105 replies to this topic

[Tie Ma]

xRatas, on 16 April 2013 - 10:37 PM, said:

Most likely already said, but try moving your right arm. See what joint is actually moving in which way. Notice how your lower arm actuator is not needed when pointing your arm horizontal or lateral. Oh noes, there is no realism in human body.

saying the human arm works like a mech's arm and trying to expalin it that way is like comparing your arm to the joints of a earth mover

the human upper limb has 3 bones and 3 major joints but many more smaller joints. to supinate/pronation the forearm, the ulna and radius cross eachother. To similate a similar movement in prosthetics as well as robots, a simple rotating joint is used. there is no way to draw parallel between the human arm and a mech arm.

Edited by Tie Ma, 17 April 2013 - 06:23 AM.

[Jetfire]

I think the REASON here is just that the Highlander has a different type of shoulder actuator which has limited lateral actuation.

[Shumabot]

Tie Ma, on 17 April 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

saying the human arm works like a mech's arm and trying to expalin it that way is like comparing your arm to the joints of a earth mover

the human upper limb has 3 bones and 3 major joints but many more smaller joints. to supinate/pronation the forearm, the ulna and radius cross eachother. To similate a similar movement in prosthetics as well as robots, a simple rotating joint is used. there is no way to draw parallel between the human arm and a mech arm.

Also, note:

Mechs just have welded bent elbows and can't use their arms to do anything in this game. Ergo having elbows is pointless.

[jay35]

This is a good example of gameplay over TT. We need more of this and less of the masochistic TT rules nonsense. And yet someone still has to QQ about it. Amazing.

Edited by jay35, 17 April 2013 - 07:43 AM.

[Skunk Wolf]

The wind in the willows is whispering "Arcade Game" not futuristic armoured warfare simulation.

There needs to be another game.

Or this game needs a "Full Switch" multiplayer queue, and a "3rd Person, no heat" queue with something in-between.

[Shumabot]

Skunk Wolf, on 17 April 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

The wind in the willows is whispering "Arcade Game" not futuristic armoured warfare simulation.

There needs to be another game.

Or this game needs a "Full Switch" multiplayer queue, and a "3rd Person, no heat" queue with something in-between.

The wind is whispering "game that can actually sell to people rather than a nostalgic fieldtrip for the rare unicorns still playing battletech". If mechs can't actually use their arms to do anything then punishing any mech with elbows is pointless and stupid.

[LordBraxton]

Jack Lazarus, on 16 April 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

But note that the degree of movement of the arms is only 10 degrees horizontal, instead of 20 like all others. I'm sure they had all kinds of discussion on what compromise to make in order to represent things properly, and this is what we got. Personally I think that's just fine.

This, it is a very constricting arm, and lets get real a 3ppc\gauss poptart is a lot scarier than a single AC\20 going ~60kph

[Tie Ma]

jay35, on 17 April 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

This is a good example of gameplay over TT. We need more of this and less of the masochistic simulator nonsense. And yet someone still has to QQ about it. Amazing.

its not really an issue of simulation or not. actuators in this game have gameplay significance. as in if you have 3, the mech can move its arms sideways. however, if you have 2, your mech cannot but instead your mech can mount a AC20.

its not something you can throw out the window.

actuators also have no function in TT besdies taking up a crit space. so i dont see how this has anything to do with TT.

Edited by Tie Ma, 17 April 2013 - 07:42 AM.

[jay35]

Tie Ma, on 17 April 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

its not really an issue of simulation or not.
[...]
actuators also have no function in TT besdies taking up a crit space. so i dont see how this has anything to do with TT.

Good point. Fixed the wording on my previous post.

Edited by jay35, 17 April 2013 - 07:44 AM.

[Shumabot]

Tie Ma, on 17 April 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

its not really an issue of simulation or not. actuators in this game have gameplay significance. as in if you have 3, the mech can move its arms sideways. however, if you have 2, your mech cannot but instead your mech can mount a AC20.

its not something you can throw out the window.

actuators also have no function in TT besdies taking up a crit space. so i dont see how this has anything to do with TT.

Why isn't it something you can throw out the window? It's not like it materially impacts balance, if anything convergence makes arm mounted ballistics worse when they aren't locked and as has been stated before there are mechs in this game that don't have actuators that can still move their arms sideways.

Having an AC20 in your arm doesn't make the ac20 better it makes it worse. Elbow arms are low armor, easier to destroy, converge inaccurately, and have a low firing angle. This isn't a balance consideration and never has been. Single AC20s in arms aren't even a good use of weight or space on a mech.

[Tie Ma]

Shumabot, on 17 April 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

Why isn't it something you can throw out the window? It's not like it materially impacts balance, if anything convergence makes arm mounted ballistics worse when they aren't locked and as has been stated before there are mechs in this game that don't have actuators that can still move their arms sideways.

Having an AC20 in your arm doesn't make the ac20 better it makes it worse. Elbow arms are low armor, easier to destroy, converge inaccurately, and have a low firing angle. This isn't a balance consideration and never has been. Single AC20s in arms aren't even a good use of weight or space on a mech.

its a tradeoff. like how if you want to mount a Jump jet in the left torso. you can't mount a heat sink in the same space. you can't just allow that mech to mount the jump jet and allow the mech to jump. and not have it take up space.

and now we have a problem where they've set a precedence for things you can put on the mech but still take up no space.

if thats fine and dandy. i'm just going to mount my 2x Gauss on my right arm. because one of them takes up 0 crit spaces. but still functions.

you see what i mean? these are rules that are fundamental to the game.

