440 replies to this topic

[KinLuu]

Kobold, on 07 February 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

[SNIP] Ergo, the problem is the SRMs. [/SNIP]

The problem is not the SRMs either. The maps are the problem.
It is very easy to force close range engagements on the current maps and rather hard to force long range engangements. Thus it is possible to bring a mech specialized for close range engagements, without any danger.

If you did that in MW4, you would have gotten destroyed without getting in range.

[Kobold]

KinLuu, on 07 February 2013 - 02:24 AM, said:

The problem is not the SRMs either. The maps are the problem.
It is very easy to force close range engagements on the current maps and rather hard to force long range engangements. Thus it is possible to bring a mech specialized for close range engagements, without any danger.

If you did that in MW4, you would have gotten destroyed without getting in range.

The devs have stated since at least the beginning of closed beta, if not earlier, that they wanted to get away from the long range snipe-fest that MW4 turned into. You won't be seeing map design change too significantly. I expect even on the alpine and desert maps there will be options to move fairly close to opponents without exposing yourself for more than 500m.

While this does favor the shorter range weapons (which trade range for damage to tonnage efficiency), the fact that the SRM still wildly outperforms all other short range weapons in a knife fighter role cannot be denied.

Which is scarier to you, a 7 ML AWS-8Q or a 3xML, 4xSRM6 AWS-8R? A 4xML+2x6 C1 or a 6x6 A1? In each case, the mech that trades out MLs for SRMs is generally more effective as a close range brawler. Period.

[Norris J Packard]

KinLuu, on 07 February 2013 - 02:24 AM, said:

The problem is not the SRMs either. The maps are the problem.
It is very easy to force close range engagements on the current maps and rather hard to force long range engangements. Thus it is possible to bring a mech specialized for close range engagements, without any danger.

If you did that in MW4, you would have gotten destroyed without getting in range.

Right, but this isn't MW4 and the Devs have specifically stated from the get-go that they have a distaste for long-range poptaring = wins every game no matter what.

That said, Kobold is also wrong because adjusting weapons (as has been shown in the past) do next to nothing to the Catapult. Even the Gauss and Streak adjustments which were implemented DIRECTLY because of the K2 and A1 were entirely ineffective until ECM. And ECM, mind you, wasn't designed to curb the Catapult. All it did then was force them down a different path of least resistance: SRM's and AC/20's.

Honestly here guys, it is so blatantly obvious that the Catapult is the culprit when you have to keep adjusting the weapons around it only to have these adjustments end up doing nothing to the overall strength of the Mech. And when those adjustments have proven to do nothing; what should you do?

[Sidekick]

Stormwolf, on 07 February 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

With that reasoning you might as well just make just one mech for every tonnage increment and have the players sort it out.
The mechs were designed and built with specific tasks in mind, making them too flexible will pretty much make future mech types redundant.

I second that. At this progression of possibilities, we will soon hit the point where new mechs are redundant. Heck, several are redundant right now, like most of the jenners, Hunchbacks, Dragons, Centurions and Awesomes. You can give them a layout, or give the same layout to another mech with increased efficency. So You might as well release no new mechs as well... because the players can "build" them anyway.

[Lykaon]

Part of this Catapult issue stems from how ECM is implimented currently.

By far the most potent catapults are the A1 SRM6 boat and the K2 dual AC 20 builds (and to a lesser degree twin Gauss)

What has happen is a shortening of engagment ranges down to a couple hundred meters due to ECM "bubble cloaking" it has become very easy to take a very short ranged mech into it's ideal fighting range.Add to this the ability of ECM to prevent weapon loadouts from being known until the mech is practically standing on you and it's ussually way to late to manuver away from a dual AC20 K2.

My point is ECM removes the possibility of dealing with these very potent very close range builds before they get within their fighting range because ECM either cloaked their approach or blocked their loadout from being known to prioritize them.

[Karl Streiger]

Kobold, on 07 February 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

Why does a mech have to stay in a specific role, besides your normative belief that it "should"? This is an entirely different argument, if you want to have it. I'm happy to engage in it, but it is outside the scope of a balance thread.

done
http://mwomercs.com/...-intended-role/

[Kobold]

Norris J Packard, on 07 February 2013 - 02:32 AM, said:

Right, but this isn't MW4 and the Devs have specifically stated from the get-go that they have a distaste for long-range poptaring = wins every game no matter what.

