45 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Requiemking, on 26 September 2016 - 02:40 PM, said:

Funny thing that, MWO's Dragon is based on the Grand Dragon. I would be fine with that, if PGI would stop stalling and GIVE ME MY GRAND DRAGON.

This isn't actually true. Omnimechs can have one arm be locked to up-down and have full mobility on the other. This is especially visible on the MLX-D, which has an Ultra AC2 and a couple of lasers. The left arm, which houses the UAC2, has pretty much no movement, while the other arm has full movement.

I just tested that in-game in the testing grounds. The left arm with no LAA (equipped Clan AC/2) converged on the center dot reticule just like the lasers in the right arm (which had both LAA and hand).

Besides that, there is still the point that no mech in MWO has an asymmetrical arm setup like the Grand Dragon. In MWO, both arms are either mounted high like a Jagermech or low like that Mist Lynx. There are no MWO mechs that have one high arm and one low arm.

[blackcatf]

FupDup, on 26 September 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

It's a coding limitation of MWO, if I had to guess.

Basically, MWO's handling of arm mobility is binary. Your arms are either both high-mounted with no LAA, or your arms have to both have elbow mobility. Even arms without LAA have the ability to bend at the elbow for many mechs in this game.

In MWO, you can't have one arm be fully mobile but the other arm being locked to just up/down. Both arms are forced to have the same mobility here.

Realistically, an arm without LAA that is paired with a LAA arm would either be locked to the same reticule as the torso, or they might have their own special third reticule (triangle?). Either of those would require additional coding, though...

It's always been funny to me that the LAA is what determines side-to-side movement, and is a restriction on BattleMechs in video games only (as far as I remember, only MWO, but my memory may be hazy on some of the older MW games). If you don't have a LAA, the UAA should determine side-to-side mobility. Range of motion might be limited, but it's still possible to swing arms side-to-side in the tabletop with just a shoulder and UAA. I know, the TT and MWO aren't the same game, I'm just saying, seems like a funny restriction to put.

Try it out for yourself; turn yourself into a Rifleman. Remove your LAA by locking your elbow and holding your arms straight out in front of you. Can you still move both arms up-and-down AND side-to-side?

[FupDup]

blackcatf, on 26 September 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

It's always been funny to me that the LAA is what determines side-to-side movement, and is a restriction on BattleMechs in video games only (as far as I remember, only MWO, but my memory may be hazy on some of the older MW games). If you don't have a LAA, the UAA should determine side-to-side mobility. Range of motion might be limited, but it's still possible to swing arms side-to-side in the tabletop with just a shoulder and UAA. I know, the TT and MWO aren't the same game, I'm just saying, seems like a funny restriction to put.

Try it out for yourself; turn yourself into a Rifleman. Remove your LAA by locking your elbow and holding your arms straight out in front of you. Can you still move both arms up-and-down AND side-to-side?

I guess that the technical explanation would be that mech shoulders are designed as a rotational joint (one axis of movement) rather than a ball joint like the human shoulder.

We can verify this by looking at the shoulder models for nearly every mech out there; none of them have ball joints up there AFAIK.

I think it's okay from a gameplay standpoint since it helps give LAA at least some sort of utility.

Edited by FupDup, 26 September 2016 - 02:59 PM.

[Chagatay]

Would be nice if they had an arm extend toggle. But it would take probably too much work to get that in there.

Defensive play arms not extended so they are shields
(except Warhawk like mechs where you would set it and forget it)

Shooting over rocks, time to extend those low slung arms.

Edited by Chagatay, 26 September 2016 - 03:05 PM.

[LORD ORION]

The dragon is a terrible mech.

Low alpha
Terrible hitboxes

The 1N was barely passable with 50% AC5 quirks giving it the DPS and screen rattle to be semi-competitive as a potato masher .... then it got a giant Trogdor arm so any terribad could hit it.

Then it got nerfed into the ground during the great un-quirkening, where 80% of mechs became a joke.

Edited by LORD ORION, 26 September 2016 - 03:05 PM.

[Davers]

Requiemking, on 26 September 2016 - 02:40 PM, said:

Funny thing that, MWO's Dragon is based on the Grand Dragon. I would be fine with that, if PGI would stop stalling and GIVE ME MY GRAND DRAGON.

This isn't actually true. Omnimechs can have one arm be locked to up-down and have full mobility on the other. This is especially visible on the MLX-D, which has an Ultra AC2 and a couple of lasers. The left arm, which houses the UAC2, has pretty much no movement, while the other arm has full movement.

The Dragon is just too unpopular for PGI to waste time putting in the Grand Dragon.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 26 September 2016 - 09:27 AM, said:

What I mean is that you would have to sacrifice the mobility of the LEFT arm that has both a fist and an elbow, not just the high-mounted right arm.

MWO doesn't let you have one mobile arm and one restricted arm at the same time.

Yes it does, it just cuts the mobility in half if one arm doesn't have the actuator.

See: Victor 9S, Shadow Cat.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 September 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:

Yes it does, it just cuts the mobility in half if one arm doesn't have the actuator.

