Solving The 'tyrannosaurus Mechs' Issue
#21
Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:35 AM
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
Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:50 AM
Roughneck45, on 10 December 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:
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
Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:56 AM
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
Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:23 AM
Edit:
Please.
Edited by Bagheera, 10 December 2012 - 11:24 AM.
#25
Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:35 AM
#26
Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:47 AM
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
Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:47 AM
#28
Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:49 AM
However, when PGI eventually has time to implement removal of that weapon, I think the restricion will be gone with the barrel.
#29
Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:57 AM
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.
#30
Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:10 PM
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
Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:11 PM
#32
Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:15 PM
#34
Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:18 PM
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
Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:19 PM
Quote
Jump Jets
#36
Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:22 PM
It feels like a helicopter gunship, pewpewpewpewpew
#37
Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:23 PM
#38
Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:26 PM
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
Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:27 PM
#40
Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:29 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users




















