of 130 degrees total....all of them.

What do you think the 'phract brings to the table to warrant it's 110 degree limitation that no other mech, of any class, has? I'm just not seeing a counter argument here?

Mr 144

[Aegis Kleais]

I put so much money and time into my Cataphracts, only to have their arms 'Tyrannosaurus Rex-ized'. It was pretty frustrating.

What makes this worse is that the CTF doesn't run in that type of nerfed arm range at all times.

When you start the game, you might be running normal. Later in the game, you noticed that you're in some type of 'loose' mode where the center reticule is moving far beyond where it should be.

And then, in the heat of battle, you become a tyrannosaurus rex, and your range gets nerfed while you're in a duel with someone, trying to get an shot on their inside.

I waited for quite a while to get a nice 70 ton heavy mech that had decent weapons in mobile arms, only to have that fudged up. I say snip the canon enough to give back the free range of motion. It makes no sense to have so many actuators and to end up with less range than a Catapult.

[SpiralRazor]

Flyby215, on 09 December 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Point taken. My apologies... I edited the original post to make it less offensive.

Differences in the look, feel, and behaviour of each mech is what makes each unique, but as my original argument, I disagree with the idea that the Cataphract needs to be changed. I would really like my Catapult to twist 360 so that brawlers can't catch me; but it doesn't, so I adapt my strategy to not allow brawlers to get close in the first place (either through teamwork or battlefield awareness).

If the mech has a slow torso twist, then perhaps teaming up with a medium or light to help with the fast-moving enemies, or stay at long range to reduce the amount the torso needs to twist. Adjust one's strategy to the mech, not the mech to the strategy.

Torso twist speed is entirely dependant on your engine bro. The 1x with max engine twists a hell of a lot faster then the 4x.

Mr 144, on 09 December 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

But it's not the speed...it's a full 20 degrees less articulation than any other mech, regardless of weight class. My initial analysis (which Lefty posted in the OP) lists the HBK and Catapult as the extreme examples, but never intended to be a baseline goal. Those two chassis' are simply the oddities, so were listed seperately. All other mechs fall into a very specific total horizontal targeting range of 130 degrees total....all of them.

What do you think the 'phract brings to the table to warrant it's 110 degree limitation that no other mech, of any class, has? I'm just not seeing a counter argument here?

Mr 144

Youre not seeing one because there is none, except from people not familiar with the issue or data.

[Leetskeet]

But without the Catapault having ridiculous torso twist range and speed, what would Paul pilot?

[Indk]

Its a fire support mech not a brawler.

You're literally wanting to use it the wrong way. Sorry man, that mech isn't for you. It doesn't need more torso twist or arm movement its awesome as is.

And yes, i use it. In fact, I've used it on 75% of the games I've played since it came out.

[Mr 144]

Indk, on 09 December 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Its a fire support mech not a brawler.

You're literally wanting to use it the wrong way. Sorry man, that mech isn't for you. It doesn't need more torso twist or arm movement its awesome as is.

And yes, i use it. In fact, I've used it on 75% of the games I've played since it came out.

Actually, It's not. It's a short to mid range brawler which can be configured as a fire-support mech. The inclusion of LBXs, SRMs, and medium lasers kinda make it so in some stock variants.

Re-checked My numbers for all known chassis.....
Lower Arm Actuator minimum = 90 torso + 40 arm = 130 degrees
No Lower Arm Actuator minimum = 120 (torso) degrees
So the 'phract is worse than a mech with no arms

I don't see what 'using it properly' means?

Mr 144

Edited by Mr 144, 09 December 2012 - 01:18 PM.