108 replies to this topic

[warner2]

jshill78, on 30 January 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

Proof:

CPLT-C1

vs

CTF-2X

That CTPLT has an XL engine, the CTF has a standard. That's too important not to mention, or do you consider the survivability of both to be equal despite the engine difference?

Edited by warner2, 30 January 2013 - 09:36 AM.

[jshill78]

TexAss, on 30 January 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Proof?

Artemis doesn't work against ECM mechs...

http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/

That's as official a source as I can link since there isn't a weapon/device explanation on the MWO site.

Gaurdian ECM - Cloaks friendly tagets within 180m from targeting and weapon lock. Jams sensors in disrupt mode. Slows weapon lock by 50%. Slows target info gathering by 25%

It does NOTHING to Artemis. Absolutely positively nothing. Artemis is an internal upgrade that narrows the spread on dumbfire SRM missiles. It also (when line of sight is maintained) helps more of your LRMs land on target and in CT. Artemis does nothing to LRMs if you don't have line of sight.

[Bagheera]

Ngamok, on 30 January 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

I tried the 2X 3D and 4X and I liked the 3D the most. The 1X was sort of similar to the 3D I think it was.

I really wanted to like the 3D, but something about it just never quite worked for me. I think I'm too clumsy to use ballistics weapons on different reticles or something. Or maybe I'm too fixated on keeping it fastish and with JJs. Not really sure. The only one that seemed to remotely work for me was a joke build AC20/AC10 version.

I know its a solid variant, but for some reason I have a weird mental block on it or something.

I definitely see the 2X in the field the least, not really sure why.

[jshill78]

warner2, on 30 January 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

That CTPLT has an XL engine, the CTF has a standard. That's too important not to mention, or do you consider the survivability of both to be equal despite the engine difference?

I posted a similar weapon load out based on the largest engine available to both chassis considering the loadout. The CTF shouldn't be equipped with an XL engine. You can try it, but I don't recommend it. The CPLT can use XL because you have to blow an arm off to access the side torsos. If you would like to make a build where all equipment is identical you can attempt to do so. What you'll find remains the same. In all circumstances considered, the CPLT will have advantages over the CTF when equipping similar builds.

That's not the point of my comment though. The CTF-2X is a fun and capable mech. I own it and like it. There are several capable builds to it as well based on your play style. When it comes down to it though, the answer to the OP, however, is simple and has been stated. Why isn't the CTF-2X more popular? 1. Because the CPLT is better. 2. Because the Ilya is better. 3. Because the CTF-3D is better.

[Buso Senshi Zelazny]

Cerlin, on 30 January 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Also the catapults do hit hard but a majority of current A1 pilots are pretty bad shots. Keep moving and you shouldnt have too many issues.

The CPLT-A1 seems to be the flavor of the month. And what you said about most A1 pilots its fairly true. I have also seen some very poor heat management from these pilots. In a single match on Forest I had three of them overheat at different times, and blew out the cockpits on all three of them, while I was in my Cataphract . I drive both Phracts and Pults, and right now I prefer Phracts, usually with Larges lasers and whatever ballistic fits. Used to rock the AC2. The UAC5 would be great with a more flexible/user influenced jam mechanic, but right now unless you have at least two its not reliable.

[PlayinItSafe]

jshill78, on 30 January 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

People popping in to post that the CPLT is better aren't really adding anything to the thread. No carp the CPLT is better. Everyone already knows that. Some folks prefer the CTF just because it's different even though it may not be optimal.

There are some configurations you can pull off in a CTF that you can't in a CPLT but overall the statement is correct. CPLT > CTF.

Now back to the actual point of the thread.

Proof:

CPLT-C1

vs

CTF-2X

Same sustained damage, same firepower, CTF is 10 KPH slower but has 16 more armor, CPLT has AMS and more ammo, CTF loses 1 LL and 2 streaks with arms blown off where CPLT only loses 2 streaks, Torso twist is amazing in the CPLT.

I fail to see the stats that prove the catapult is better than the cataphract if you use this variant CTF-2X of the cataphract. It utilizes an xl engine and has the same firepower, cooling eff, and speed, weapons and ams, as well as more armour and 2 tons to spare for a weapon upgrade like switching one large laser for a ppc (to help counter ecm in the upcoming patch.)

