38 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

https://twitter.com/...658662454865921


Essentially, they want to give it more CT, making it's "potbelly" able to be hit from the sides. This is also, not a coincidence how they "fixed" the Catapult, Dragon. The difference? The Dragon and Catapult both also have pretty substantial structure buffs to that CT, allowing it to soak more....whereas the HBK-IIC, does not.

Personally, I find no matter how I twist, either the STs or the CT go up in smoke pretty quick, regardless. Thus, my idea is to make some of the ST directly above the arm count as "shoulder" instead of ST, letting the arms finally soak SOME of the incoming damage.

The two colored areas above the arm represent two levels of hitbox change, minor and relatively major, to accomplish this.

Currently, there is really zero reason to put armor on the HBK-IICs arms. Even the Charlie, with arm weapons, because ALL shots hit your 3 Torso sections. Out of 75 or so matches in my HBK-IICs I have lost arms TWICE (unless it had an entire ST attached to it). Mind you, the normal Hunchback doesn't arm shield, either. Yet funnily enough I do lose arms on it at about 3-4 times the regularity. The other difference is the HBK gets substantive structure buffs.

I'm fine with the IIC being unquirked (at least at the moment, given more time and data, perhaps they will need minor quirks), so I'd rather see a non quirked solution, like the one proposed in the picture.

Thoughts?

*****Hitbox Update:

how much and how effective, only time will tell, but definitely better than more CT!

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 22 December 2015 - 03:07 PM.

[0bsidion]

Russ's adjustment actually scares me a little bit. I can lose a ST on my Hunchie IIC, but losing a CT is a bit harder to cope with. Your solution seems like a better idea, it's a whole lot better to lose the arms than the ST, let alone the CT.

[Mcgral18]

This could be bad for an already fragile robot...


Shoulder extension is the way to go, without adding quirks. A skill based damage mitigator.

Edited by Mcgral18, 18 December 2015 - 09:49 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 December 2015 - 08:48 AM, said:

I'm fine with the IIC being unquirked (at least at the moment, given more time and data, perhaps they will need minor quirks), so I'd rather see a non quirked solution, like the one proposed in the picture.

Thoughts?

yea finish building the game by adding in location specific armor co-factors to fix this exact kind of problem. Mech art has an affect on mech durability. It's been a part of the game since day one. This is what happens when you convert a 2d6 RNG hit location system into skill based targeting: the hit location frequencies change. particularly due to the interaction between size and speed.

Altering hit boxes is effectively the same thing, however when i shoot the side torso i expect to hit the side torso not an arm/leg or CT. What i shoot beter be what i hit or waht the point of skill based targeting...just use a COF.

The alternate argument is to learn the altered hit boxes. it's the thinking mans shooter after all. Great more spread sheet warrior on line... if i wanted that kind of game id play EVE.

If PGI uses a system like this and thats why it's too hard to explain on twitter.... then i suggest a forum post explaining the process. A simple this is what we do....are they obligated... no. Does it generate good will: definitely.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tombstoner, on 18 December 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

yea finish building the game by adding in location specific armor co-factors to fix this exact kind of problem. Mech art has an affect on mech durability. It's been a part of the game since day one. This is what happens when you convert a 2d6 RNG hit location system into skill based targeting: the hit location frequencies change. particularly due to the interaction between size and speed.

Altering hit boxes is effectively the same thing, however when i shoot the side torso i expect to hit the side torso not an arm/leg or CT. What i shoot beter be what i hit or waht the point of skill based targeting...just use a COF.

The alternate argument is to learn the altered hit boxes. it's the thinking mans shooter after all. Great more spread sheet warrior on line... if i wanted that kind of game id play EVE.

If PGI uses a system like this and thats why it's too hard to explain on twitter.... then i suggest a forum post explaining the process. A simple this is what we do....are they obligated... no. Does it generate good will: definitely.

it's only a spreadsheet as one's **** retentive nature makes it. Believe it or not, I don't spend much time studying mech hitboxes, unless something is plainly wrong with them when I'm driving one. I get by.

[kapusta11]

What is this, a cry to save your favorite gundam? Mine never gets saved, even worse people are happy when it gets nerfed so why should I care.

And isn't it supposed to be a walking coffin? Enjoy immersion.

Edited by kapusta11, 18 December 2015 - 10:01 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

kapusta11, on 18 December 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

What is this, a cry to save your favorite gundam? Mine never gets saved, even worse people are happy when it gets nerfed so why should I care.

And isn't it supposed to be a walking coffin? Enjoy immersion.

What's this, a cry for attention from Kapusta? What a shock.

[Lightfoot]

The IIc mechs all need the same structure buffs as the standard versions got. They all share the same model and hitbox weaknesses. Maybe the IIc'c don't need them as strong, but they need them.

