33 replies to this topic

[InvictusLee]

I was just looking at the king crab for instance. It could easily run 2hgr or lbx20's in the arms + HPPCs.

All that holds back either build is one crit slot in each arm.
I also have this issue with my madcat B which could run 4 LB10's pretty easily if it had just one more slot in each arm.

[El Bandito]

Huh? Most slots a mech can have on each arm is ten cause they still need to move their upper arms and shoulders. I suppose you can lobby PGI to allow us to remove those actuators in return for permanently fighting in arm locked mode, (basically making them torsi mounts of sorts) but that might have its own balance issues. Give Russ a tweet and test your luck.

Edited by El Bandito, 22 January 2018 - 10:18 AM.

[Bombast]

Shoulders and upper actuators are required to have arms. If they weren't there, the arm wouldn't be either.

HGRs can't be mounted in arms, ever. LB-20Xs could go in with crit splitting.

Edited by Bombast, 22 January 2018 - 10:19 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

I imagine that's what would happen when they decided to introduce Bushwacker's BSW-L1 variant which has an LB-X 20 on one of the arms.

[Verilligo]

Bombast, on 22 January 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

Shoulders and upper actuators are required to have arms. If they weren't there, the arm wouldn't be either.

HGRs can't be mounted in arms, ever. LB-20Xs could go in with crit splitting.

Question: why are upper actuators required? The shoulder I can understand, you have to mount the arm onto something, but the upper actuator is only there to pivot the arm up and down. A fixed emplacement would require no upper actuator. Is this another build rule that came out of TT?

[Metus regem]

November11th, on 22 January 2018 - 09:55 AM, said:

I was just looking at the king crab for instance. It could easily run 2hgr or lbx20's in the arms + HPPCs.

All that holds back either build is one crit slot in each arm.
I also have this issue with my madcat B which could run 4 LB10's pretty easily if it had just one more slot in each arm.

All arm and torso locations have 12 crit slots, CT loses 6 slots to the engine and 4 to the Gyro, arms lose bweteen two and 4 depending if they have full shoulder/UAA/LAA/Hand, Shoulder/UAA/LAA or Shoulder/UAA.

UAA (Upper Arm Actuator) gives you pitch

LAA (lower Arm actuator) gives you yaw

With out UAA you cannot aim your weapon arm up or down, with out LAA you cannot aim your arm weapons left or right.

Verilligo, on 22 January 2018 - 10:47 AM, said:

Question: why are upper actuators required? The shoulder I can understand, you have to mount the arm onto something, but the upper actuator is only there to pivot the arm up and down. A fixed emplacement would require no upper actuator. Is this another build rule that came out of TT?

Sort of...

In TT we can do a thing called crit splitting, that means that we can take a weapon like a LB-20X and place it in an arm with full Shoulder/UAA/LAA/Hand and put two crits into the the a joining torso, the price we pay is that, that LB-20X would be restricted to the toro firing arc... hell it lets us take a HGR and isXL engine, since we can dump two crits from the HGR into the CT, again this restricts the HGR to CT firing arc, but that's not a big deal, as you are already facing your target with it anyways... Or you could take dual HGR's on a mech with a LFE....

Thing is MWO doesn't give us that key ability from TT, that makes some of the larger weapons less punishing, as well as LB's having dual ammo types makes that 11th crit for the LB-20X no as bad, as it is here.

[Verilligo]

I am aware of crit splitting, yes. Specifically, my intention is to ask... according to tabletop rules, are you allowed to have a mech whose arm does not contain an upper actuator? Are you actually required to have both it and the shoulder actuators? If that is not the case, I am not sure what blocks you from having a mech that has its upper actuator stripped out, which is what Bombast claimed.

[Metus regem]

Verilligo, on 22 January 2018 - 11:51 AM, said:

I am aware of crit splitting, yes. Specifically, my intention is to ask... according to tabletop rules, are you allowed to have a mech whose arm does not contain an upper actuator? Are you actually required to have both it and the shoulder actuators? If that is not the case, I am not sure what blocks you from having a mech that has its upper actuator stripped out, which is what Bombast claimed.

Sorry, to be more clear:

Shoulder and UAA are required.

[Nema Nabojiv]

El Bandito, on 22 January 2018 - 10:14 AM, said:

Huh? Most slots a mech can have on each arm is ten cause they still need to move their upper arms and shoulders. I suppose you can lobby PGI to allow us to remove those actuators in return for permanently fighting in arm locked mode, (basically making them torsi mounts of sorts) but that might have its own balance issues. Give Russ a tweet and test your luck.

