318 replies to this topic

[The Boz]

Yes. It's a fusion engine. It takes massive effort in order to keep the reaction going. It doesn't "go critical".

[MustrumRidcully]

I like the idea, I think, but I am not 100 % certain it's feasible. We have talked a lot about how hit boxes affect the balance of mechs, yet almost everytime a new mech releases, people complain about hit boxes. It might just not be something PGI can check with some standardized test, or have a standardized methodology to ensure no "imbalanced" hit boxes are created.

I think it might be be easier to solve the issue by changing how armor is distributed in the first place, adjusting the max armor values on mechs to ensure that you can armor the CT so heavily compared to all other locations that just going for the CT is not the most economical way to defeat an enemy.

[FlipOver]

The Boz, on 30 September 2013 - 03:27 AM, said:

Yes. It's a fusion engine. It takes massive effort in order to keep the reaction going. It doesn't "go critical".

Thanks for the correction:
"One component goes bad and it simply stops.
If it were to produce so much heat that the walls would melt, the plasma would be vented to the atmosphere and that would be all. The plasma, containing tritium, is radioactive, but there would be no explosion"
Will be editing my post to make it more accurate.
That means no explosion problems, but damaged engine won't do any good for salving and using on our 'mechs,

[The Boz]

MustrumRidcully, on 30 September 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

I like the idea, I think, but I am not 100 % certain it's feasible. We have talked a lot about how hit boxes affect the balance of mechs, yet almost everytime a new mech releases, people complain about hit boxes. It might just not be something PGI can check with some standardized test, or have a standardized methodology to ensure no "imbalanced" hit boxes are created.

I think it might be be easier to solve the issue by changing how armor is distributed in the first place, adjusting the max armor values on mechs to ensure that you can armor the CT so heavily compared to all other locations that just going for the CT is not the most economical way to defeat an enemy.

In my experience, the highest value target is a side torso. It has ~half the armor and HP of the center torso, often carries weaponry, losing it kills the attached arm, is sometimes huge and easier to hit from more angles, and the odd XL engine or ammo blast can finish off a mech quickly.
I only go for center torso shots first on mediums and the lighter heavies.

[GalaxyBluestar]

MustrumRidcully, on 30 September 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

I like the idea, I think, but I am not 100 % certain it's feasible. We have talked a lot about how hit boxes affect the balance of mechs, yet almost everytime a new mech releases, people complain about hit boxes. It might just not be something PGI can check with some standardized test, or have a standardized methodology to ensure no "imbalanced" hit boxes are created.

I think it might be be easier to solve the issue by changing how armor is distributed in the first place, adjusting the max armor values on mechs to ensure that you can armor the CT so heavily compared to all other locations that just going for the CT is not the most economical way to defeat an enemy.

sorry mate flaw is in the game mechanics which aren't likely to change.

kill a mech = wipe out head or CT it's up to chance if ST's lead to death so most people don't bother, medium mechs would be the only one's trying that tactic out on.

redistributing armour values to other areas or bulking up the CT is just a slight delay to the inevertable. where as this method of hitbox distribution {as hotfixed quickly by pgi on the kintaro so it CAN be done} rewards sharp shooting and makes average shots take out more "less vital" parts of a battle mech. thus more survivable slug fests. if you say gave 40 HP more to an assaults armour all that means to me is i need to throw another 2 dual gauss shots at it and again we're back to the old problem, where as if the CT was smaller so my chance to hit is smaller i might have to chip away and side torsos which would be a longer process and after taking a ST out if the mech is a std engine runner i'd still be dancing with it which is the kind of fighting we're after.

if you're going to suggest so much in armour buffing then you are esentially say halve the dmg points of all weapons. which would kind of be a sensible idea since the fire rate speed up by 3x but if i were to vote i'd place it on hit boxes more than doubling armour...again!

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 30 September 2013 - 03:42 AM.

[Carrioncrows]

stjobe, on 29 September 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

The only problem is that for lights, losing 50% speed means you're as good as dead, being at 15% speed is just lowering the impact speed your body has into the coffin.

Make no mistake, your suggestion will make lights easier to kill. It won't be a case of "easy to crack, hard to kill", it will be more of "easy to leg, easy to dispatch at your leisure". Lights don't have massive amounts of torso armour that needs to be breached in stages; one good alpha and you've destroyed the armour, the IS, and the 'mech. One good hit and it's goodbye leg, and the next can be fired at the 15% speed target - meaning it will be all but impossible to miss, and there's not a g-ddamn thing the light pilot can do to stop it.

I love the idea of redesigning the hitboxes, I really do. I just wonder if it has to be the same for every weight class, as the proposed solution will be a nerf to lights, making them easier than ever to kill.

