Arm Movement: The Phract Is Phuct
#1
Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:51 AM
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
Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:54 AM
#3
Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:57 AM
#4
Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:59 AM
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
Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:02 AM
I could be wrong, but I thought they reduced the range of motion because the arms were clipping into the chassis?
#6
Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:03 AM
StaggerCheck, on 04 December 2012 - 08:57 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.
#7
Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:13 AM
Pendraco, on 04 December 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:
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
Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:13 AM
Synra, 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.
#10
Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:20 AM
Kraven 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
Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:38 AM
Edited by OriginalTibs, 04 December 2012 - 09:39 AM.
#12
Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:48 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users