If you are going to compare builds, try to remember to have the same type of engine.

[jshill78]

because the XL engine will get you blown up in 2 seconds in a match. On paper it looks good, but you won't survive in game. Plus those 2 free tons are useless with 0 critical slots remaining. You can't upgrade to a PPC because you don't have any slots.

When comparing builds, try to keep the reality of the mech in mind.

CPLT can use XL. CTF cannot. It's as simple as that. Try for yourself.

[Alex Wolfe]

warner2, on 30 January 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

That CTPLT has an XL engine, the CTF has a standard. That's too important not to mention, or do you consider the survivability of both to be equal despite the engine difference?

Pretty much, since Catapult's XL cannot be purposefully popped from the front at least.

PlayinItSafe, on 30 January 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

I fail to see the stats that prove the catapult is better than the cataphract

Ask, and ye shall receive.



Catapult outmaneuvers Cataphract handily, not to mention it boats better and its XL engine can be easily protected, unlike the prat's.

[Elyam]

Been using the 2X for a few weeks now, very happy with it, though it's true that the large apparent hit boxes do make it easier for an enemy to repeatedly damage the same area. This just means you have to remain mobile and change attitude constantly.

It did well as a brawler, though admittedlly is more complex to pull off than the primary bralwers people refer to. But it's versatile...many build variations can be made around 2 missile mounts in the LA. I mostly used 2 SRM6-A or 2 SRM4-A, and with the salvoed fire due to only 4 tubes, the spread remained minimal. While without the massive smash of the SRM'pult's 36 missiles, it still acted as a primary damage mechanism adding to the 3 beams and 1 ballistic. For speed, the 280 or 300 were adequate, but took work to be agile; the 325 or 340 brought enhanced speed into the 80s, which feels quite good. One thing is for sure, you learn to maneuver, use cover, interrupt enemy OODA loops as much as possible (look it up ) etc. when trying to be a 2X brawler using a 280XL.

I'm now using the 2X for long-range direct fire-support (doing my Marauder imitation) with 2 PPCs and AC5, backed up by 2 Streaks and 1 MPLAS for close support, and I think this is its better calling.

Is the 'Pult better? Yes. But the 'Phract is an interesting challenge and good test-bed for concepts.

Edited by Elyam, 30 January 2013 - 10:03 AM.

[PlayinItSafe]

jshill78, on 30 January 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

because the XL engine will get you blown up in 2 seconds in a match. On paper it looks good, but you won't survive in game. Plus those 2 free tons are useless with 0 critical slots remaining. You can't upgrade to a PPC because you don't have any slots.

When comparing builds, try to keep the reality of the mech in mind.

Who needs that much srm ammo anyway? Drop a ton and add ppc, simple. As far as virtual reality goes, I'd say that you still need to compare apples to apples.. or xls to xls in this case. Good luck fitting a standard on that catapult with even close to the same loadout.

[jshill78]

I pretty much only use my Phracts 1X and 3D with sniper builds. It seems that is where they shine.

Gauss Rifle, ER PPC and some medium lasers to help with the close range alpha. Solid, heat efficient and deadly.

[LORD ORION]

Cataphracts are not that great of brawlers because they don't have the armor to deal with assault brawlers and trade blows.

Sure you can do alot of damage with your alpha... but when you also take 50+ points back look at your armor... you are going to have things blown off.

Stay out of 270 range and blast the crap out of things with UACs... those are the cataphracts I hate the most.

[PlayinItSafe]

Alex Wolfe, on 30 January 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

Pretty much, since Catapult's XL cannot be purposefully popped from the front at least.


Ask, and ye shall receive.



Catapult outmaneuvers Cataphract handily, not to mention it boats better and its XL engine can be easily protected, unlike the prat's.

Thanks for those comparisons, but I wasn't contesting the torso capability of either. Just the flawed comparrison of the two builds that were posted.

[jshill78]

PlayinItSafe, on 30 January 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

Who needs that much srm ammo anyway? Drop a ton and add ppc, simple. As far as virtual reality goes, I'd say that you still need to compare apples to apples.. or xls to xls in this case. Good luck fitting a standard on that catapult with even close to the same loadout.