That said, Kobold is also wrong because adjusting weapons (as has been shown in the past) do next to nothing to the Catapult. Even the Gauss and Streak adjustments which were implemented DIRECTLY because of the K2 and A1 were entirely ineffective until ECM. And ECM, mind you, wasn't designed to curb the Catapult. All it did then was force them down a different path of least resistance: SRM's and AC/20's.

Honestly here guys, it is so blatantly obvious that the Catapult is the culprit when you have to keep adjusting the weapons around it only to have these adjustments end up doing nothing to the overall strength of the Mech. And when those adjustments have proven to do nothing; what should you do?

There is nothing wrong with the K2. Most people's complaints about it stem from it doing something that Catapults don't do in tabletop (carry heavy ballistics), not that it is significantly better than say a Cataphract. It's problem in closed beta was that there was no comparable heavy/assault stand off weapon to counter it. Now that large lasers, PPCs, AC2/5 are more useful, and the Cataphract and Stalker have been implemented, paired gauss rifles don't seem as impressive.

Further, I have a hard time considering the AC20 cat a "path of least resistance" given how much it gives up to get those suckers in there. Meanwhile, a CTF-1X with a Gauss and 5 ML can alpha for the same damage, is just as accurate on slow targets, better as sweeping fast targets, faster, and runs colder.

Complaints against the A1 in the last three months have dominated all complaints against Catapults, and those were most tightly related to the weapons that the A1 relied on, not to the overall CPLT chassis itself.

----------------

Karl, I'm going to bed soon, but I'll definitely weigh in at length tomorrow at some point.

[Karl Streiger]

Kobold, on 07 February 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

----------------

Karl, I'm going to bed soon, but I'll definitely weigh in at length tomorrow at some point.

no problem with that...i discussion walk off - i can place it on bg.battletech too :-)
you have made some good points and i appreciate your oppinion

[Kobold]

Karl Streiger, on 07 February 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

no problem with that...i discussion walk off - i can place it on bg.battletech too :-)
you have made some good points and i appreciate your oppinion

[Chrithu]

Catapults are fine as they are.

Don'T even start that vicious cycle.

If the A1 is nerfed next mech that is whined upon will be the C1 followed by the AWS-8R.

SImilar for the K2. Nerf it and next thing whined upon will be the Dual Gauss and Dual AC/20 Cataphracts.

As Broceratops said: All this comes down to being a problem of reacting to boating in the wrong way.

Boating any wapon on a mech limits it's use. This can be made up for by the pilot by using sneaky tactics to run up close unseen and thus take away any chance of reaction from the enemy (which on a side note is true for just about any build: getting close up without being seen is a huge advantage). This is exactly why scouting is so important and I feel an itch in my trigger finger everytime I see a light mech sticking with the assaults instead of running off to do their freaking job.

Edited by Jason Parker, 07 February 2013 - 02:52 AM.

[Norris J Packard]

Kobold, on 07 February 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

There is nothing wrong with the K2. Most people's complaints about it stem from it doing something that Catapults don't do in tabletop (carry heavy ballistics), not that it is significantly better than say a Cataphract. It's problem in closed beta was that there was no comparable heavy/assault stand off weapon to counter it. Now that large lasers, PPCs, AC2/5 are more useful, and the Cataphract and Stalker have been implemented, paired gauss rifles don't seem as impressive.

Further, I have a hard time considering the AC20 cat a "path of least resistance" given how much it gives up to get those suckers in there. Meanwhile, a CTF-1X with a Gauss and 5 ML can alpha for the same damage, is just as accurate on slow targets, better as sweeping fast targets, faster, and runs colder.

Complaints against the A1 in the last three months have dominated all complaints against Catapults, and those were most tightly related to the weapons that the A1 relied on, not to the overall CPLT chassis itself.

----------------

Karl, I'm going to bed soon, but I'll definitely weigh in at length tomorrow at some point.

You are again wrong though. The fact that you're arguing to protect the Catapult at all is staggering to me, especially if you line up the Mech's stats and model next to any Mech you want to compare it to.

