Jump to content

Solving The 'tyrannosaurus Mechs' Issue


  • You cannot reply to this topic
40 replies to this topic

Poll: How would you solve the CTF arm range issue? (82 member(s) have cast votes)

Choose a solution

  1. Restore regular range, allow clipping of model. (3 votes [3.66%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.66%

  2. Restore regular range, modify model to prevent clipping (16 votes [19.51%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.51%

  3. Leave range limitation in place (23 votes [28.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 28.05%

  4. Leave range limitation in place, but give higher twist/turn to compensate (32 votes [39.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.02%

  5. Other (specify in thread) (8 votes [9.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.76%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 John MatriX82

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,398 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:35 AM

After the restriction I feel very limited with Phracts. I felt limited before, even with elite torso twist, but arms left me some room, now they can't.

I say then increase torso twisting a bit and leave arm movement in place, it's reasonable because the arms are really big but as it is now it's rather a limiting factor.

#22 Strum Wealh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 5,025 posts
  • LocationPittsburgh, PA

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:50 AM

View PostRoughneck45, on 10 December 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

Maybe just make their arms move up a little bit when they are firing on a sharp angle across the front of your mech, so the weapon is angled that it wont clip the model. Like it looks when a guy has 2 pistols in an action movie or something lol


I was thinking something much like this - it's got fully actuated arms, so let's put those actuators to use! ^_^

IMO, the same should also be done to all other 'Mechs with full or near-full actuator sets in the arms...

#23 Aegis Kleais

    Member

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

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:56 AM

Hmmm.

I never even thought about the actuators. With this level of restrictive movement, it would be feasible to remove the lower/hand actuators from the Mech and allow larger objects in them.

Of course, limited arm range kind of brings more validity to the nickname "FrankenMech" (despite its original connotation) - I don't recall Frankenstein busting out any dance moves that required highly mobile arm movements...

#24 Bagheera

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,920 posts
  • LocationStrong and Pretty

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:23 AM

Restore previous arm articulation and fix the model. Addressing it with torso twist makes it too similar to the catapult. In the case of the -4X, the drastically lower speed was compensated for nicely by excellent arm articulation.

Edit:

Please. :D

Edited by Bagheera, 10 December 2012 - 11:24 AM.


#25 Agent 0 Fortune

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,403 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:35 AM

Keep restricted arm articulation in. I would much rather each mech have its unique characteristics. If someone doesn’t like, they can pilot a different chassis or use the 4X.

#26 Tennex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 6,619 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:47 AM

easy solution: add separate convergence for both right and left arm. When aiming right, right arm keeps going after left arm needs to stop.

they already have 2 convergence gruops: arms and torso.
they just need to add 3: Right arm, left arm, torso.

All convergence points converge the same unless in a range outside the other points.

Edited by Tennex, 10 December 2012 - 11:49 AM.


#27 Squid von Torgar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 819 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:47 AM

I love the CTF and I think the arms limitation should stay. Its just a quirk of the build. Its still a fine mech. I think there are other things that need sorting in the game.

#28 Undead Bane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:49 AM

Voted for "leave restriction in". First, that is a specific mech's downside now, second - it's lore-based.
However, when PGI eventually has time to implement removal of that weapon, I think the restricion will be gone with the barrel.

#29 DaZur

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 7,512 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:57 AM

"Actually" the correct solution would be a third (albeit extremely confusing) retical that would manifest for the back-side arm when the arm retical was swung to the outer extreme of it's travel. The arm on that side would have a much greater arch than the back-side arm because the torso would limit the arch respectively...

That said... I think it's fine right now (I would happily accept more torso travel if given however)

All weapons of war have their + and - and learning how to take advantage of their idiosyncrasies is part of the charm of having a wide array of weapon platforms. :D

#30 Taemien

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,576 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:10 PM

If the Cataphract was never able to move its arms like it did before the fix, no one would have complained. In fact I doubt anyone would have noticed its arc of fire was lower than other mechs without the chart provided above.

I say leave it alone. Maybe even nerf a few other mechs a little too. The reason for this is variety. Hardpoints can be balanced through this mechanic. A mech with a ton of ballistic hardpoints for gauss might not have the same arc of fire as one using PPCs. Different mechs with different arcs will further differentiate their roles in combat.

As a Cataphract pilot, this fix hasn't affected me to the point to where it costs matches or even kills. I'm fine with it as it gives my light mech opponents a fair chance.

#31 IceCase88

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 689 posts
  • LocationDenzien of K-Town

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:11 PM

If you read the Battletech Technical Readouts there are many mechs which were poorly designed or had minor design issues. Consider this a minor design issue which is a weakness of the mech. Deal with it and adjust your strategy/use of the mech accordingly.

#32 Elizander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 7,540 posts
  • LocationPhilippines

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:15 PM

Cut off the canon.

#33 DaZur

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 7,512 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:18 PM

View PostElizander, on 10 December 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

Cut off the canon.

Circumcision of my Phract!?

I think not! :D

#34 Enigmos

    Member

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

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:18 PM

I voted 'other'.

While every mech has to have a weakness, the Cataphract not only turns like a drunk trying to walk sober on a carousel, it cannot torso twist even a full 90 degrees to either side. His weapons hang so far forward that his arc of fire has a peripheral range of a hoe handle in a wheelbarrow of set cement.

I'd like the Cataphract to be more nimble in a turn, primarily. Increasing the traverse of my weapons would be welcome as well.

Edited by OriginalTibs, 10 December 2012 - 12:20 PM.


#35 Squid von Torgar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 819 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:19 PM

Quote

I'd like the Cataphract to be more nimble in a turn, primarily.


Jump Jets

#36 Monky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,219 posts
  • LocationHypothetical Warrior

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:22 PM

I pilot the CTF-4X all the time (literally one out of 2 mechs in my mechbay, the other one I earned with winnings from the CTF-4X) , which is the variant that is arguably the most dependent on needing to hit stuff with its arms. I'd have to say it's a near non-issue for the chassis. Faster torso speed if anything, but I think it's overall fine.

It feels like a helicopter gunship, pewpewpewpewpew

#37 trycksh0t

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,176 posts
  • LocationUmm...in a building..on a road. I think.

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:23 PM

I don't mind the limited arm movement, the only things in my CTFs arms are long-range ballistics, so don't need a whole lot of movement on those, but I think an increase to twist might be warranted, better engagement envelope for those torso-guns.

#38 Phantomewzick

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 34 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:26 PM

How about this:

When turning the arms to the Right, the Right arm has the ability to move farther than the Left arm

When turning the arms to the Left, the Left arm has the ability to move farther than the Right arm

Give EACH arm its own "circle" aiming reticule, that ONLY diverges when you move either arm further than the other can track.

And in fact, it should just be like this across all mechs.

#39 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:27 PM

Remove the restriction... But make it sound out a great big "clang" when you hit the barrel and let it have 10% chance of destroying the weapon :D

#40 Lord Draenor

    Member

  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:29 PM

Clipping! Really? That's one of the real problems of this game?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users