23 replies to this topic

[Widowmaker1981]

At first, i thought PGI were following the TRO specs to the letter regarding clan lower arm actuators, basically if it has one in the TRO it has the option to have one in MWO. Fair enough i guess.

Then i noticed that the Warhawk-A left arm HAS got a lower arm actuator in the TRO but does NOT have the option in MWO. Annoying, but i guessed could just be a copy paste thing, since its otherwise identical to the WHK-PRIME left arm.

Now i see THIS:



So, the Timber-A does NOT have lower arm actuators in the TROs, but HAS been given the option to have them in MWO.

Now, im fine with this - it makes sense. Clan mechs cant have them in an arm with an AC or PPC in, fine, but when there is no AC/PPC in the arm they should have the option - like they have done with the new Timber.

So PGI:

Please add LAA options to ALL Clan arm omnipods that do not currently have it. I only care about the Warhawk, because thats the only mech adversely affected by this, but it doesnt need to be, its not great with its low slung hardpoints and Dire Wolf profile - PLEASE allow it to swing its arms without being forced to use the WHK-B right arm. (I really, really, really want the ability to stack 15% PPC speed while having a LAA in one or other arm. It aint gonna make it OP)

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 21 April 2015 - 02:13 AM.

[Paigan]

Yes. Bothers me as well.
Has been discussed many times here in the forums.
Afaik nobody knows why it is that way... :-(

[Mcgral18]

The WarHawk is actually supposed to have 2 as well, but the A variant left arm is missing it.

PGI isn't the most consistent with these rules.

[Deathlike]

I already wrote a thread about this and the Direwolf.

Nothing came of it, so I guess that's working as intended™.

[Widowmaker1981]

Deathlike, on 21 April 2015 - 08:57 AM, said:

I already wrote a thread about this and the Direwolf.

Nothing came of it, so I guess that's working as intended™.

It really doesnt bother the Dire all that terribly much tbh, due to the number of torso mounts it has anyway you end up mostly wanting locked arms. It's incredibly annoying on the Warhawk though, that simple change would get me using the chassis a lot more.

[Y E O N N E]

Is this before or after removing the C-ERPPC from the arm? Because if I recall, Clan 'Mechs didn't get lower actuators so long as a ballistic or PPC was mounted in that arm. Somebody more familiar with construction rules, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Mcgral18]

Yeonne Greene, on 21 April 2015 - 10:20 AM, said:

Is this before or after removing the C-ERPPC from the arm? Because if I recall, Clan 'Mechs didn't get lower actuators so long as a ballistic or PPC was mounted in that arm. Somebody more familiar with construction rules, correct me if I'm wrong.

Summoner Prime doesn't come with a LAA, it's allowed to take one.

The PeaceDove A has one in TT...it doesn't in MWO.


PGI's implementation is arbitrary.

[RAM]

Mcgral18, on 21 April 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

PGI's implementation is arbitrary.

and flawed


RAM
ELH

[Y E O N N E]

Mcgral18, on 21 April 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

Summoner Prime doesn't come with a LAA, it's allowed to take one.

The PeaceDove A has one in TT...it doesn't in MWO.


PGI's implementation is arbitrary.

So those two 'Mechs are exceptions to the construction rules? Because the Classic BattleTech TechManual says, and I quote directly from it:

"If the configuration desired mounts any kind or size of Gauss rifle, autocannon or PPC in a given arm, however, the lower arm and hand actuators in that arm must be removed first."

[Widowmaker1981]

Yeonne Greene, on 21 April 2015 - 10:20 AM, said:

Is this before or after removing the C-ERPPC from the arm? Because if I recall, Clan 'Mechs didn't get lower actuators so long as a ballistic or PPC was mounted in that arm. Somebody more familiar with construction rules, correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes thats true, and not a problem - its the lack of ability to choose to take one when NOT using a PPC/Ballistic in most of the Warhawk and Dire Wolf arm pods.

For example, a fairly fun but far from OP Warhawk build with 2xCLPL in one arm and 2xCERPPC in the other (4xLPL is better, but less fun imo) cannot benefit from the 15% PPC speed and 8% PPC heat from the recent quirks without losing its defining feature - the ablity to actuate the PPCs laterally.. and they are so low slung it really needs something to make me consider ever using it over the Banshee, Stalker or Battlemaster with their super high mounted energy ports.

[Y E O N N E]

Thanks, just wanted to clear that up so I could understand the original post.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

In construction rules, any clan mech can take LAA as long as there is no PPC or non-MG ballistic there.

PGI's system is totally arbitrary.

[Deathlike]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 April 2015 - 09:44 AM, said:

It really doesnt bother the Dire all that terribly much tbh, due to the number of torso mounts it has anyway you end up mostly wanting locked arms. It's incredibly annoying on the Warhawk though, that simple change would get me using the chassis a lot more.

To be fair, the Dire Wolf gets 30 degrees of arm articulation... if the arm options were available.

Compared to the Warhawk on the stock/base 20 degrees... I'd call that a bonus for the Whale.

[darkchylde]

Yeonne Greene, on 21 April 2015 - 10:20 AM, said:

Is this before or after removing the C-ERPPC from the arm? Because if I recall, Clan 'Mechs didn't get lower actuators so long as a ballistic or PPC was mounted in that arm. Somebody more familiar with construction rules, correct me if I'm wrong.

if I remember correctly for each lower/arm actuator missing in the arm - equated to +1 to fire (made it harder to hit) since it reduced the motion of that arm - however this DID NOT affect mechs that were designed without them. So if you wanted to make room in the arm to add more weapons by removing the actuators the penalty applied. The missing actuators do affect physical attacks regardless if they were part of the design or removed.

