16 replies to this topic

[rolly]

Currently mechs have the option to have arms flexible at the elbow (lower arm actuator) beyond the range of torso twisting to aim arm mounted weapons.

I'm wondering if it would be possible (or should be possible) to activate the upper arm and use the upper arm actuator/shoulder?

Ie. While fighting in my Highlander the right arm mounted gauss rifle will show as ready to fire and my crosshairs are well above a piece of terrain that should give me some hulldown cover. Yet when I let fly the gauss rifle, the slug hits the terrain repeatedly.

I'm assuming this is because the firing point is well below the aiming point in the head. Its extremely frustrating and reduces the usefulness of cover and having lower arm actuators if you can't raise the arm and point them over cover.

If all else, then perhaps change the crosshair to show the arm mounted weapons has no LOS instead of just showing that the weapon is in range.

Further discussion / suggestion - if this is a viable suggestion, mechs with no lower arm actuators (like the Jagermech) can be able to flip their arms completely around and shoot behind them.

Thoughts?

[FinsT]

Jagers, Stalkers and similar designs are currently ones which are able to avoid described problem, due to placement of their weapons. These are highly valued - at least by some pilots, - exactly because of this ability. The "price" for it is inability to move their "hands" sideways. If the thing you propose would be implemented, Jagers, Stalkers and similar designs would simply become inferior - any mech would be able to pick its "nose" just a little above cover and shoot, and yet, the absense of horizontal movement of arms for Jagers, Stalkers &Co will remain in place.

I suspect it would also produce too many of "they are sniping me from that hill, and only tiny portion of their mech is visible, so it's difficult to return fire" situations.

It would also reduce diversity. Currently, majority of pilots do best when they pop out of cover "sideways" - such as going out from behind the corner of a building, - exactly because of the thing you are describing (low weapon placements), while pilots of Jagers, Stalkers and such do best when they pop out of cover "upwards", - such as going out from behind the top of a hill. This adds variability, which your idea would most likely remove from the game.

So, yes, i don't like being inflexible in general, but in this particular case - i do.

Edited by FinsT, 16 October 2013 - 01:27 AM.

[rolly]

FinsT, on 16 October 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

Jagers, Stalkers and similar designs are currently ones which are able to avoid described problem, due to placement of their weapons. ....I suspect it would also produce too many of "they are sniping me from that hill, and only tiny portion of their mech is visible, so it's difficult to return fire" situations.
....
It would also reduce diversity. Currently, majority of pilots do best when they pop out of cover "sideways" - such as going out from behind the corner of a building, - exactly because of the thing you are describing (low weapon placements), while pilots of Jagers, Stalkers and such do best when they pop out of cover "upwards", - such as going out from behind the top of a hill.
...
This adds variability, which your idea would most likely remove from the game.

Thanks for the response FinsT.

Not sure if you know this but Jager's, Stalkers and other mechs that do not have arms already can be considered inferior when they decide to reimplement collisions. No arms makes it more difficult and longer to get up. The only bonus they have is that they don't have the additional 1-2 arm slots taken up for more or larger weapons. If given that they take canon TT rules and implement them. Mechs like the Jager mech would even get the ability to flip their arms behind them and engage targets in their rear arc.

What I'm proposing is not blind firing with just your mechs head exposed. But what I'm proposing is that the FIX the relationship between arm and crosshair. If they're not willing to allow arms to be fully extended (whether it be automatic or player manipulated) then at very least correct the crosshair to show that the arm mounted weapon has LOS.

As for the sniping bit. Its already happening with poptarting with jumpjets. So its not like this would be any worse. Furthermore this game is designed to be a thinking persons game. There is nothing more quintessential than Partial Cover in Battletech/Mechwarrior. Its an integral part of TT Battletech.
All I'm asking is that they either fix the crosshair or make arms actually arms. Not side mounted turrets.

I also disagree with your posit of reducing diversity.

This in fact increasing diversity, diversity of play style in addition to making future scenarios like Attack/Defend more feasible. Keep in mind too that your scenario actually limits play because it limits options for play style. "Doing best" is one persons view of play style, and does not encompass all styles.

Furthermore what you're saying is completely illogical and opposite of what you're suggesting. If in fact a Stalker is best doing reverse-hill pop-up attacks or a Jager shooting from partial cover is the "best" then in fact that doesn't add variability at all. It makes them highly predictable. Stalkers will most often do X and Jagers will almost always be at Y.

