284 replies to this topic

[Escef]

Last night I took my SRMcat and Alpha'd a Commando. Cross-hairs were dead center.

Now, I'm not about to say that 6x SRM6 isn't powerful. It's very powerful.

The Commando lived, by the way. Lost both arms and both side torsos. and he ran off. Because even if I had been packing a 315 engine (I only run a 305) I could not catch up to even a stock Commando, they're too fast. In fact, there is no stock light mech that the 'pult can pace. (It comes close with the Raven 2X and 4X, able to keep up only if the Cat has speed tweak and a nearly maxed engine.) As for being able to pace mediums, the problem is that 2 of the 3 mediums we currently have are pocket heavies.

So, look, can we have this argument without exaggeration and outright lies? Is that asking too much?

[Stringburka]

While I still don't have big issues with them personally, and the video is by someone who is a very skilled pilot, I have reassessed my opinion and agree that the A1 might need to be tagen down a peg.

I do not, however, agree with slowing it or reducing torso twist - at least not much. I feel doing that will just turn it into a sucky Stalker. It needs to be kept much more mobile than a Stalker.

One suggestion might be to reduce the number of missile tubes. That wouldn't hurt LRM builds that much, as they're less reliant on a strong alpha, but causing the 6 SRM6 to be shot in volleys would mean they are less likely to hit moving targets.

Edited by Stringburka, 04 February 2013 - 04:13 AM.

[1453 R]

Alright.

People.

Question (one that has already been asked).

What else is the A1 supposed to do?

Frankly, that was a bad choice of variants to use anyways, given the existence of the C4. The C4 is what a missile-oriented Catapult should look like - four missile hardpoints in the arms to carry a mixed suite of launchers with and a couple of residual laser slots from the C1 as a backup, and to justify reducing the boating potential of the machine. The A1 is an overspecialized machine in the design phase - why does it surprise people when pilots use it to overspecialize?

Really. ECM takes both LRMs and Streak SRMs out of the viable option pool completely, and you folkswant to hammer the Cat? It's just weird. Especially when your ideas are things which make the A1 chassis strictly inferior to every other Catapult; i.e. reducing its torso twist or its engine ratings. It's strange...missile junkies complain about ECM rendering LRMs less useful than single heat sinks in Caustic's caldera and get a huge whackstorm of "adapt or die!" and "learn2play!" They do just exactly that, and the machine of choice for doing so is regarded as abusive.

People...really. What options do non-K2 Catapults have left?

[Rat of the Legion Vega]

If a boating chassis is causing problems, then one needs to look at the weapon being boated, not the chassis. In this case, the double damage that SRMs get over TT.

[Karl Streiger]

Rat of the Legion Vega, on 04 February 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

If a boating chassis is causing problems, then one needs to look at the weapon being boated, not the chassis. In this case, the double damage that SRMs get over TT.

I disaggree.
What do you want to do with a A1?
Mount 6 LRM 5?

[Rat of the Legion Vega]

Karl Streiger, on 04 February 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

[size=4]
I disaggree.
What do you want to do with a A1?
Mount 6 LRM 5?

Not sure what you mean. If boating 6 SRM 6s is a problem, then the problem is SRMs, not any particular chasis. Most mechs in game are loaded up on em right now (Stalkers, Atlases, Hunch SPs, Centurions etc.). That's because they're a bit too powerful IMO. Stalkers are just as dangerous at point blank range when they boat 5 SRMs.

[Karl Streiger]

Rat of the Legion Vega, on 04 February 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

Not sure what you mean. If boating 6 SRM 6s is a problem, then the problem is SRMs, not any particular chasis. Most mechs in game are loaded up on em right now (Stalkers, Atlases, Hunch SPs, Centurions etc.). That's because they're a bit too powerful IMO. Stalkers are just as dangerous at point blank range when they boat 5 SRMs.

What i meant, is that the A1 is a complete useless catapult variant unless you use it with SRMs.
To create powerful LRM Catapult the C4 with 4 hardpoints is enough.

Actual - and thats not a problem of the weapon but a problem of map building - every short range weapon looks more powerfull than a long or extreme range weapon. Do you think anybody would use a DC - with AC 20 and tripple SRM when he has to cross a mile of open terrain?
Even at max speed the A1 will need a minute the close the gap between the maximum range of a ER-PPC and the maximum range of the SRM

[Stringburka]

Isn't it established that an ECM nerf is coming? (not rethorical question, read it was but haven't seen it myself)

When that happens, the LRM A1 will be useful again, running mostly like a C1 or any other missile cat but with some SRM for protection instead of lasers.

