371 replies to this topic

[Deamhan]

400 people have cast their vote. It's a big fat 'NO' outing the yes by a factor of 2 to 1 on both questions.

/thread.

[Zylo]

GalaxyBluestar, on 30 January 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

sorry i had to go and couldn't finish the discussion with you so i'll make a quick summery...

the original thread complaint? whinge away catapult is fine with uber twist it makes up for most of it's fire power being relatively easy to knock off on the a1 - c4 chassis. i would NOT NERF it's torso movement and the k2 needs to have the eye of scrutiny apon it for these positive and negative effects...

zylo we'll beg to differ about the k2; weapons mounted in a torso that shouldn't accomadate them, one of the few who can duel fire most powerfull ballistics in game when it should have main weaponry in arms to offset it's low profile and flexibility in the field advantages. in the torso you can gain same armour advantage as the cataphract and theres a grey area to say which is best, arm fire arc/convergence or torso fire. then the k2 is deployed in game with small maps tons of cover for sneaking around {then there's ecm} and rnr gone means there's no discentive for bringing such expensive equipment. why else do you see so many closerange weapons on mechs? cause brawling is still prominant and only the odd sniper and the lrm boats are stopping every match being a 300m or less rockem sockem tornament with robots.

the problem is it's a mixture of a build that shouldn't be possible in the game and a game that shouldn't be locked in it's current parametres. for now a slight reluctant no nerf vote but when we have bigger maps and rnr back we'll see if the cat is still as dominant in these min/max forms as they are now...

oh and that bit about equivalent builds to counter cats... i hear they're mostly assault mechs or bigger mechs, so doesn't that prove that the cat is punching well above it's weight with the added lighter chassis advantages when it shouldn't?

I would actually prefer arm mounted ballistic hardpoints on the K2 to allow for better up/down aiming but that is a strength the cataphract has over the catapult so I don't mind too much.

I think someone had suggested a larger side torso when large ballistic weapons are equipped on the K2 (I seem to remember some concept art edited to show larger side torsos). I think this would be reasonable because the machine guns shown on the K2 shouldn't be shooting gauss, AC/20 or UAC/5 without having a graphic change that expands the side torso a bit.

I think this should be done for all mechs, expanding the weapons shown on the mech if a larger weapon is equipped than the stock variant and also expanding hitboxes when the weapon loads require more space.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Zylo, on 30 January 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

I would actually prefer arm mounted ballistic hardpoints on the K2 to allow for better up/down aiming but that is a strength the cataphract has over the catapult so I don't mind too much.

I think someone had suggested a larger side torso when large ballistic weapons are equipped on the K2 (I seem to remember some concept art edited to show larger side torsos). I think this would be reasonable because the machine guns shown on the K2 shouldn't be shooting gauss, AC/20 or UAC/5 without having a graphic change that expands the side torso a bit.

I think this should be done for all mechs, expanding the weapons shown on the mech if a larger weapon is equipped than the stock variant and also expanding hitboxes when the weapon loads require more space.

no no no no no please lets not even discuss the extra art stuff or i'll start requesting someone takes the barrels from the awesome and shove six on a stalker to justify the 6ppc version... you know how silly that is.

[Zylo]

MegaBusta, on 30 January 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

You're bringing personal experience into this. I'm trying not to. I'm not basing this off skill level, I'm assuming all things equal.

If the larger cockpit was significant cockpit shots would be more common than they are. I can count the times I've been cockpitted since I entered closed beta on my hands, the number of those that were at the helm of one of my Catapults is a fraction of that, and the number of those that occured when I was moving at a speed of something other than 0 km/h is one, MAYBE two.

And this is assuming the catapult or somone else isn't giving your cockpit a seizure with SRMs or something.

People in this thread arguing for Cat nerfs are giving reasons why. All you say is effectively "it's fine, learn to play *******"

If you have looked at the entire thread there have been posts explaining the disadvantages of the catapult.