The Cataphract's main advantage over the K2 should be that it can move it's arms (thus place it's ballistics better), and the 3D has Jump Jets. Unfortunately this comes at a number of costs. The Cataphract's arm movement is literally the smallest in the game for a Mech that has lower arm actuators. The Cataphract(s) that can take advantage of two Gauss, have either terrible speed or are only purchasable via MC and as a result are removed from discussion since not every player can afford to own the Ilya. The Cataphract's arms are just as low slung on the Mech as the K2's ballistic points are located on it's hip, so it can't poptart or even really take advantage of having arms in the first place because of the pitiful movement. And of course despite the fact that PGI went ahead and nerfed the arm movement, they didn't bother giving the Cataphract greater torso-twist. Something that no Mech in the game can beat the Catapult at anyway. None of the Cataphract's can grab two AC/20's and if you can't see why a AC/20 Catapult is stupendously powerful, I want you think about how much damage it can do to a single hardpoint in 4 seconds. Hint: it is 80 damage. But if you feel like sitting at range with Gauss, you can still do that with pretty much complete impunity on the K2, because even with the changes and even with an XL Engine the Catapult's sidetorsos are still among the harder to hit in the game. Meanwhile the Cataphract's are among the easiest (right up there with the Awesome and Atlas). Oh, and even if you go the Standard Engine route with AC/20's, or XL Engine route with Gauss, both of those versions are still faster than the 4X is.

Still, this is something I keep noticing. I bring up the obvious problems with the K2 and the A1 and everyone just wants to focus on the K2 and deflects the A1's problems because it is completely indefensible.

Edited by Norris J Packard, 07 February 2013 - 02:57 AM.

[Chrithu]

Just look at the polls folks. A majority of those that voted are just fine with the Cats. And they're not all piloting them. I myself pilot Cataphracts and Cicadas. And everytime one of those so called cheeze builds gets me it comes down to being my own fault.

One might argue that those builds leave less room for faulty behaviour when facing them but that's just about all.

Seriously don't come whining to me when you lost a close range brawl with an A1 or AC/20 K2 or a long range stand-off fight with a K2. You simply do not those things if you're aware of their presence. Hell you shoudln't be doing that stupid stuff at all. Games of who's the best sniper and who can do the most alpha damage at point blank range are just about the most stupid approaches to the game one can whitness.


Eidted: Ok overwhelming was a bit exaggerated.

Edited by Jason Parker, 07 February 2013 - 03:09 AM.

[Norris J Packard]

I like being right, but when everyone is wrong it is just kind of sad.

[wonator]

So, until i bought my A1, i also thought that srm boat is OP. But then i found few things:
- I got 270m "theoretical" range no more, no falloff, optimal is like 100- m (dont have artemis yet), which is very restrictive.
- Ppl are ***** stupid, many times mech equiped with long range weapons runing front of me and then emoraging because they got splated.
- Another stupidy is that ppl actualy stops theyr mechs front of me.
- There is about 1 sec delay between pushing fire and real missile launch (maybe its my internet), so precise aiming is almost impossible.
- Cooling this beast isnt also much fun.
- Huge hit box on head and arms. If you are not *****, you can dearm A1 cat in like 3 salvos.

TLDR:
L2P, start using your weapons as they should be, dont stop front of srm cats and you found that this mech isnt that scary as everyone thinks. Problem is that 70% players are ******* like in any other online game.

Its a same with ECM, 90% dont have problem with it, but those 10% will make sure to spam **** out of the forums.

Edited by wonator, 07 February 2013 - 03:16 AM.

[Kobold]

Norris J Packard, on 07 February 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

<edited for brevity>

Still, this is something I keep noticing. I bring up the obvious problems with the K2 and the A1 and everyone just wants to focus on the K2 and deflects the A1's problems because it is completely indefensible.

What you consider "obvious problems" I consider "overblown hysterics."

[Norris J Packard]

Kobold, on 07 February 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

What you consider "obvious problems" I consider "overblown hysterics."

And you failed to address any of my points. You're a reasonable person Kobold and you know I gave you cut and dry counter-arguments. Why haven't you done the same?

[Cleverbird]

You people always find something to whine about, dont you?

[Kobold]

Norris J Packard, on 07 February 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

And you failed to address any of my points. You're a reasonable person Kobold and you know I gave you cut and dry counter-arguments. Why haven't you done the same?