More options and articulation does not reduce diversity in play style options. Its like arguing that only having black and white gives you a diversity of colours.

Edited by rolly, 16 October 2013 - 03:57 PM.

[Hexenhammer]

How does a mech with no lateral arm movement like the JägerMech shoot a spider in the chest while the two mechs are hugging each other?

[Modo44]

No. This is a recurring bad idea as far as game balance goes. Having articulated arms while retaining the ability to shoot over obstacles easy would make the mechs without lower arm actuators rather irrelevant. For example, why would you take a Stalker when a Battlemaster could easily bring all of its weapons as high as its head is? Why take a Blackjack when a Hunchie or Trebuchet could put all of its lasers/PPCs high up at the flick of a swich?

[Fooooo]

Modo44, on 16 October 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

No. This is a recurring bad idea as far as game balance goes. Having articulated arms while retaining the ability to shoot over obstacles easy would make the mechs without lower arm actuators rather irrelevant. For example, why would you take a Stalker when a Battlemaster could easily bring all of its weapons as high as its head is? Why take a Blackjack when a Hunchie or Trebuchet could put all of its lasers/PPCs high up at the flick of a swich?

Not that I am for or against the OP idea, but what you just said here is the opposite of what is happening now basically.

Why is it ok for mechs with arm actuators to be irrelevant now, whilst mechs with high non articulated mounts are relevant ??


Letting mechs with mainly arm mounts raise the arms would make them as relevant as the high non articulated mount mechs.


So to counter what you said at the end there.....


Why take a dragon or atlas or any other low slung arm mech right now when you can just take a blackjack or stalker etc ?


This the exact same thing you are saying just the other way around...........so why is it bad 1 way, but not the other ?



again, im not for or against the OP, I just thought your line of argument was......somewhat contradictory...........as its not like high mounted weapons would all of a sudden be made obsolete by allowing mechs to raise their arms.....the arm mechs just now have a similar advantage, doesnt make the others obsolete....

Edited by Fooooo, 17 October 2013 - 12:38 AM.

[aniviron]

I'd at least like the arm actuator to be removed if it's not doing anything like it doesn't now. The hand actuators especially kill me; they do absolutely nothing, and for the cost of a hand actuator on an Awesome I miss out on 1-2 double heatsinks when compared to a Stalker of the same build, leaving me with two empty crit slots and nothing to mount there.

I'd be okay with having a hand actuator if I got to punch like in TT, but that battle claw is just for show right now, and given the choice I would absolutely remove it.

[Modo44]

Fooooo, on 17 October 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

Why is it ok for mechs with arm actuators to be irrelevant now, whilst mechs with high non articulated mounts are relevant ??

Your question includes an assumption which you'd have to prove to have a point. As it stands, you either get easy shooting over obstacles, but difficult target tracking, or easy target tracking, but difficult shooting over obstacles. OP is asking for easy shooting over obstacles while retaining easy target tracking.

[FinsT]

Modo44, on 17 October 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

Your question includes an assumption which you'd have to prove to have a point. As it stands, you either get easy shooting over obstacles, but difficult target tracking, or easy target tracking, but difficult shooting over obstacles. OP is asking for easy shooting over obstacles while retaining easy target tracking.

Exactly! Thanks for putting it in so short and clean way, too. I made the same point with many more words and not as clear. Well done, Modo44.

[Fooooo]

Modo44, on 17 October 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

Your question includes an assumption which you'd have to prove to have a point. As it stands, you either get easy shooting over obstacles, but difficult target tracking, or easy target tracking, but difficult shooting over obstacles. OP is asking for easy shooting over obstacles while retaining easy target tracking.

Ok I see your point there.

Still, the arms aren't exactly easier target tracking in a sense......

There is still slight convergance issues with arms (I notice this on my flame with ppcs) where shots will be converging for the terrain distance behind where you shot (because of lag).

IE Im aiming at a CT at 500m, yet when I fire the projectiles actually fire as if converged at 800+m etc...basically making the 2 arm shots fire each side of the targets CT....missing completely........

This does not happen when using mechs with restricted movement mounts. IE the stalker etc.


Still, I see your point as they would still have much further range side to side than a non arm mech giving them a slight edge.

Maybe if it was restricted to certain mechs, or maybe when raising an arm you lose the fast arm sway....IE raising arms makes it like a stalkers "arms" if you get me.....


Still, I agree its not something really needed, hence why Im on the fence about this one.......