On Tuesday-Wednesday I was seeing a fair number of Orion IIc's and Highlander IIc's, on Thursday none in any match I played. I saw HBK IIc's and the occasional Jenner IIc, but the Orion and Highlander are already being dumped. They gain no benefits from being IIc's due to Clan ER Lasers being the only Clan tech weapon that is allowed, or rather, able to work.

The Orion IIc would be great if Clan A-LRMs were allowed to work, but it becomes really laughable when you load up Clan A-LRM 60 and they do nothing even with Line-of-Sight at 500 meters, you, exposed to AC's and Lasers, firing hundreds of LRMs, then you take one shot with your ER Laser back-up weapons and your target is destroyed on the first shot. But if you had continued firing the LRMs it would take 20 seconds longer, if you survived.

The HBK IIc works the best because it gets many hardpoints to build something that works, but it's no brawler like the lore HBK IIc's are. Too fragile.

[kapusta11]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 December 2015 - 10:02 AM, said:

What's this, a cry for attention from Kapusta? What a shock.

Look who's talking. I agree that HBK IICs are in need of some serious help but I doubt that you, as a person who justified mobility nerfs to so many mechs that objectively did not deserve them, have a right to complain about it.

Edited by kapusta11, 18 December 2015 - 10:34 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lightfoot, on 18 December 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

The IIc mechs all need the same structure buffs as the standard versions got. They all share the same model and hitbox weaknesses. Maybe the IIc'c don't need them as strong, but they need them.

On Tuesday-Wednesday I was seeing a fair number of Orion IIc's and Highlander IIc's, on Thursday none in any match I played. I saw HBK IIc's and the occasional Jenner IIc, but the Orion and Highlander are already being dumped. They gain no benefits from being IIc's due to Clan ER Lasers being the only Clan tech weapon that is allowed, or rather, able to work.

The Orion IIc would be great if Clan A-LRMs were allowed to work, but it becomes really laughable when you load up Clan A-LRM 60 and they do nothing even with Line-of-Sight at 500 meters, you, exposed to AC's and Lasers, firing hundreds of LRMs, then you take one shot with your ER Laser back-up weapons and your target is destroyed on the first shot. But if you had continued firing the LRMs it would take 20 seconds longer, if you survived.

The HBK IIc works the best because it gets many hardpoints to build something that works, but it's no brawler like the lore HBK IIc's are. Too fragile.

Not sure I agree. They have two things over their IS counterparts: Usually more firepower, and Clan Components (XL, Ferro, Endo, DHS). While I won't, and in fact have been on record saying those alone don't OP them over their IS counterparts, in most cases it keeps them in the same ball park (riddle me this, on average, how many Inner Sphere Orions and Highlanders do you see in the average match?).

They are a bit more fragile, but also outgun them. A tradeoff. Is it a balanced one? Possibly not, but I would prefer more than 3 days data before making sweeping changes, personally.

If, IF, IF, I were to say "Buff them RUSS!", I would start with:
1) Re-evaluating the hitboxes, like this thread is about.
2) if more is needed, look at giving them similar mobility quirks to their IS Analogues.
3) If needed, consider structure buffs (mostly for areas that are just damage magnets, like any other chassis)
4) Not come within an AU of looking at offensive quirks.

And in that order, only ascending if it proves necessary. The issue, is people want them to fill the same exact roles as their IS counterparts. That how I started too, with my HBK-IIC-O. These aren't your IS mechs with Clan Tech. Which is, IMO, a good thing. If my HBK-IIC was just as good a brawler as my HBK-4G, PLUS had clan XL, plasu had JJs... why would i EVER use my 4G again?

[Jman5]

What he says likely will help a little because a lot of laser and missile attacks would get split between CT and ST. However, I like the idea of bigger arms more.

It would also be nice if the destroyed arm component was enlarged so it's easier to shield with damage transfer.

Edited by Jman5, 18 December 2015 - 10:53 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

kapusta11, on 18 December 2015 - 10:30 AM, said:

Look who's talking. I agree that HBK IICs are in need of some serious help but I doubt that you, as a person who justified mobility nerfs to so many mechs that objectively did not deserve them, have a right to complain about it.

Well, if you actually bothered to read the posts, to have a clue as to what you were talking about, instead of simply following me around to try to make petty (and generally poorly thought out) attacks, you'd see 1) I'm not complaining about anything, but addressing a comment from Russ, and preemptively recommending a better idea (possibly) to the issue HE has noted and decided needs to be addressed, and 2) haven't actually recommend or said the IICs NEED Mobility Buffs anywhere.