[CECILOFS]

Karl Streiger, on 04 February 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

[size=4]
I disaggree.
What do you want to do with a A1?
Mount 6 LRM 5?

I did that sometimes before ECM. Worked really well as a disruptor style missile boat and to eat up people's AMS ammo.

But, you know, ECM means you can only reliably take SRMs on it now.

[Karl Streiger]

CECILOFS, on 04 February 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

I did that sometimes before ECM. Worked really well as a disruptor style missile boat and to eat up people's AMS ammo.

But, you know, ECM means you can only reliably take SRMs on it now.

Oh LRM 5 are still usefull. You don't know how many people tend to jump for cover when they got the message, "Incomming Missiles!"

[Jakob Knight]

nostra, on 01 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

Technically good tactics or a skillful pilot can get around any opponents' uber-build BS like the Gaussapult or Streakcat (anyone else notice that they all seem to be on the Catapult?). Unfortunately the issue lies in player mentality vs. Battletech canon... You'd never meet a Dual AC/20 Catapult K2 in the Battletech universe, some 'mechs are usually given a set role to perform, and are rarely used outside of that role. Conversely, other 'mechs are meant for a balanced configuration to meet combat at all ranges. But you get a Stalker, for example, meant to be the latter type, as all the stock builds would show you, able to mount weapons with overlapping range profiles.....but then some jackhole on the internet trolls up a 6-PPC build "just because he can" aaaaaaand the game is temporarily ruined because it dominates the field in a way that it was never meant to do.

Actually, one of the problems with the statements above are that there were plenty of similar builds in Battletech, one of which even became one of the initial mechs in MWO (HBK-4P). There were mechs in BTech that mounted dual AC/20s, more than two PPCs, arrays of SRMs and/or Lasers (Stalker is a prime example), and almost everything people are claiming should be impossible in MWO. The issue is that there were -many- more models of battlemechs in Battletech than there are in MWO, and so there were mechs already designed and made to fill the roles. You don't see these mechs in MWO because the devs have not elected to put every single mech model and variant into MWO, both because of the time that would take to code up, and because players have been given the ability to reproduce these other models through the mechlab system, removing the need to have hundreds of mech models in the game.

To illustrate, I want to run a Warhammer-IIC4 in MWO. Granted I don't have the clantech on the original, but as no one else does either, the final mech would be on the same level within the game. Now, there -is- no Warhammer-IIC4 in MWO, both because the Devs aren't going to make yet another mech model for my personal benefit and other issues surrounding the mech. However, I -can- take an AWS-8T Awesome (which even shares some of the Warhammer look), put twin ERPPCs, twin SRM-6s on it, and I now effectively have my Warhammer-IIC4 for MWO. Does that make it OP because 'no one ever put that on an AWS'?

Lastly, the idea that a mech that is effective must be OP is rather idiotic. Especially when there are so few mechs in the game to compare them to. A heavy mech, especially, is supposed to mount heavy firepower unless it is tailored as a strike unit (Dragon). To say a Heavy mech is OP because it mounts heavy firepower is simply not understanding the actual way such battlemechs are meant to be. Only an Assault mech is supposed to have more firepower and armor than a Heavy, after all, and I doubt you will find any driver of a Stalker or Atlas who feels they can't flatten a comparable Catapult.

The mechlab exists to allow players to rebuild their mechs to duplicate the modification system that has always been part of Battletech (and yes, the ability of players to modify battlemechs or even completely build their own was meant to be part of Battletech, and not an oversight), and to allow players to replicate other battlemechs that are in Battletech that the Devs cannot put into the game. None of these are 'abusive', as there is nothing to abuse (about the only things that would be close would be using flamers to blind enemies or the rapid rate of fire on some autocannons, but these, too, are part of the game and no one seems to have problems with -them-). The only way it could be justified to claim any legal modifications should not be allowed is if -all- modifications were to be removed from the game, as any modification is changing a mech to suit your personal preferences. As I doubt even those who keep crying over the Catapult would like having their own customizations removed from the game, I think the whole issue is without a leg to stand on.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 04 February 2013 - 05:51 AM.

[Ryebear]

Being able to bring 6 SRM launchers to bear at 280 of 360 degrees while being able to move at ~85KPH with full armor beats every other comparable mech. An Awesome with 4 SRM 6s peaks at 198 of 360 degrees effectiveness and ~65KPH, and Stalkers max at 120 degrees or 1 variant of 170 degrees and also max at ~65KPH.