If others refuse to see these weaknesses of the catapult then yes, they need to learn to play because the catapults are easily countered by targeting their weak points.

GalaxyBluestar, on 30 January 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

no no no no no please lets not even discuss the extra art stuff or i'll start requesting someone takes the barrels from the awesome and shove six on a stalker to justify the 6ppc version... you know how silly that is.

If the barrels expanded the hitboxes... why not?

[GalaxyBluestar]

Zylo, on 30 January 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

If the barrels expanded the hitboxes... why not?

so not satisfied with ruining cannon mechs you want to make them grotesque in the extreme? hell grab the barrels of a fafnir and shove five of them on my awesome that will make them loved again!

http://www.sarna.net...d/dd/Fafnir.gif

mech warrior 3 lol builds here we come!

[LaserAngel]

MegaBusta, on 30 January 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

You're bringing personal experience into this. I'm trying not to. I'm not basing this off skill level, I'm assuming all things equal.

If the larger cockpit was significant cockpit shots would be more common than they are. I can count the times I've been cockpitted since I entered closed beta on my hands, the number of those that were at the helm of one of my Catapults is a fraction of that, and the number of those that occured when I was moving at a speed of something other than 0 km/h is one, MAYBE two.

And this is assuming the catapult or somone else isn't giving your cockpit a seizure with SRMs or something.

People in this thread arguing for Cat nerfs are giving reasons why. All you say is effectively "it's fine, learn to play *******"

The majority of my headshot kills have been against the Awesome or Cataphract using masses of SRMs. My own headshot deaths? Melee dual Guass blows to my Hunchback and another few on my Catapult. I can count them on my hands too.

[Zylo]

GalaxyBluestar, on 30 January 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

so not satisfied with ruining cannon mechs you want to make them grotesque in the extreme? hell grab the barrels of a fafnir and shove five of them on my awesome that will make them loved again!

http://www.sarna.net...d/dd/Fafnir.gif

mech warrior 3 lol builds here we come!

I'm sure it could be done without ruining the mech appearances too much.

I was just suggesting it as a means of balancing builds that were far different than the stock builds. If the weapons are larger, shouldn't they come with larger hit boxes to offset the higher burst damage?

[MegaBusta]

Zylo, on 30 January 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

If you have looked at the entire thread there have been posts explaining the disadvantages of the catapult.

If others refuse to see these weaknesses of the catapult then yes, they need to learn to play because the catapults are easily countered by targeting their weak points.

Do please, sum them up for me. I came into this fairly late and frankly reading 15 pages worth of stuff doesn't sound very appealing right now.

What I've gathered so far is the cockpit hitbox, which i've addressed, targeting the ears, which isn't really all that much wider than another target's arms, not to mention irrelevant to the AC/20 and gauss cat. Finally the "relatively" large CT hitbox, which really is somewhat comprable to the cataphract's (whose side torsos are also larger, by they way), and the dragon's CT, which is even larger.

Did I miss anything?

[GalaxyBluestar]

Zylo, on 30 January 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

I'm sure it could be done without ruining the mech appearances too much.

I was just suggesting it as a means of balancing builds that were far different than the stock builds. If the weapons are larger, shouldn't they come with larger hit boxes to offset the higher burst damage?

or perhaps the game should adopt some of the mech warrior 4 hard point sizes so that the devs wouldn't be rushed off their feet provideing art and hit boxes for every insane player's ideas for customising a mech. we'd have 5 extra raven models to incoperate the gause raven etc etc the commando would need a ppc barrel shoved on it and the list just goes one and on and on!

seriously changing the art work is not easy and is an incredible waste of time and effort catering to lolol/troll builds. just shove on the hardpoints a slot number so an a1 can take 5 hardpoint slots giving the pod 2xsrms6 and an srm4 which is inkeeping with the tube amount {although lrm's would still need double salvos for some configs} and the k2 should have 4 balistic hardpoint slots for an ac5 and no bigger whilst it's energy pod should have 4 enegry slots.

that is the solution to still keeping customisation options but not over tanking the chassis to ridiculous stuff.