So basically...as usual, your post is pointless. Bravo.

[Revis Volek]

Can you put in a good word for the Jenner?

I'd love to be able to run around facing enemies and not get cored in the back or vice versa as i flee...


Every other mech i own i am capable of showing them the part i want them to hit 80% of the time. If my Front is cored, you let that next alpha hit your ST and back a little...but with the jenner. Every thing is either my Leg or CT and it way worse then the IS version.


Not to mention, how come when i put a SRM 4 and SRM 6 in the arm i end up with 4 poorly spaced missle and then a box for 2 strapper onto the bottom of my arm? There is 2 tubes there without the need for additional ones...why would you do this PGI? If i fill the 6 tubes them we can talk about duct tapping stuff onto my mech.

Really glad i only bought the jenner, the rest of them are not worth the money at all.

Edited by DarthRevis, 18 December 2015 - 10:54 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jman5, on 18 December 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

What says likely will help a little because a lot of laser and missile attacks would get split between CT and ST. However, I like the idea of bigger arms more.

It would also be nice if the destroyed arm component was enlarged so it's easier to shield with damage transfer.

really wish I could use those arm actuators and just wrap my arms around my front torsos, lol.... with no guns in them, tell me you wouldn't do that to protect your Gundams guts?

[Bishop Steiner]

DarthRevis, on 18 December 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

Really glad i only bought the jenner, the rest of them are not worth the money at all.

Actually. the Jenner is probably the worst one. The other 3 all seem to be relatively similar to their parent chassis in effectiveness (though perhaps not playstyle. The HBK certainly plays different). Remember, the Inner Sphere Orion and Highlander weren't exactly tearing their way up the Meta Charts, either, so what did people expect? Their IS Mechs on Steroids, fully obsoleting the IS versions?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 18 December 2015 - 11:03 AM.

[Ultimax]

Agree.

Making the CT eat more damage from the side makes no sense.

Arm hitboxes need to be larger.

[Tombstoner]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 December 2015 - 10:52 AM, said:

really wish I could use those arm actuators and just wrap my arms around my front torsos, lol.... with no guns in them, tell me you wouldn't do that to protect your Gundams guts?

Honestly i'd remove the arms all together and convert that tonnage into more armor .... weight distribution in the CT is not an issue. TT max armor limit is problematic, Never been justifiable with skill based targeting. Change the hit frequency and you must change the armor distribution frequency or its an armor nerf.

[Mystere]

Lightfoot, on 18 December 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

The IIc mechs all need the same structure buffs as the standard versions got.

I disagree. They should get the agility buffs, but not the structure buffs, to keep them glass cannons. Then reduce maximum armor for the same glass cannon effect.

Edited by Mystere, 18 December 2015 - 11:14 AM.

[WarHippy]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 December 2015 - 08:48 AM, said:

https://twitter.com/...658662454865921


Essentially, they want to give it more CT, making it's "potbelly" able to be hit from the sides. This is also, not a coincidence how they "fixed" the Catapult, Dragon. The difference? The Dragon and Catapult both also have pretty substantial structure buffs to that CT, allowing it to soak more....whereas the HBK-IIC, does not.

Personally, I find no matter how I twist, either the STs or the CT go up in smoke pretty quick, regardless. Thus, my idea is to make some of the ST directly above the arm count as "shoulder" instead of ST, letting the arms finally soak SOME of the incoming damage.

The two colored areas above the arm represent two levels of hitbox change, minor and relatively major, to accomplish this.

Currently, there is really zero reason to put armor on the HBK-IICs arms. Even the Charlie, with arm weapons, because ALL shots hit your 3 Torso sections. Out of 75 or so matches in my HBK-IICs I have lost arms TWICE (unless it had an entire ST attached to it). Mind you, the normal Hunchback doesn't arm shield, either. Yet funnily enough I do lose arms on it at about 3-4 times the regularity. The other difference is the HBK gets substantive structure buffs.

I'm fine with the IIC being unquirked (at least at the moment, given more time and data, perhaps they will need minor quirks), so I'd rather see a non quirked solution, like the one proposed in the picture.

Thoughts?

Well that is disheartening. I'm not sure what Russ is seeing to think that giving it a bigger CT to hit from the side is a good idea, but what the hell. Increasing the arm hit box into the shoulders makes a lot more sense for the mech.

[Bishop Steiner]

WarHippy, on 18 December 2015 - 11:11 AM, said:

Well that is disheartening. I'm not sure what Russ is seeing to think that giving it a bigger CT to hit from the side is a good idea, but what the hell. Increasing the arm hit box into the shoulders makes a lot more sense for the mech.

yeah. Even in mechs with weapon arms, it's better to soak damage on the arms, then in the torso.