9 replies to this topic

[N a p e s]

http://mwomercs.com/...f-4p-is-so-fun/

In reference to that thread, it has been brought to my attention that the ENF-4P has lateral movement on its arms. Now it is the same limited arm movement (10 degrees) similar to the AC20 Victors or a clan mech with a single lower arm actuator, but why would the ENF-4P get this advantage against the YLW or the AH?

I assumed that for 50 ton mechs capable of arm mounting an AC20 the rule would be to restrict arm movement to the vertical axis. This was never specified by PGI but it is how they've done it in the past. Why break this trend and could the Centurions get access to this newly rediscovered lostech?

[Gas Guzzler]

PowerOfNapes, on 03 June 2015 - 10:24 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...f-4p-is-so-fun/

In reference to that thread, it has been brought to my attention that the ENF-4P has lateral movement on its arms. Now it is the same limited arm movement (10 degrees) similar to the AC20 Victors or a clan mech with a single lower arm actuator, but why would the ENF-4P get this advantage against the YLW or the AH?

I assumed that for 50 ton mechs capable of arm mounting an AC20 the rule would be to restrict arm movement to the vertical axis. This was never specified by PGI but it is how they've done it in the past. Why break this trend and could the Centurions get access to this newly rediscovered lostech?

Because MLs in the left arm just like the Victors? It has a lower arm actuator in the left arm so you get half movement.

The question you should be asking, is why doesn't the YLW and -AH have a lower actuator in the left arm. There is no AC20 there so technically there should be one...

[N a p e s]

Gas Guzzler, on 03 June 2015 - 10:26 AM, said:

Because MLs in the left arm just like the Victors? It has a lower arm actuator in the left arm so you get half movement.

The question you should be asking, is why doesn't the YLW and -AH have a lower actuator in the left arm. There is no AC20 there so technically there should be one...

Well I guess I didn't express myself properly, but that is basically my point. In my mind the YLW and CN9-AH should always have had that 10 degree lateral movement.


I mean it's a shield arm with a badass claw that can't even move from side to side, up/down strikes only!

So, can we give them that lower arm actuator now?

[Mad Porthos]

When the YLW was reoeased this came up. People noted that the off hand left arm had an actuator for lower arm, but no such in tbe right arm due to the space being needed for  Ac20. Pgi had said the implementation of only one lower arm actuator would be that 10deg lateral aim and people asked why the YLW didnt have this - to which PGI pointed out the YLW has great yaw and had no weapons in the one arm that did have a lower arm actuator, but just to lay the matter to rest the actuator in the left arm was finally removed in a later pass/patch - so they did not have to repeatedly explain why the off hand lower arm actuator could not effect the aim of the weapon in a completely different arm.

Edited by Mad Porthos, 03 June 2015 - 11:03 AM.

[Deathlike]

It doesn't make sense to have special rules.

The Cent-AH and YLW should be able to have some yaw, since the Lower Arm Actuator exists on the shield arm (left) thus should fall into the rules.

What SHOULD happen is that 10 degrees should be made available to both, but probably as a corresponding nerf is to reduce the torso twist radius that it got... probably by 10 degrees.

It would be kind of a buff and nerf, but having movement in the arm in an indirect buff to the weapon (it's very handy on the Victor-9B/9S and the Highlander-733C).

It seems like a bad thing for durability to have to stare at the target to make use of the gun (right) arm.

Edited by Deathlike, 03 June 2015 - 11:10 AM.

[N a p e s]

Deathlike, on 03 June 2015 - 11:10 AM, said:

It doesn't make sense to have special rules.

The Cent-AH and YLW should be able to have some yaw, since the Lower Arm Actuator exists on the shield arm (left) thus should fall into the rules.

What SHOULD happen is that 10 degrees should be made available to both, but probably as a corresponding nerf is to reduce the torso twist radius that it got... probably by 10 degrees.

It would be kind of a buff and nerf, but having movement in the arm in an indirect buff to the weapon (it's very handy on the Victor-9B/9S and the Highlander-733C).

It seems like a bad thing for durability to have to stare at the target to make use of the gun (right) arm.

Thats what bugs me about the fact that the 4P gets that LAA, it's just a special rule that comes out of nowhere.

It also makes sense to cut some of the torso twist speed on the YLW and AH if you give it a LAA.

[Mad Porthos]

Perhaps it is "bad" not to have side to side movement for the right arm, but it is not a special rule. Ac 20 on the YLW was the only mech this situation could have applied to for a long time. By the time other mechs in game had an arm mounted ac 20 they had already resolved that no lower arm actuator = no lateral movement AND that was the way it remained because they made the very conscious choice of releasing all other arm mounted ac 20 mechs with no weapons in the other arm period. Victor, Highlander look at their AC20 variants and find those that have any weapons in the other arm. They only will have lower actuators in their weapon arm or off arm if the ballistic was less than 10 slots, i.e. only upper and shoulder actuators. So really it didn't become an issue because they kept it from being one. For them it was enough to know that once clans came out they would need some behavior for a build where large ballistics removed hand/lower arm actuators on one arm, but asymetic build meant that another arm/omni pod had the actuators for its weapons.