See: Victor 9S, Shadow Cat.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about getting rid off ALL the elbow mobility, not just some of it. If you have a LAA on either arm in MWO, you always have at least a little bit of elbow mobility for both arms.

[Tarl Cabot]

Juodas Varnas, on 26 September 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

Give the Dragon high mounted right arm! #MakeDragonGreatAgain (not Grand though, just Great)

Just give the players the ability to RAISE an arm for a short period to fire arm mounted weapons, that is what the myomer bundles are there for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Requiemking]

Davers, on 26 September 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

The Dragon is just too unpopular for PGI to waste time putting in the Grand Dragon.

Are you kidding? The Grand Dragon is one of the most requested mech variants I've seen on this forum. The only one that matches it is the BJ-2, which we are getting in October.

[Davers]

Requiemking, on 26 September 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:

Are you kidding? The Grand Dragon is one of the most requested mech variants I've seen on this forum. The only one that matches it is the BJ-2, which we are getting in October.

Well, maybe it will be next year's loyalty mech. So only 2 years away for Cbills.

[FupDup]

Davers, on 26 September 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:

Well, maybe it will be next year's loyalty mech. So only 2 years away for Cbills.

PGI would make the right arm be mounted low like the left arm though.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 26 September 2016 - 04:46 PM, said:

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about getting rid off ALL the elbow mobility, not just some of it. If you have a LAA on either arm in MWO, you always have at least a little bit of elbow mobility for both arms.

Why should that be necessary, though? I don't really see that as an issue since ball joints are a thing and Dragon art often has the high arm pointing outwards a little bit anyway.

[Davers]

FupDup, on 26 September 2016 - 04:56 PM, said:

PGI would make the right arm be mounted low like the left arm though.

Yeah, so it will suck. Poor Dragon. Why do all the iconic IS mechs blow chunks, while the second string crappy mechs like the Blackjack are actually good?

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 September 2016 - 05:00 PM, said:

Why should that be necessary, though? I don't really see that as an issue since ball joints are a thing and Dragon art often has the high arm pointing outwards a little bit anyway.

The current paradigm that PGI chose to have upper arm actuators be restricted to only one axis of movement. If they don't change that, then mechs with one high arm and one low arm like the Grand Dragon don't work so well.

This paradigm changing seems...unlikely, given their hesitation to change even basic XML weapon stats outside of the PTS.

I think that a workaround would be to have the GD's right arm be stuck to the torso reticule instead of the arm, but even that might require additional coding (which means it won't happen). :\

Edited by FupDup, 26 September 2016 - 05:06 PM.

[FalconerGray]

FupDup, on 26 September 2016 - 02:52 PM, said:

.
Besides that, there is still the point that no mech in MWO has an asymmetrical arm setup like the Grand Dragon. In MWO, both arms are either mounted high like a Jagermech or low like that Mist Lynx. There are no MWO mechs that have one high arm and one low arm.

Sort of yes, sort of no.



The Summoner is actually a great example of the poor arm / aiming mechanics we have thanks to simulation being deemed as unnecessary. Look at the physical design of the arms - the right arm is designed in a way to allow for great mobility and perhaps greater stability whilst moving, while the left arm is fixed on a single axis, but can be raised and lowered as required.

But no....apparently that's not what this game has ever been about...

[FupDup]

legatoblues, on 26 September 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Sort of yes, sort of no.



The Summoner is actually a great example of the poor arm / aiming mechanics we have thanks to simulation being deemed as unnecessary. Look at the physical design of the arms - the right arm is designed in a way to allow for great mobility and perhaps greater stability whilst moving, while the left arm is fixed on a single axis, but can be raised and lowered as required.

But no....apparently that's not what this game has ever been about...

The Summoner in MWO, though, has both arms always low. :\

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 26 September 2016 - 05:05 PM, said:

The current paradigm that PGI chose to have upper arm actuators be restricted to only one axis of movement. If they don't change that, then mechs with one high arm and one low arm like the Grand Dragon don't work so well.

This paradigm changing seems...unlikely, given their hesitation to change even basic XML weapon stats outside of the PTS.

I think that a workaround would be to have the GD's right arm be stuck to the torso reticule instead of the arm, but even that might require additional coding (which means it won't happen). :\

You are over-complicating the hell out of this. Just have it work like a Shadowcat. The end, discussion closed. We don't need to restrict it at all.

[FalconerGray]

FupDup, on 26 September 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

The Summoner in MWO, though, has both arms always low. :\

Yep, my point exactly. But it should never have been that way.

However, somewhere along the line it was decided that we don't actually want anything resembling simulation or progress, we want an esports arena shooter. So...myeah.

[FupDup]

legatoblues, on 26 September 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

Yep, my point exactly. But it should never have been that way.

However, somewhere along the line it was decided that we don't actually want anything resembling simulation or progress, we want an esports arena shooter. So...myeah.

I don't see how espurts are related here. I think the more relevant meme is Minimum Viable Product.