[Zylo]

MegaBusta, on 30 January 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

Do please, sum them up for me. I came into this fairly late and frankly reading 15 pages worth of stuff doesn't sound very appealing right now.

What I've gathered so far is the cockpit hitbox, which i've addressed, targeting the ears, which isn't really all that much wider than another target's arms, not to mention irrelevant to the AC/20 and gauss cat. Finally the "relatively" large CT hitbox, which really is somewhat comprable to the cataphract's (whose side torsos are also larger, by they way), and the dragon's CT, which is even larger.

Did I miss anything?

Those are the primary weaknesses.

In the case of the A1 all the hardpoints are in the arms. Lose 1 and half your weapons are gone. Lose the other and you might as well go cap the enemy base because you have no weapons. The hitboxes are big and easily hit from front/side/rear. It takes little effort to totally disarm the A1.

The K2 played in the gauss version is not really a great brawler, but it is a good sniper. It is most easily killed by a headshot either by a short range brawler, or another sniper. Tends to move slower due to 30 tons used by the dual gauss rifles + maybe another 6+ tons of ammo. Generally seen with an XL engine.

The AC/20 K2 can only run standard engines and is generally a bit slower than the gauss K2. It is best engaged at a distance and is vulnerable to LRM and sniper fire due to slower speed. This build is generally most successful when it is able to sneak up on it's target. Spot it from a distance and go for the headshot or the legs since they often contain the AC/20 ammo and many pilots strip this armor to fit a larger engine.

[GalaxyBluestar]

just like to make a note.... thanks for the discussion zylo by this time on forums people lose their bottle and go troll hard on you and mothers are mentioned etc. happy to have a convesation with you anytime ciao!

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 30 January 2013 - 05:48 PM.

[Malavai Fletcher]

Catapult doesn't need any kind of nerf,I see alot more Cataphract 3D's than catapults in competitive drops,the 3D has a massive advantage in a couple of areas.

[MegaBusta]

Alright, let's break this down.

Zylo, on 30 January 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

Those are the primary weaknesses.

In the case of the A1 all the hardpoints are in the arms. Lose 1 and half your weapons are gone. Lose the other and you might as well go cap the enemy base because you have no weapons. The hitboxes are big and easily hit from front/side/rear. It takes little effort to totally disarm the A1.

More effort than it takes to declaw nearly every hunchback variant short of the 4SP.
There are at least two other mech's with this problem, and many others which have it to slightly less extremes. They are either very light and vulnerable or have problems bringing said weapons to bear.

Zylo, on 30 January 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

The K2 played in the gauss version is not really a great brawler, but it is a good sniper. It is most easily killed by a headshot either by a short range brawler, or another sniper. Tends to move slower due to 30 tons used by the dual gauss rifles + maybe another 6+ tons of ammo. Generally seen with an XL engine.

Alright, theoretical question. Why would make a gauss phract instead of a catapult? Its range of motion on its arms is almost not worth mentioning, its torso twist range is like 2/3 of the catapult's, its side torso is a massive target in comparison, and its gauss points are at the same relative place, if not LOWER, than the K2's, forcing you to expose even more of yourself to open fire. The only Cataphract that has ANYTHING of worth over the catapult is the Muromets, and that's due to the one ballistic spot, letting it carry up to 3 larger ballistics. The rest are generally inferior, despite the extra 5 tons. That "exortwist", as alex aptly put it, rears its ugly head again and acutally make the catapult a GREAT brawler. Yes, gauss isn't exactly optimal for brawling, but that's a problem with your weapon of choice, not the chassis. Throw a pair of gauss in a cataphract and you have an even shittier brawler, with a larger cross section for sniper duels.
,

Zylo, on 30 January 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

The AC/20 K2 can only run standard engines and is generally a bit slower than the gauss K2. It is best engaged at a distance and is vulnerable to LRM and sniper fire due to slower speed. This build is generally most successful when it is able to sneak up on it's target. Spot it from a distance and go for the headshot or the legs since they often contain the AC/20 ammo and many pilots strip this armor to fit a larger engine.