Since by all rights the large ballistic on one arm with no lower actuator should have no lateral movement, while the other arm should have full lateral movement w an actuator, this would mean two freaking aim point reticules, which was/is unusable, so it remains one reticule with a little bit of side to side ( about half normal lateral) to be FAIR for those weapons on the lower actuator equipped arm. That is going to be the case in most every serious clan build, but is a MOOT point on a mech with NO WEAPONS AT ALL in the arm that has the lower actuator. It does no damn good to the aim of a weapon in A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT arm and there are no fairness arguements to be made for the reticule when the reticule only represents one weapon mount, WITHOUT lateral capability at all. Its not like the left arm/hand grabs the right arm/ac20/ballistic and helps point/bend the barrel left and right a littile.

In the case of the YLW as well, most who were arguing or asking about the old lower arm actuator/hand/claw were just as concerned that they YLW could not, but BUT SHOULD be able to raise its shield arm high enould or side to side enough to properly use the shield arm, which in other centurions seemed to be able to both bring the shield arm up higher to protect the crest/head and even was able to bring said arm a bit laterally to cover the CT against incoming fire from some angles. Not having that little bit of lateral ON A yeng lo wang In this case meNt a little bit less shield arm control, especially when using the free look button to contol its placement.

[N a p e s]

Mad Porthos, on 03 June 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

Perhaps it is "bad" not to have side to side movement for the right arm, but it is not a special rule. Ac 20 on the YLW was the only mech this situation could have applied to for a long time. By the time other mechs in game had an arm mounted ac 20 they had already resolved that no lower arm actuator = no lateral movement AND that was the way it remained because they made the very conscious choice of releasing all other arm mounted ac 20 mechs with no weapons in the other arm period. Victor, Highlander look at their AC20 variants and find those that have any weapons in the other arm. They only will have lower actuators in their weapon arm or off arm if the ballistic was less than 10 slots, i.e. only upper and shoulder actuators. So really it didn't become an issue because they kept it from being one. For them it was enough to know that once clans came out they would need some behavior for a build where large ballistics removed hand/lower arm actuators on one arm, but asymetic build meant that another arm/omni pod had the actuators for its weapons.

Since by all rights the large ballistic on one arm with no lower actuator should have no lateral movement, while the other arm should have full lateral movement w an actuator, this would mean two freaking aim point reticules, which was/is unusable, so it remains one reticule with a little bit of side to side ( about half normal lateral) to be FAIR for those weapons on the lower actuator equipped arm. That is going to be the case in most every serious clan build, but is a MOOT point on a mech with NO WEAPONS AT ALL in the arm that has the lower actuator. It does no damn good to the aim of a weapon in A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT arm and there are no fairness arguements to be made for the reticule when the reticule only represents one weapon mount, WITHOUT lateral capability at all. Its not like the left arm/hand grabs the right arm/ac20/ballistic and helps point/bend the barrel left and right a littile.

In the case of the YLW as well, most who were arguing or asking about the old lower arm actuator/hand/claw were just as concerned that they YLW could not, but BUT SHOULD be able to raise its shield arm high enould or side to side enough to properly use the shield arm, which in other centurions seemed to be able to both bring the shield arm up higher to protect the crest/head and even was able to bring said arm a bit laterally to cover the CT against incoming fire from some angles. Not having that little bit of lateral ON A yeng lo wang In this case meNt a little bit less shield arm control, especially when using the free look button to contol its placement.

Victor 9S and 9B totally have weapons in their left arms (2 Energy hardpoints). In fact even the HGN-733C has a missile hardpoint in its left arm and all three have 10 degrees of lateral arm movement. If you're refering to the right arm with the ballistic hardpoint, you're right, there is no LAA and thats fine. The AC20 wouldn't fit if it was there.

I agree that technically an arm without a LAA should basically not be able to swing left and right but that it's fair to give that 10 degrees of movement to big mechs like Victor and Highlander which turn much slower than a medium like the YLW.

My issue is more that I assumed the new Enforcer would have 0 degrees of arm yaw too since it is a 50 ton medium like the Centurions. Since that isn't the case I think it'd be fair for them to get that 10 degrees of movement. Its much less about shield control for me than with the AC20 arm.

Edited by PowerOfNapes, 03 June 2015 - 12:43 PM.

[Mad Porthos]

[p]I do see what you are getting at, but I doubt given the development history of this feature that it will be revisited, as the decisions were made back then - likely they would defend them given their line of reasoning lead to the behaviour seen re. clan mechs and actuators.[/p]
[p]Raising the point of the highlanders and victors, indeed some of those do have MISSILE hardpoints in the off/left arm while carrying the ac20 capable right arm hard point, but I can't say I have ever seen the ac20 aim one iota laterally left or right, even though it might share the same arm based reticule with a missile weapon in the other arm. As mentioned, for a long time after the YLW it really was the only one effected by this and they sorted their method in that time as they were trying to figure it for clans. Again, also with the victor and hgn which this applies to, I cannot even recall the missiles getting lateral movement, so I thought like the YLW that these too had their lower arm actuators removed in the off arm to justify the no lateral - last time I seem to recall trying something like an ac20 and an SRM6 on same trigger/reticule and both had same centering, lack of lateral movement.[/p]

Edited by Mad Porthos, 03 June 2015 - 01:50 PM.

[Sergeant Random]

Well maybe PGI wanted different mechs to be different to make player choice interesting and meaningful. Otherwise it wouldn't matter if you ran Enforcer or Centurion.