You, sir are missing the boat completely. I understand your defensiveness. You want to believe your CTF is better than a CPLT. Okay. Viola, poof, shizzam. It is.

For the rest of us not living in dreamville, it simply isn't.

Why would you compare a CPLT using a standard engine to a CTF using a standard engine? Why would you compare a CPLT using an XL engine to a CTF using an XL engine? It's silly.

The CPLT is designed to use the XL. The CTF is designed to use the standard. Anything other than that is just irrelevant.

Edited by jshill78, 30 January 2013 - 10:10 AM.

[Alex Wolfe]

PlayinItSafe, on 30 January 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

Thanks for those comparisons, but I wasn't contesting the torso capability of either. Just the flawed comparrison of the two builds that were posted.

Well, you said that builds can't be compared with different engines.

The thing is though, that Catapult can ALWAYS* afford to carry XL engine because it's so hard to hit. Cataphract can't, because - its CT big as it is - the sides are still very easy to pop.

*The only time Catapult cannot carry XL is... when it carries AC40 config, that Cataphract (and any other mech in the game) simply cannot. Game, set, match I guess .

[Regina Redshift]

jshill78, on 30 January 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

because the XL engine will get you blown up in 2 seconds in a match. On paper it looks good, but you won't survive in game. Plus those 2 free tons are useless with 0 critical slots remaining. You can't upgrade to a PPC because you don't have any slots. When comparing builds, try to keep the reality of the mech in mind. CPLT can use XL. CTF cannot. It's as simple as that. Try for yourself.

I did, and do you know what happens? I get legged, my ammo cooks off, my side torso explodes and I die.

The CPLT's side torsos are also much easier to hit (especially if you're piloting a light) than you seem to believe.

All of that said, I get ruined by splat-cats (4~6xSRM6) unless I'm running over 100kph.

[jshill78]

Really the only builds a CTF can do that can't be duplicated in a CPLT and done better are:

5 Medium Lasers and AC20 (CTF-2X) = garbage
3 UAC5s (Ilya) = freaking awesome machine gunner
2 UAC5 and 2 AC5 (CTF-4X) = smelly garbage
4 AC5 (CTF-4X) = ulta smelly disgusting garbage

So basically you have 1 build that's good that can't be duplicated and done better in a CPLT. It's a hero mech.

Now what was the question again?

[Coolant]

To OP, I don't know what a 2x is...not everyone knows what chassis a variant is. Makes it easier for discussion when the actual mech is included in the post...

Edited by Coolant, 30 January 2013 - 10:21 AM.

[Alexandrix]

I enjoy bringing my 2x out every now and then to tool around with it.I've ran the "mini atlas" ac20+mlas+srm build,as well as a build with 2MLAS,1LLAS,2SRM6,and an LBX10.I have fun with it,and usually do pretty well.
Sadly,I feel like I give more to my team in my ilya with triple uac or dual guass.Using the 2x as a brawler can be done,and can be effective,but it's just not as good at it as a SRMcat or AC20cat.The torso is wide and easy to pick apart,the torso twist is sub par in comparison to the catapult,and the arms...those damn arms.I so wish they would either increase the torso twist range,or give the arms full mobility again.I'm so tired of feeling like I have T-rex arms in my cataphracts.It really puts you at a disadvantage when in a circle or brawl.

Anyways,While it can be a good brawler,I think the phract is best used in a midrange fire support role.

Kind of ironic,and saddening, how things have turned out honestly.The catapult,which is generally the de-facto inner sphere second line LRM/fire support mech,has been perverted into one the best brawlers we have.The cataphract,which is supposedly a front line heavy mech,is best relegated to a fire support role.

[PlayinItSafe]

Wow you guys get worked up easy. It's hard for me to get defensive over something I don't own. I don't have either of these mechs, nor will I anytime soon. Sure the catapult has better torso twist, better survivability based on it's model design, and comparable loadout to a mech 5T heavier. The only point I'm making is about keeping the configurations as similar as possible, and the mechs shown had different engines. That is all.