26 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

Or specifically, the Hand Actuators. Make them useful or do something please!

The knockdown mechanics was actually something important because 'Mechs which have hands (hand actuators) should have easier time to get up. If melee were to be implemented, then I think 'Mechs with hands should do more damage in melee or only 'Mechs with hands could punch. The latter would certainly make many IS 'Mechs worth more, e.g. the venerable Atlas (against a Warhawk for example - does it remind you of something?).

What think you?

Edited by Hit the Deck, 12 April 2016 - 02:37 AM.

[kesmai]

Feet!

[Hit the Deck]

kesmai, on 12 April 2016 - 03:16 AM, said:

Feet!

I think our robots' feet need no improvement.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 12 April 2016 - 03:20 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Well in all those times - ok not so much time in the last 3 years but in the half year before, i only missed to punch a target once.
I could totally life with a better arm movement when arms are mounted - although there is still a inconsistency for arms in general.

When you look at a WarHawk Prime and a BJ arms.... for both there is no lower arm activator.... so no horizontal movement for both..... but shouldn't the warhawk have some ° at least? What about VTR-9B vs VTR-DS arms are identically but only because the DS can't mount a AC20 or 2 UAC5s the arm movement is reduced. So running the 9B or 9S means you should always mount AC20 or 2xUAC5s because in otherwise you could have the DS or K. (yes aples and grapes - because of hardpoint numbers)

[El Bandito]

Another way to buff hand actuator is to give mechs with hand actuators a hill climb rate buff. Cause they theoretically can use their hands to assist with the climb.

Very easy to implement.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 April 2016 - 04:06 AM.

[Paigan]

Hit the Deck, on 12 April 2016 - 02:24 AM, said:

Or specifically, the Hand Actuators. Make them useful or do something please!

[...]

What think you?

I think it's about cost-benefit ratio.
If developing resources were infinite / free, then we all could shout in a lot of marginal nice-to-have features from the side.

However, as we live a real world with developers wanting to buy food, etc., things have to be prioritized.

Personally, I would estimate the priority for "Hands" somewhere between "rofl?" and "get the f*** out".


Apart from that, for my taste such things are just too much "japanese toy robot style".
I really think of Mechs more like bipedal war tanks and not some huge exoskeleton for little children wanting to fist fight.
But that's just me.


Hands might surely be useful in a more "RPG" like scenario. Or maybe if there was rubble/buildings/etc. that has to be cleared or torn down or so.

Edited by Paigan, 12 April 2016 - 04:09 AM.

[Jetdrag]

I'll form the head!

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Hit the Deck, on 12 April 2016 - 03:20 AM, said:

I think our robots' feet need no improvement.

Someone wasn't playing when when had inverse kinematics.

[Widowmaker1981]

Well, either give hands a function or make them purely cosmetic, i.e. remove the hand actuator from the game. As it stands its a random nerf to certain mechs making them have 1 or 2 crit slots fewer than they could have, for zero benefit.

[Hit the Deck]

Paigan, on 12 April 2016 - 04:06 AM, said:

...
Personally, I would estimate the priority for "Hands" somewhere between "rofl?" and "get the f*** out".
....

The problem is that they take one crit space or slot each, as Widowmaker1981 pointed out above.

[Karl Streiger]

well if the stuff could get a crit it would be good for crit padding - and of course it could allow your Mech to keep its arm movement when either lower or hand activator are still existing.

[Hit the Deck]

Karl Streiger, on 12 April 2016 - 05:05 AM, said:

well if the stuff could get a crit it would be good for crit padding - and of course it could allow your Mech to keep its arm movement when either lower or hand activator are still existing.

You only need the "lower hand actuator" to be able to aim laterally

Karl Streiger, on 12 April 2016 - 03:49 AM, said:

...What about VTR-9B vs VTR-DS arms are identically but only because the DS can't mount a AC20 or 2 UAC5s the arm movement is reduced. So running the 9B or 9S means you should always mount AC20 or 2xUAC5s because in otherwise you could have the DS or K. (yes aples and grapes - because of hardpoint numbers)

Huh, I don't have a Victor but from what you described, the DS should have more lateral aiming range compared to 9B because the 9B right arm isn't equipped with an LAA.

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 12 April 2016 - 03:20 AM, said:

I think our robots' feet need no improvement.

Inverse Kinematics (or our lack thereof) would disagree!

Narcissistic Martyr, on 12 April 2016 - 04:33 AM, said:

Someone wasn't playing when when had inverse kinematics.

cursed ninjas!

[N a p e s]

Hands!

[Karl Streiger]

Hit the Deck, on 12 April 2016 - 05:16 AM, said:

You only need the "lower hand actuator" to be able to aim laterally

Huh, I don't have a Victor but from what you described, the DS should have more lateral aiming range compared to 9B because the 9B right arm isn't equipped with an LAA.

yes 10° per LAA

well this would make mechs like the Starslayer interesting. A high mounted BJ style arm and still 10° yaw from the left arm.

[Rushin Roulette]

Maybe we could add the traditional British Longbow Archers 2 finger taunt to show our opponents that we can still shoot?

[Malleus011]

Hands should also make your 'mech more effective in melee combat ... because we're getting that again, right?

[MeiSooHaityu]

The ability for hand gesture.

I need to flip-off that mech that runs into my mech right at drop and strips armor off of my legs

[Not A Real RAbbi]

Hand actuators on mechs have LOTS of functions. Those functions, however, take place entirely within the other 98% or more of your career, which is not simulated in MWO.

May we move on?

[Paigan]

Hit the Deck, on 12 April 2016 - 05:02 AM, said:

The problem is that they take one crit space or slot each, as Widowmaker1981 pointed out above.

Uhm, no. Your initial post, the one I replied to, is solely about giving hand actuators an actual function.

The wasted slot is a new argument. And I agree to that.

But how is that different from:
- having FF instead of ES without any advantage.
- having a lower arm when you don't want/need one (e.g. Cicada)
- having low hardpoints when you could use them a little higher
- requiring an artifical "hardpoint" to mount a weapon (why not just mount it?)
- having fixed CAP, JJs, etc.
- or having rather impractical ("childish") mech shapes in the first place.

We could argue to give an option to remove them.
But so did we with interchangeable FF and ES for omnis or giving FF a reasonable advantage (my favorite: let ES increase the crit chance.)

But considering the shape argument, I'd rather say "Well, that hand is part of the Mech design and it requires one slot"
Except for Omnis, of course

Edited by Paigan, 12 April 2016 - 07:28 AM.