Edited by Tie Ma, 17 April 2013 - 07:54 AM.

[Shumabot]

Tie Ma, on 17 April 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

its a tradeoff. like how if you want to mount a Jump jet in the left torso. you can't mount a heat sink in the same space. you can't just allow that mech to mount the jump jet and allow the mech to jump. and not have it take up space.

Considering you can put a lot of JJs and heat sinks together in the torsos I'm not sure what you're talking about. It sounds like you're scrambling to justify a direct conversion of TT mechanics into live gameplay mechanics. Back when having arm actuators allowed you to pick things up or punch people that made sense. Since you can't and since weapon placement legitimately makes mechs better or worse having arm actuators is nothing but a punishment for what is already the worst kind of arm a mech can have.

You're trying to justify logic for one mechanical and mathematical setting in another one. The two systems are incomparable.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 16 April 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Please remove lower arm actuators and hand actuators from my mechs too. Need space for heat sinks and autocannons.
thanks.

[Tie Ma]

Shumabot, on 17 April 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

Considering you can put a lot of JJs and heat sinks together in the torsos I'm not sure what you're talking about. It sounds like you're scrambling to justify a direct conversion of TT mechanics into live gameplay mechanics. Back when having arm actuators allowed you to pick things up or punch people that made sense. Since you can't and since weapon placement legitimately makes mechs better or worse having arm actuators is nothing but a punishment for what is already the worst kind of arm a mech can have.

You're trying to justify logic for one mechanical and mathematical setting in another one. The two systems are incomparable.

Tie Ma, on 17 April 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

actuators also have no function in TT besdies taking up a crit space. so i dont see how this has anything to do with TT.

its all logic buddy

Edited by Tie Ma, 17 April 2013 - 07:56 AM.

[Shumabot]

Tie Ma, on 17 April 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

They don't even do anything in the TT?

So it is legitimately a meaningless nothing that has no impact on anything besides making mechs with elbows artificially worse in an extremely rare scenario? I've said it before but the people that made TT battletech were incompetent.

Edited by Shumabot, 17 April 2013 - 07:57 AM.

[Tie Ma]

Shumabot, on 17 April 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

They don't even do anything in the TT?

So it is legitimately a meaningless nothing that has no impact on anything besides making mechs with elbows artificially worse in an extremely rare scenario?

it was originally put in for flavor. and became a functioning part of the crit system.

but in THIS GAME we are using it for the crit system and also giving lower actuator the funtion of lateral arm rotation.

which apparently after dozens of mechs that follow this rule now we are not?

Edited by Tie Ma, 17 April 2013 - 08:01 AM.

[LordBraxton]

Tie Ma, on 17 April 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

it was originally put in for flavor. and became a functioning part of the crit system.

but in THIS GAME we are using it for the crit system and also giving lower actuator the funtion of lateral arm rotation.

which apparently after dozens of mechs that follow this rule now we are not?

No, a new situation has come up and needed a new 'rule'

What happens when a mech has 1 lower arm actuator not 2?

It splits the difference.

This is the first mech released like that so we can assume all future variants will be the same.

Trust me there are two highlander variants more deadly anyway

[Shumabot]

Tie Ma, on 17 April 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

it was originally put in for flavor. and became a functioning part of the crit system.

but in THIS GAME we are using it for the crit system and also giving lower actuator the funtion of lateral arm rotation.

which apparently after dozens of mechs that follow this rule now we are not?

Sure. It was a bad idea in the first place, and the Jenner was an early mech and has always violated this rule. This rule isn't exactly universal and never has been. If it's a bad/stupid rule I don't see why it can't or shouldn't be changed. And it is a bad and stupid rule. If they want to have hardpoint sizes they should just have hardpoint sizes, not some sort of confused and non-universal comp that just keeps out AC20s (a gun that's really on good in duplicate) out of the hands of a few mechs that wouldn't even use it most of the time.

Edited by Shumabot, 17 April 2013 - 08:04 AM.

[Tie Ma]

LordBraxton, on 17 April 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

No, a new situation has come up and needed a new 'rule'

What happens when a mech has 1 lower arm actuator not 2?

It splits the difference.

This is the first mech released like that so we can assume all future variants will be the same.

Trust me there are two highlander variants more deadly anyway

sure the function of lateral movement splits the difference but the crit space doesn't split the difference. if it did. you have 2.5 crit space on ur right arm (+ 0.5 crit space in each arm). how will you have enough space to put in your AC20.

and if you are saying it splits the difference. what decides what arm the whole crit space goes in?


there is no possible logical way to argue for the 733C implementation. which is why i'm so against it. its logic breaking, rule breaking.

Edited by Tie Ma, 17 April 2013 - 08:09 AM.

[John MatriX82]

I guess they simply decided to half the side movement capability when compared to the other HGNs to address the problem of the triple crosshair.. I'm fine with it, probably they should have locked up both arms only to pitch movement, but they would have probably needed to leave some more torso twist ratio to compensate this.. they did the opposite.

I'm not complaining about this, besides that it's a strange choice. But.. oh.. Where's my King Crab now that we can have AC 20's on side moving arms? Where?!!?