I just have made these same points in three different threads recently, so I didn't feel like repeating them.

Short version:

1) There are other builds in the heavy weight class that do similar alpha potential with slight trade offs in range, heat, and pin point accuracy.

2) Further, the side torso layout is not a huge benefit when I would much rather just burn through your CT anyways.

3) Also, you neglect to mention how much easier it is to give the CPLT a head shot when you discuss its hit boxes.


I suspect that if you look at the metrics of similarly skilled players, you would not find that AC20 cats are significantly out performing gauss cats or most good Cataphract builds. Obviously I don't have access to PGI's data, and this is all based on my own anecdotal experiences and those of people I have played with.

However, the same cannot be said of 6x6 A1s, who are taking advantage of the very powerful SRMs. I still believe SRMs could use a slight damage decrease and an missile grouping improvement. This would make them be less of an insta-kill at close range, but in return give them broader use.


(Also, it is 5:30 AM and I meant to be in bed hours ago... damn you people!)

Edited by Kobold, 07 February 2013 - 03:26 AM.

[Norris J Packard]

Kobold, on 07 February 2013 - 03:25 AM, said:

I just have made these same points in three different threads recently, so I didn't feel like repeating them.

Short version:

1) There are other builds in the heavy weight class that do similar alpha potential with slight trade offs in range, heat, and pin point accuracy.

2) Further, the side torso layout is not a huge benefit when I would much rather just burn through your CT anyways.

3) Also, you neglect to mention how much easier it is to give the CPLT a head shot when you discuss its hit boxes.


I suspect that if you look at the metrics of similarly skilled players, you would not find that AC20 cats are significantly out performing gauss cats or most good Cataphract builds. Obviously I don't have access to PGI's data, and this is all based on my own anecdotal experiences and those of people I have played with.

However, the same cannot be said of 6x6 A1s, who are taking advantage of the very powerful SRMs. I still believe SRMs could use a slight damage decrease and an missile grouping improvement. This would make them be less of an insta-kill at close range, but in return give them broader use.


(Also, it is 5:30 AM and I meant to be in bed hours ago... damn you people!)

1) See, I saw your examples and unfortunately they aren't good trade offs. A lot of them involved hitscan weapons or AoE weapons. Which always means you aren't going to do you rmaximum damage potential to a single hardpoint anyway, so that kind of breaks down right there. I mean, how can you honestly tell me that there there's a Cataphract build that's superior to any of the most powerful K2 or A1 builds. Can you really sit down and rationalize it? You're overinflating the power of the Cataphract, it just isn't as powerful since it is a generalist at heart (minus the 1X and 4X), with big well defined hitboxes and marginal armor buffs over the Catapult. Bringing the Stalker into this argument is pointless since it is an Assault. The Dragon will never be a real contender when matched up to the strongest builds both Mechs can offer, we both know that.

2) Unfortunately since it is a sub with legs, the head does a great job of covering up that CT. And while you're right that it does allow for the Catapult to be more easily headshot, that doesn't mean it will let you. We both know that anyone can figure out how to abuse that torso twist to avoid being headshot. Especially when you toss in the relentless speed of the Mech, or the JJ's on the A1. Then there's the issue we've all been aware of since CB regarding damage just flat out disappearing against the Catapult. I wish I had screenshotted a game I played earlier, I had one of the best examples I've ever encountered with it.

3) It is the literally the only thing the Cataphract has over the Catapult, the head hitbox, but again... combined with the speed and the torso-twist this isn't as much of an Achilles heel as people would like to say it is. I can't wait to see the Orion. It has an even bigger center window. What are they going to do then? Say it's "balanced" because both of them might be able to headshot each other? Maybe?

Edited by Norris J Packard, 07 February 2013 - 03:39 AM.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

I dont think A1 or K2 with ANY config is more OP than any other mech.
A1 90 alpha is scary...if you are stupid enough to stay in range.
30 alpha over whole map is OP aswell...if you are stupid enough to charge from 1 km.

Everything is about how you and enemy play this game.

PS:I have not A1 bcuz i hate ammo dependant only mech and I play K2 with 2 ERPPC and 2 medlasers for same reason...