[CrashieJ]

FinsT, on 16 October 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

any mech would be able to pick its "nose" just a little above cover and shoot, and yet, the absense of horizontal movement of arms for Jagers, Stalkers &Co will remain in place.

I would pay good money for my Atlas to pick his nose

[Modo44]

Fooooo, on 17 October 2013 - 03:20 AM, said:

Still, the arms aren't exactly easier target tracking in a sense...

I think they are, and the difference becomes apparent when you need to aim quickly. Arms let e.g. a Hunchie or Atlas easily track a light mech running close by, or torso twist a lot while taking potshots. On the other hand, a Stalker or Jager tends to have trouble doing that, given similar pilot skill -- lights can often slip by, and proper torso twisting takes time.

This reminds me of another obvious difference: Only articulated arms allow a mech to literally shoot to the side (sometimes including directly behind itself), which is a big advantage when brawling. It's how some people make the Awesome actually work.

[Firewuff]

COnvergence is too quick as it is at the moment adding to the Alpha problem. there is also no min range for the convergance which is also an issue, see the example of a jagger shooting the spider a 0M. If they added a min convergance range which was higher for mechs with the actuators then this would be a great balancing point. I can deal with having to pop further over terrain if my phract can shoot a spider at 20 meters but the dual AC 20 Jagger cant..... that is fair.

[rolly]

Modo44, on 17 October 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

Your question includes an assumption which you'd have to prove to have a point. As it stands, you either get easy shooting over obstacles, but difficult target tracking, or easy target tracking, but difficult shooting over obstacles. OP is asking for easy shooting over obstacles while retaining easy target tracking.

Actually perhaps I didn't make myself clear but that's incorrect.
I'm looking for the ability to actually shoot OVER partial cover. Which ANY mech should be able to do. Or fix the crosshairs to properly account for lack of LOS from the weapon barrel if the pilot in the head can see the target.

I'm not asking for anything "easy". Just correct and full use of the rest of the mechs arms.

Either way thank you all for your posts, its a good discussion.

Edited by rolly, 17 October 2013 - 03:41 PM.

[rolly]

aniviron, on 17 October 2013 - 12:44 AM, said:

I'd at least like the arm actuator to be removed if it's not doing anything like it doesn't now. The hand actuators especially kill me; they do absolutely nothing, and for the cost of a hand actuator on an Awesome I miss out on 1-2 double heatsinks when compared to a Stalker of the same build, leaving me with two empty crit slots and nothing to mount there.

I'd be okay with having a hand actuator if I got to punch like in TT, but that battle claw is just for show right now, and given the choice I would absolutely remove it.

I agree completely about the hand actuators. Other than it being off-topic...

At very least give us something to do with them. I know physical combat is not likely to happen in this game. But perhaps involve them in a "Take and Hold" mission where you actually need a mech with hand actuators to pick up a container full of swag. This way they are not just vestigial but useful attributes.

[rolly]

Modo44, on 16 October 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

No. This is a recurring bad idea as far as game balance goes. Having articulated arms while retaining the ability to shoot over obstacles easy would make the mechs without lower arm actuators rather irrelevant. For example, why would you take a Stalker when a Battlemaster could easily bring all of its weapons as high as its head is? Why take a Blackjack when a Hunchie or Trebuchet could put all of its lasers/PPCs high up at the flick of a swich?

How is it a recurring bad idea when its been in battletech since its inception? Further more in regards to your claim of unbalancing, how would fixing a crosshair to show proper LOS from arm mounted weapons, or for that matter allowing a mech with articulated arms to shoot and raise its arms to shoulder height (which is BELOW a mechs head) where as a Jagermech has its shoulders ABOVE its head?

Also, not sure which Battlemaster you are referring to, but as far as I know most of its weapons are chest mounted.

Why would I take a Stalker over a Battlemaster? Because its a Stalker and a better EW platform and LRM carrier.

Why/when would I take a Blackjack? When I need a smaller harassment mech instead of a more versatile non-jump capable brawler or a dedicated medium lrm/srm support mech.

Not everything is about min-maxing. Mechwarrior just like battletech is about roles, features and abilities. If I had a mech with arms, it would be nice to use them as such. Otherwise someone please fix the crosshairs to reflect proper LOS.

Edited by rolly, 17 October 2013 - 05:10 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

It's at least interesting to consider, it would just need to be balanced for gameplay purposes.