The positive aspect of not having an upper/lower actuator - the arms could flip backwards and fire at targets in the rear arcs. (Peak a Boo - Fire Starter - I see you !!!). Missing a hand actuator meant that a mech was unable to pick something up and also dealt less melee damage on a punch. And I also believe their was a chance to damage weaapon/equipment components since the arm didn't have a fist to take the brunt of the force.

Edited by darkchylde, 21 April 2015 - 05:08 PM.

[Serpieri]

darkchylde, on 21 April 2015 - 03:36 PM, said:

if I remember correctly for each lower/arm actuator missing in the arm - equated to +1 to fire (made it harder to hit) since it reduced the motion of that arm - however this DID NOT affect mechs that were designed without them. So if you wanted to make room in the arm to add more weapons by removing the actuators the penalty applied. The missing actuators do affect physical attacks regardless if they were part of the design or removed.

The positive aspect of not having an upper/lower actuator - the arms could flip backwards and fire at targets in the rear arcs. (Peak a Boo - Fire Starter - I see you !!!). Missing a hand actuator meant that a mech was unable to pick something up and also dealt less melee damage on a punch. And I also believe their was a chance to damage weaapon/equipment components since the arm didn't have a fist to take the brunt of the force.

if only this game had these options along with disabling capacitors and hot loading lrms. We would of had a game with tactical choices and risk vs reward mechanics.

[Y E O N N E]

darkchylde, on 21 April 2015 - 03:36 PM, said:

if I remember correctly for each lower/arm actuator missing in the arm - equated to +1 to fire (made it harder to hit) since it reduced the motion of that arm - however this DID NOT affect mechs that were designed without them. So if you wanted to make room in the arm to add more weapons by removing the actuators the penalty applied. The missing actuators do affect physical attacks regardless if they were part of the design or removed.

The positive aspect of not having an upper/lower actuator - the arms could flip backwards and fire at targets in the rear arcs. (Peak a Boo - Fire Starter - I see you !!!). Missing a hand actuator meant that a mech was unable to pick something up and also dealt less melee damage on a punch. And I also believe their was a chance to damage weaapon/equipment components since the arm didn't have a fist to take the brunt of the force.

I was quoting rules for OmniMechs, though, which aren't allowed to have an LAA at all if there's a PPC or non-MG-type ballistic in that arm. Like, it's not a question of whether you want to take advantage of some bonus or whether you want to maximize pod-space, it's a functional requirement that has to be fulfilled if you want those weapon types in the arm.

But if this thread is about missing actuators when equipping weapons other than large ballistics and PPCs, then those rules are irrelevant.

[Lucian Nostra]

darkchylde, on 21 April 2015 - 03:36 PM, said:

if I remember correctly for each lower/arm actuator missing in the arm - equated to +1 to fire (made it harder to hit) since it reduced the motion of that arm - however this DID NOT affect mechs that were designed without them. So if you wanted to make room in the arm to add more weapons by removing the actuators the penalty applied. The missing actuators do affect physical attacks regardless if they were part of the design or removed.

The positive aspect of not having an upper/lower actuator - the arms could flip backwards and fire at targets in the rear arcs. (Peak a Boo - Fire Starter - I see you !!!). Missing a hand actuator meant that a mech was unable to pick something up and also dealt less melee damage on a punch. And I also believe their was a chance to damage weaapon/equipment components since the arm didn't have a fist to take the brunt of the force.

this only affected mechs when it was damaged, having had it originally than removing them didn't do anything to the mech.

No lower did mean the mech could flip it's arms, you always had uppers though

Edited by Lucian Nostra, 21 April 2015 - 06:36 PM.

[Serpieri]

Lucian Nostra, on 21 April 2015 - 06:35 PM, said:

this only affected mechs when it was damaged, having had it originally than removing them didn't do anything to the mech.

No lower did mean the mech could flip it's arms, you always had uppers though

The rule specifies if that mech variant had Upper/Lowers and removed them it would suffer a +1 to hit penalty per actuator removed. It also applied if the mech took a critical hit to the actuator. You can verify this yourself via the battletech master rules. Also Dark said if the mech doesn't have an upper/lower actuator it can flip its arms or was it lower and hand - I'll see if I can find the source.

Found it - Battletech Comp. it is (lower and hand)

Edited by Serpieri, 21 April 2015 - 08:01 PM.

[J0anna]

Yeonne Greene, on 21 April 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

But if this thread is about missing actuators when equipping weapons other than large ballistics and PPCs, then those rules are irrelevant.

That's exactly what it's about. If I want to put 2 medium pulse lasers in each of my warhawk prime's arms, then I should be able to equip lower arm actuators, but MWO doesn't let me. Also according to the patch notes, the gargoyle C should be able to put lower arm actuators in it's right arm, yet both Li Song and Smurfy show this as not allowed (even if installing 6xER smalls), I'm downloading the patch atm, so I wonder what it will be (I suspect Smurfy is probably right). This alone will stop me from buying that mech, so PGI might want to rethink it's stance on lower arm actuators (i.e. always allow them if NOT using PPC's, Gauss, or Ballistics (and really it should only be large ballistics, UAC 2's and 5's shouldn't impact this, but such is this game....)).

Edited by Moenrg, 21 April 2015 - 07:58 PM.

[Deathlike]

Have you seen the Kitfox-S's Right Arm?

It's either arbitrary or clueless.

You can figure out which is accurate.