Jump to content

Arm Movement: The Phract Is Phuct


11 replies to this topic

#1 Aegis Kleais

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,003 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:51 AM

This thing is about as weird and weird can be. I've had a WIDE array of functionality with the hull/arm mounted lasers on my CTFs.

I've had instances where I can stand still and pull my arm all the way to the right. The arm reticule will be near the edge of the screen (as expected) but the HULL reticule, which I expect to be lined up with the direction my Mech is facing after a moment, is instead halfway between the center of my screen and the arm reticule.

And just yesterday, I think the arms were now operating in a way PGI had intended with a recent change. Their range of motion was PITIFULLY low, not even reaching halfway the distance in the previous example.

I understand each chassis has it's unique properties, and originally, the CTF was appealing because I could mount weapons into his arms, and arms (with that many actuators) usually afford you a wide sweeping area to help get hits on enemies you're dueling with.

So what's the deal, PGI? Are there known reticule issues with this chassis? Do you plan on having the T-rex limitation permanently or are you devising a change to the model to adjust for the clipping into the right ballistic model?

#2 Ryebear

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • LocationMontreal

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:54 AM

They lost 40 degrees of aiming range, really rough

#3 Felbombling

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,980 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:57 AM

If it is that bad an issue, maybe the could remove the lower arm actuator and allow for AC/20 arm builds. At least it would feel justified at that point.

#4 Synra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:59 AM

I agree with you. As a (currently) cataphract pilot, the arm situation is driving me crazy. It wasn't like this at first. The last patch nerfed it. As I recall, arm movement was nerfed because of clipping with the big canon sticking out of the right torso on some of the variants.

So the end result is an arm centric mech that can barely move it's arms. They need to fix this and put it back the way it was. I don't care about clipping, you cannot gimp gameplay for a clipping issue. The art department should be fixing this kind of problem.

#5 Pendraco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 469 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:02 AM

Clever title!

I could be wrong, but I thought they reduced the range of motion because the arms were clipping into the chassis?

#6 Synra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:03 AM

View PostStaggerCheck, on 04 December 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

If it is that bad an issue, maybe the could remove the lower arm actuator and allow for AC/20 arm builds. At least it would feel justified at that point.


No offense intended, but that would not be a good change. Not all cataphracts have ballistics in the arms. The 2X has missiles in the left arm and an energy hardpoint in the right arm. Removing an arm actuator would serve no purpose other than to further gimp the mech's arms even worse than it already is.

#7 Kraven Kor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,434 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:13 AM

View PostPendraco, on 04 December 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Clever title!

I could be wrong, but I thought they reduced the range of motion because the arms were clipping into the chassis?


Then give me two arm reticules and let at least the one arm go out farther.

Although, it is an interesting drawback to an otherwise fairly brutal mech.

#8 Felbombling

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,980 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:13 AM

View PostSynra, on 04 December 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:


No offense intended, but that would not be a good change. Not all cataphracts have ballistics in the arms. The 2X has missiles in the left arm and an energy hardpoint in the right arm. Removing an arm actuator would serve no purpose other than to further gimp the mech's arms even worse than it already is.


Very true, Synra. The other option would be to halve the size of the torso-mounted barrel or increse the torso twist range, a la the Catapult. It would be a shame to limit one arm at the expense of the other, but that seems to be the situation.

#9 Boogie Man

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:16 AM

http://mwomercs.com/...movement-tweak/

Please bump it.

#10 Pendraco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 469 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:20 AM

View PostKraven Kor, on 04 December 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:


Then give me two arm reticules and let at least the one arm go out farther.

Although, it is an interesting drawback to an otherwise fairly brutal mech.


Yea, I wonder if reducing movement by 40-50% was really necessary. Seems excessive!

#11 Enigmos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,290 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:38 AM

Regarding the hull reticule moving from torso center: I wonder whether than torso mounted hardpoint is actually a semi-turret.

Edited by OriginalTibs, 04 December 2012 - 09:39 AM.


#12 Corvus Antaka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 8,310 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationInner Sphere

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:48 AM

combine this with the poor torso twist vs a catapults near 360 torso twist...





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users