46 replies to this topic

[Dogstar]

With all the new and upcoming heavy ballistics could we get the ability to remove hand and lower arm actuators from IS mechs with ballistic hardpoints please?

There are quite a number of builds that are simply unavailable because you can't fit a big ballistic on a mech with those actuators.

So please give the IS some diverse love and make them removable the way clan mechs can remove them.

[Widowmaker1981]

Dunno about lower arm actuators, Omnitech gets few enough advantages as it is, but hand actuators should either be removable, or simply be removed from the game (keep the hands on the model, delete the actuator from the mechlab), since all they are is a random, artwork inspired, nerf. They do nothing apart from steal crit slots.

[El Bandito]

It is damn frustrating to have a lower arm actuator on my Dragon Slayer, which means I cannot equip dual UAC5s. Not like DS is meta or anything.

Widowmaker1981, on 24 March 2017 - 05:01 AM, said:

Dunno about lower arm actuators, Omnitech gets few enough advantages as it is, but hand actuators should either be removable, or simply be removed from the game (keep the hands on the model, delete the actuator from the mechlab), since all they are is a random, artwork inspired, nerf. They do nothing apart from steal crit slots.

Yep, the crit space issue is further compounded by 3-slot DHS, 14 slot Endo/Ferro, and well, every thing IS is bulkier.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 March 2017 - 05:04 AM.

[Ultimax]

Yeah I wish they would do this.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Hand actuators in lore, have reason for being there as they are used to grab things and the like. I've long argued for a mode that encourages the use of hand actuators, from a CTF-esque mode,to a "Steal the X and return to base" kind of mode, something that would give mechs with hand actuators something to do.

alas... this is PGI we're dealing with, expecting them to do anything on this level, is likely asking too much.

[Wiley Coyote]

El Bandito, on 24 March 2017 - 05:02 AM, said:

It is damn frustrating to have a lower arm actuator on my Dragon Slayer, which means I cannot equip dual UAC5s. Not like DS is meta or anything.



Yep, the crit space issue is further compounded by 3-slot DHS, 14 slot Endo/Ferro, and well, every thing IS is bulkier.

Clan Tech


IS Tech

[Jackal Noble]

El Bandito, on 24 March 2017 - 05:02 AM, said:

Yep, the crit space issue is further compounded by 3-slot DHS, 14 slot Endo/Ferro, and well, every thing IS is bulkier.

Then go Clan, that's never going to change, nor should it.

Edited by JackalBeast, 24 March 2017 - 06:01 AM.

[El Bandito]

JackalBeast, on 24 March 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

Then go Clan, that's never going to change, nor should it.

What is never going to change? The TT crit slot value? I'm mostly ok with those, with the big exception of IS LB20X.

The ability to remove arm actuators on battlemechs? That's very negotiable, as it will not be breaking any stock builds.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 March 2017 - 06:13 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

JackalBeast, on 24 March 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

Then go Clan, that's never going to change, nor should it.

Loyalist RP types never get this, but there are people who are neither Clan nor IS, play both tech bases and would like the game to be balanced, not for EITHER side to have an advantage.

Having said that, im not advocating for changing crit sizes for IS gear (other than incoming LBX2/5/20), just advocating that the comparative bulk be taken into account when setting the stats and firing mechanics.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 24 March 2017 - 06:20 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

El Bandito, on 24 March 2017 - 06:12 AM, said:

The TT crit slot value? I'm mostly ok with those, with the big exception of IS LB20X

Id argue that the whole LBX line should be changed actually, since there is 1 (one) reason that the LBX10 is ever used, and that is that it is 1 slot 1 ton lighter than the AC10. How many LBX10 builds would we see if it was 8 slots and 12 tons? The same number as we will see LBX5 builds at 8 ton/5 slot - zero. The LBX20 is the biggest offender, but the 5 and 2 will be nearly as useless (the LBX2 is 4 slots LOL, 4 times the size for.. no gain whatsoever)

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 24 March 2017 - 06:24 AM.

[Athom83]

Meh, the actuator are just something to work around. OmniMechs should be the only ones able to adjust the actuators, while "basic" BattleMechs (Clan ans IS) should still be locked with their actuators. If we get some OmniMechs for IS somewhat soon in the time jump, then you have more room to work with.

Widowmaker1981, on 24 March 2017 - 06:20 AM, said:

Id argue that the whole LBX line should be changed actually, since there is 1 (one) reason that the LBX10 is ever used, and that is that it is 1 slot 1 ton lighter than the AC10. How many LBX10 builds would we see if it was 8 slots and 13 tons? The same number as we will see LBX5 builds at 9 ton/5 slot - zero. The LBX20 is the biggest offender, but the 5 and 2 will be nearly as useless.