That gives the Catapults 82 degrees more twist range than any other mech to use their boated SRM loads and they dont have to sacrifice any speed or armor to do it. AC/20 or Gauss Cats arent as much of a problem anymore but I do see Splatcats just ruin pug matches if they manage to sneak up on a mass of enemies.

I've also said in the past that the torso twist range is the most logical way to 'fix' Catapults without negatively affecting every other chassis and stand by that opinion.

Edited by Ryebear, 04 February 2013 - 06:03 AM.

[Escef]

Ryebear, on 04 February 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

Being able to bring 6 SRM launchers to bear at 280 of 360 degrees while being able to move at ~85KPH with full armor beats every other comparable mech.

That's nothing. Because it has flip arms, the table top Catapult has a 360⁰ firing arc for its arm mounted weapons.

Edited by Escef, 04 February 2013 - 06:09 AM.

[Phoenix Gray]

When you boys meet your first MadCat or Daishi, you'll be screaming for all the dual AC20/6-streak/gaussapult/6-PPC builds you can buy. This is good training for the Clans.

[Phoenix Gray]

Craftyman, on 02 February 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

they NEED sized hardpoint, you should not be able to put an AC/20 in machine gun mounts.

Which raises another question. Why can you put only ONE machine gun in a mount that will take an LBX-10 or AC20? Gun pods, baybee!

[Karl Streiger]

Phoenix Gray, on 04 February 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Which raises another question. Why can you put only ONE machine gun in a mount that will take an LBX-10 or AC20? Gun pods, baybee!

This... heck i never thought about this.
Up to 10 ballistic weapons in the AC 20 slot of the HBK-4G - i lllllike it

[Stringburka]

Karl Streiger, on 04 February 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

This... heck i never thought about this.
Up to 10 ballistic weapons in the AC 20 slot of the HBK-4G - i lllllike it

That was the way (though not as extreme) it was in MW4. Many people disliked it. It is not coming back. Though MW4 is still a good game, and I really recommend it if you want something for a change. It's more fast-paced than MWO in my experience, and has quite different mech setups, but it's a good game (though further from classic battletech).

[Phoenix Gray]

Karl Streiger, on 04 February 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

This... heck i never thought about this.
Up to 10 ballistic weapons in the AC 20 slot of the HBK-4G - i lllllike it

Just sand 'em down! And think of the lovely noise!

[Darwins Dog]

Just to throw my 2 cents in, the pilot in the video is pretty good actually. The person makes good use of jump jets, knows the maps, leads effectively, and has decent aim.

Also, is that pre JJ nerf? Because my spider 5V can't get that kind of lift at all.

[Jakob Knight]

Ryebear, on 04 February 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

Being able to bring 6 SRM launchers to bear at 280 of 360 degrees while being able to move at ~85KPH with full armor beats every other comparable mech. An Awesome with 4 SRM 6s peaks at 198 of 360 degrees effectiveness and ~65KPH, and Stalkers max at 120 degrees or 1 variant of 170 degrees and also max at ~65KPH.

That gives the Catapults 82 degrees more twist range than any other mech to use their boated SRM loads and they dont have to sacrifice any speed or armor to do it. AC/20 or Gauss Cats arent as much of a problem anymore but I do see Splatcats just ruin pug matches if they manage to sneak up on a mass of enemies.

I've also said in the past that the torso twist range is the most logical way to 'fix' Catapults without negatively affecting every other chassis and stand by that opinion.

So you are saying a Catapult can have the same level of armor as an Awesome, and take damage as well as a Stalker? Or, perhaps you are suggesting a Catapult has equivilant numbers of weapon hardpoints as a Stalker? If not, I don't see why you seem to be saying a Catapult is faster while having the -same- abilities of these two mechs. And I have yet to see a Catapult that can mount more armor than a Cataphract. Last I recalled, the Cataphract had a heavier maximum armor than the Catapult. All of these mech have more tonnage to spare after loading the same weapons as a Catapult, which translate to more armor, and/or heat sinks, translating to greater battlefield longevity while mounting the same weapons that seem to be considered OP.

As to the torso twist ability, others have noted as I will state...this is -less- than is canon for a Catapult, so it is being -penalized-. If we were to do things the way they 'are supposed to be', a Catapult would have full 360-degree firing arc with all of its arm weapons. The enhanced torso twist simply gives something of this ability without having to insert a whole new line of buggable code to allow a mech what it -should- be able to do. Note also that they -do- sacrifice for that ability in being unable to swing their arm mounts to the side, as other heavy mechs can do. Stop being so myopic and look at the whole picture.