Not happening before Fafnir I guess. And lets face the truth, not happening ever.

[InvictusLee]

Nema Nabojiv, on 22 January 2018 - 12:16 PM, said:

Not happening before Fafnir I guess. And lets face the truth, not happening ever.

i mean Fafnir can technically boat HGR right?

[Metus regem]

November11th, on 22 January 2018 - 01:40 PM, said:

i mean Fafnir can technically boat HGR right?

If by boat, you mean use two of them, then yes... I mean the mech was built around them after all.... Also it was the first unit to mount them in lore....



Edit:

Still my favorite HGR mech is the Crusader CRD-8S... And she just so happens to highlight the crit splitting issue that PGI can't seem to figure out:



CRD-8S

• Created in 3066 with the mindset of "bigger is better", the 8S Crusader was built around an Endo Steel chassis and powered by an XL Engine. The 'Mech carried two LRM-10 launchers and two Medium Lasers but was also armed with the new Heavy Gauss Rifle, giving it great deal of close to medium range firepower

Almost looks like a 65t Hunchback.

Edited by Metus regem, 22 January 2018 - 01:58 PM.

[InvictusLee]

That looks amazing!

[Alex Morgaine]

Hit the Deck, on 22 January 2018 - 10:23 AM, said:

I imagine that's what would happen when they decided to introduce Bushwacker's BSW-L1P variant which has a UAC 20 on one of the arms.

Edited by Alex Morgaine, 22 January 2018 - 02:39 PM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

November11th, on 22 January 2018 - 01:40 PM, said:

i mean Fafnir can technically boat HGR right?

Yes and that is why PGI wont bother with removing upper actuators. Because then you'll be able to mount dual HGR on king crabs and other mechs with ballistic arms.

And if they wanted to allow HGR+LFE combo they would have done crit splitting in the first place. But they didn't.

[InvictusLee]

Nema Nabojiv, on 22 January 2018 - 02:50 PM, said:

Yes and that is why PGI wont bother with removing upper actuators. Because then you'll be able to mount dual HGR on king crabs and other mechs with ballistic arms.

And if they wanted to allow HGR+LFE combo they would have done crit splitting in the first place. But they didn't.

my king crabs would rock the HRG and the HPPC combos. Feels like such wasted potential.

[Hit the Deck]

Metus regem, on 22 January 2018 - 01:46 PM, said:

Almost looks like a 65t Hunchback.

Looks like a Hulkbuster.

@AlexMorgaine
The BSW-L1 has LB-X 20 on the right arm.

[Metus regem]

Hit the Deck, on 22 January 2018 - 02:56 PM, said:

Looks like a Hulkbuster.

@AlexMorgaine
The BSW-L1 has LB-X 20 on the right arm.

That's why he said L1P that uses a UAC/20 in place of the LB-20X....

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

And if they wanted to allow HGR+LFE combo they would have done crit splitting in the first place. But they didn't.

Not didn't, couldn't. It's the same reason we got the -9SS: PGI has so little ability to modify their code that building crit-splitting into construction is beyond their capacity. The MWO engine at this point is literally lostech, while the MW5 one will naturally be better documented. And just wait if we time jump further. There's even more waiting.to be broken beyond MWO's capacity to adapt, getting to the point where ever larger parts of TT will be untranslated until and unless they update engines entirely.

[Hit the Deck]

Metus regem, on 22 January 2018 - 02:58 PM, said:

That's why he said L1P that uses a UAC/20 in place of the LB-20X....

I don't understand....

What I mean is if the L1 is introduced (unlikely), then it would lose the UAA on the RA like what the OP asked to avoid critsplitting.

[Metus regem]

Hit the Deck, on 22 January 2018 - 03:05 PM, said:

I don't understand....

What I mean is if the L1 is introduced (unlikely), then it would lose the UAA on the RA like what the OP asked to avoid critsplitting.

Okay, I feel kind of bad for dumbing this down so much Deck, I mean you are usually really quick on the up-take...

All PGI custom variants of lore mechs have P at the end of their designation. So he is talking about taking the L1, and having PGI change the load-out to make it a viable addition to MWO by changing the LB-20X for a UAC/20, doing so would be a PGI variant, thus needing to end with P.