It's the only mech physically capable of using 2 AC/20's right now so there's nothing else to compare this too; but again, the issue comes down to the fact that its torso range is so far it's hard to flank, at least for long. Even if you're a medium or light, you might get one alpha off before he can zero in on you. The other heavies have a much harder time doing that, unless they have a much faster engine, or if they can they have less weapons to bring to bear when they do.

Strange how the exact same 'mech variant that is great at sniping is great at brawling just by swapping its weapons? Try that with the cataphract or dragon and the results are not so good.

EDIT: Grammar ****'ing myself.

Edited by MegaBusta, 30 January 2013 - 06:26 PM.

[Zylo]

Malavai Fletcher, on 30 January 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

Catapult doesn't need any kind of nerf,I see alot more Cataphract 3D's than catapults in competitive drops,the 3D has a massive advantage in a couple of areas.

I see plenty of the cataphract 3Ds set up as snipers.

Jump -> shoot -> repeat until target is dead.

[Zylo]

MegaBusta, on 30 January 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

Alright, let's break this down.

There are at least two other mech's with this problem, and many others which have it to slightly less extremes. They are either very light and vulnerable or have problems bringing said weapons to bear.



Alright, theoretical question. Why would make a gauss phract instead of a catapult? Its range of motion on its arms is almost not worth mentioning, its torso twist range is like 2/3 of the catapult's, its side torso is a massive target in comparison, and its gauss points are at the same relative place, if not LOWER, than the K2's, forcing you to expose even more of yourself to open fire. The only Cataphract that has ANYTHING of worth over the catapult is the Muromets, and that's due to the one ballistic spot, letting it carry up to 3 larger ballistics. The rest are generally inferior, despite the extra 5 tons. That "exortwist", as alex aptly put it, rears its ugly head again and acutally make the catapult a GREAT brawler. Yes, gauss isn't exactly optimal for brawling, but that's a problem with your weapon of choice, not the chassis. Throw a pair of gauss in a cataphract and you have an even shittier brawler, with a larger cross section for sniper duels.
,

It's the only mech physically capable of using 2 AC/20's right now, and again, the issue comes down to the fact that its torso range is so far it's hard to flank, at least for long. Even if your a medium or light, you might get one alpha off before he can zero in on you. The other heavies have a much harder time doing that, unless they have a much faster engine, or they have less weapons to bring to bear when they do.

All of these issues are really hardpoint related.
Would many of these issues exist if hardpoints were set up with size limits?

Lets look at what would happen with the K2 if the ballistic hardpoints were limited by size:
Small hardpoint = 4 slots - MG, AC/2, AC/5 will fit.
Medium hardpoint = 6 slots - UAC/5, LB10x will fit
Large hardpoint = 10 slots - AC/10, AC/20, Gauss rifle will fit


The K2 comes with 2x MG in the side torso sections with a single ballistic hardpoint in each torso. These would be defined as small hardpoints limiting the K2 to MGs, AC/2, AC/5. This would kill any designs using dual UAC/5's or larger weapons. Would this be good for balance? It would probably force a return to energy based weapons for sniping using the K2 chassis while using the ballistic hardpoints for fighting up close.


Lets look at the Atlas DDC with it's 2 ballistic hardpoints.
The Atlas DDC comes with the AC/20 stock and has 2 ballistic hardpoints. Since it comes with the AC/20 both hardpoints could be defined as large which would be limited by the total available 12 slots in the side torso. This would not cause any change to the atlas in terms of firepower.