All LBXs have longer range, albeit with a cluster affect. I'd actually still use LBXs if they were the same tonnage/slots as their standard AC equivalents.

[El Bandito]

Widowmaker1981, on 24 March 2017 - 06:20 AM, said:

Id argue that the whole LBX line should be changed actually, since there is 1 (one) reason that the LBX10 is ever used, and that is that it is 1 slot 1 ton lighter than the AC10. How many LBX10 builds would we see if it was 8 slots and 13 tons? The same number as we will see LBX5 builds at 8 ton/5 slot - zero. The LBX20 is the biggest offender, but the 5 and 2 will be nearly as useless.

Aye. Let's see if PGI will continue to slavishly adhere to some outdated and obsoleted rules that are based on a table top game. Cause they are dumb like that. Seriously, crit reduction will never break stock build, and neither will weight reduction.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 March 2017 - 06:26 AM.

[FLG 01]

From a lore point of view: facilities that can change the structure and engine of a Mech on demand would have no problem whatsoever removing hand acuators.

In the absence of crit-splitting I think this would only be fair.

So yes, please.

Edited by FLG 01, 24 March 2017 - 06:56 AM.

[oldradagast]

Hand actuators are useless and either need to go or provide an in-game benefit.

A few ideas I've seen tossed around:
- A salvage bonus based on how many hands the mech has. In short, if you have hands, you can carry away more salvage, so that part of your payout goes up
- Some sort of bonus to reduce falling damage, hill climbing, etc. Again, the types of things hands would help with even if we don't have the animations in-game to represent those benefits.

But none of that - or their removal - is going to happen because leaving things in their current state is easier and can be justified with "lore" even though the melee half of lore - which uses hands - doesn't appear in this game.

[Jackal Noble]

Widowmaker1981, on 24 March 2017 - 06:16 AM, said:

Loyalist RP types never get this, but there are people who are neither Clan nor IS, play both tech bases and would like the game to be balanced, not for EITHER side to have an advantage.

Having said that, im not advocating for changing crit sizes for IS gear (other than incoming LBX2/5/20), just advocating that the comparative bulk be taken into account when setting the stats and firing mechanics.

Not a loyalist, was a solo player for a long time, and got snatched up by a nice bunch of players in puglandia. Arc7 look em up, really nice group and all are welcome. Anyways, my school of thought comes from maintaining some semblance of structural integrity or at least some stricture to allow for depth to be generated from. Loosening the binds and shackles, that help keep up the characters of this game, namely the mechs, and one risks an androgynous mess where every mech has access to the exact same weapons and all mechs are samey. Also risks removing the intrigue.

[Monkey Lover]

Lots of mechs I would love to put an ac20 on but I can't because of these.

[Skanderborg]

I find myself wanting a lower actuator on my clan mechs when i use a UAC20 so i can aim to the side with my arms.

However i do agree that IS mechs should be able to remove there actuators so they can mount bigger weapons.

A list of mechs that would like to use an AC20 in the arm.

Dragon
Zeus
The other centurions
Wolverine , specifically the variant with MASC that is next to useless. If this one had an AC20 it would possibly make the mech.

Some others.

Edited by Skanderborg, 24 March 2017 - 07:54 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Don't care about lore (anymore). Don't even care about new tech. Certainly don't care about hand actuators in a game where hands have no function. But I tell ya...I do care about how stupid a Cataphract illyalooks with a UAC5 mounted under its left arm. The hardpoint location renders the hand actuator useless even if you like to pretend that hand actuators have a role. There are other mechs like this, but that one stands out to me. Sort of a higher degree of useless.

Edited by Bud Crue, 24 March 2017 - 08:04 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Monkey Lover, on 24 March 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

Lots of mechs I would love to put an ac20 on but I can't because of these.

Nope.

If a mech has hands, it has lower arm actuators which DO have a purpose and no one is asking for the removal of. AC20s, being 10 slots, need no hand OR LAA to fit in an arm, so removing hand actuators would allow zero mechs to equip an arm mounted AC20 that cannot currently do so.

[Monkey Lover]

Widowmaker1981, on 24 March 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

Nope.

If a mech has hands, it has lower arm actuators which DO have a purpose and no one is asking for the removal of. AC20s, being 10 slots, need no hand OR LAA to fit in an arm, so removing hand actuators would allow zero mechs to equip an arm mounted AC20 that cannot currently do so.

No one? I am asking for it. I want to be able to remove hands and arm actuators so I can put an ac20 In to the arm. In my view it would be balance just fine because you don't have the actuator.