The cataphract 4x could be more complicated. It has 4x ballistic hardpoints with 9 available slots in each arm. Should these hardpoints be defined as 4x small, 2x small + 2x medium or have some other limits based on the total space allowing 4x large knowing that it would not be possible to actually run 4x large ballistic weapons? 4x large in this case makes sense allowing a cataphract 4x for example to run 2x Gauss + 2x AC/2 or 2x AC/5 + 2x UAC/5 or even 4x AC/5. This would change nothing in terms of firepower based on what the cataphract can currently equip.


Finally lets look at the Raven 4x.
Stock loadout is 2x MGs meaning it would have 2x small ballistic hardpoints.
This would allow the raven to run up to 2x AC/5's. It would prevent the occasional gauss or AC/20 raven.


I wouldn't be against hardpoint size limits as this would give players reasons to use other weapon types that have been used less often in the past. It could also cause players to consider other mech designs that allow the use of larger weapons due to their stock weapon configs. This could be tested first with ballistic weapons and if this balance method worked, it could be applied to missiles and energy weapons as well.

Edited by Zylo, 30 January 2013 - 06:43 PM.

[MegaBusta]

Zylo, on 30 January 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

All of these issues are really hardpoint related.

And that's where I'm going to have to disagree.

Personally I'm against the whole "size limited hardpoints" thing. It may stop some of the cheese builds, but we're going to be crippling versatility. I'm afraid of getting to the point where everything is practically close to stock 'mechs. It strikes me as a bandaid fix.

The thing is that these catapult variants are unsurpassed in their weight class and role, and I think it's something in common with all of them.

[GalaxyBluestar]

MegaBusta, on 30 January 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

And that's where I'm going to have to disagree.

Personally I'm against the whole "size limited hardpoints" thing. It may stop some of the cheese builds, but we're going to be crippling versatility. I'm afraid of getting to the point where everything is practically close to stock 'mechs. It strikes me as a bandaid fix.

The thing is that these catapult variants are unsurpassed in their weight class and role, and I think it's something in common with all of them.

c1 and c4 are easy meat cause they have to manage multiple weapons and can't get their min/max on.

a1 and k2 can nuff said.

[Zylo]

MegaBusta, on 30 January 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

And that's where I'm going to have to disagree.

Personally I'm against the whole "size limited hardpoints" thing. It may stop some of the cheese builds, but we're going to be crippling versatility. I'm afraid of getting to the point where everything is practically close to stock 'mechs. It strikes me as a bandaid fix.

The thing is that these catapult variants are unsurpassed in their weight class and role, and I think it's something in common with all of them.

If you look at the complaints in the past the gauss K2 was the first real catapult complaint. Mounting dual gauss in machine gun hardpoints.

The AC/20 K2 complaints are very similar to the gauss K2 complaints, again using large ballistic weapons on hardpoints intended for small ballistic weapons.

The catapults have been around long enough that players have figured out the best configs allowed by the hardpoints. Most mechs with large ballistic weapons would not be changed at all if size limits were added to ballistic hardpoints. It's not a perfect fix but it would balance ballistic based configs across all mechs based on their intended roles.

[Wolf Clearwater]

To respond to the original post:

You complain about the cat being an over powered cheese heavy mech build....have you even seen a 'phract 4x?

And for the record, no I don't think either the phract or the cat is over powered.

Best cat A1 build:
2 LRM 10
2 SRM 6
2 SSRM

A little of everything

[Stingz]

Zylo, on 30 January 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

I wouldn't be against hardpoint size limits as this would give players reasons to use other weapon types that have been used less often in the past. It could also cause players to consider other mech designs that allow the use of larger weapons due to their stock weapon configs. This could be tested first with ballistic weapons and if this balance method worked, it could be applied to missiles and energy weapons as well.

Mechwarrior 4 (+ Mercs) had it already, works pretty well.

Edited by Stingz, 30 January 2013 - 07:34 PM.