If a light loses a Leg now, they are dead in the water.

At least with my method they will stick around long enough for them to get some damage in and even makes light mechs tougher and more survivable. Why? Because after that first 5 secs of loosing a leg where you are reduced to 15% you are then permanently reduced to 50% speed for the rest of the game. Additional hits on the legs won't slow you down.

None of this flicker a laser over you're legs and drop you to 15% speed again, and again, and again until you are dead.

And look at the hitboxes really look.

The Pelvic / pelvis area is really only hit from directly from the front or the back, most of the time lights are strafing you.

When someone does's fire at your pelvic pelvis area there is two hitboxes there that are closely tied together which means that unless they are using a AC or PPC they are going to end up doing diffusing the damage along 2 hitboxes.

Seriously this is such a small and issue when it comes to legs that it's not even an issue.

Yes bigger hitboxes, but also makes your mech twice as hard to kill!

If you end up getting legged it's not because of the pelvis area hitboxes, it's because they are intentionally aiming for your legs and unless you are directly facing them or directly running away aiming for the pelvic / pelvis area is the smallest area to hit the legs.

Honestly i don't see an issue.

flipover, on 30 September 2013 - 03:11 AM, said:

I see where you are going with this, but I have to say there are some things you didn't think of or didn't realize.

Why we shouldn't kill a 'mechs engine (edited thanks to The Boz's input):

Still to be implemented, but I do expect it to be, salvaging parts for you and your 'mechs is a big part of the BT and Clan technology access for InnerSphere Factions.
That being said, it will be imperative for people to be more accurate at their shooting and prevent from taking out the engine as much as possible, so if their team wins, they can use those parts left in the battlefield to upgrade/improve their own 'mechs.

So making it like you explained, will just remove this gaming option from ever existing. Problem is, this is one of the most interesting things to add into this game, why?
Promotes better shooting and aiming, will improve the spoils of a battle and will give access to Clan tech to those who originally have none.

This will be years...YEARS down the line if they ever decide to do something like this.

Lets fix today, today and leave years down the road for tomorrow.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 30 September 2013 - 05:30 AM.

[stjobe]

Carrioncrows, on 30 September 2013 - 05:17 AM, said:

Honestly i don't see an issue.

Perhaps you don't, but I do.

You started this excellent thread because you wanted to redesign how the hitboxes looked to increase survivability for heavier 'mechs. That's a laudable goal, and I think you've done a great job of it.

That doesn't mean there aren't issues for lighter 'mechs.

A heavier 'mech needs better hitboxes to lessen the prevalence of being CT-cored, and it makes perfect sense to divide the pelvic area between the leg hitboxes - because hits on the legs aren't usually fatal for a heavy or assault; the legs are usually just there to soak damage and it's a rare occasion when you get legged before you get CT- or ST-cored.

Not so for light 'mechs. Most people have learned by now that it's much, much easier to leg a light than to try to CT- or ST-core it directly. Once it's legged, you can of course go on to work on the torsos if you want, or take the other leg - the important part is to get it to stop moving fast so you can hit it reliably.

So you see, increasing the leg hitboxes on lights is akin to increasing the CT hitbox on heavier 'mechs - it makes their most vulnerable area bigger.

So misunderstand me right when I say that your suggestion isn't a good one for lights; that means for lights only - it's still a great idea for heavies and assaults, and I still support it wholeheartedly. I just think that lights need a different solution.

Edited by stjobe, 30 September 2013 - 05:58 AM.

[Carrioncrows]

stjobe, on 30 September 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

Perhaps you don't, but I do.

You started this excellent thread because you wanted to redesign how the hitboxes looked to increase survivability for heavier 'mechs. That's a laudable goal, and I think you've done a great job of it.

That doesn't mean there aren't issues for lighter 'mechs.

A heavier 'mech needs better hitboxes to lessen the prevalence of being CT-cored, and it makes perfect sense to divide the pelvic area between the leg hitboxes - because hits on the legs aren't usually fatal for a heavy or assault; the legs are usually just there to soak damage and it's a rare occasion when you get legged before you get CT- or ST-cored.

Not so for light 'mechs. Most people have learned by now that it's much, much easier to leg a light than to try to CT- or ST-core it directly. Once it's legged, you can of course go on to work on the torsos if you want, or take the other leg - the important part is to get it to stop moving fast so you can hit it reliably.

So you see, increasing the leg hitboxes on lights is akin to increasing the CT hitbox on heavier 'mechs - it makes their most vulnerable area bigger.

So misunderstand me right when I say that your suggestion isn't a good one for lights; that means for lights only - it's still a great idea for heavies and assaults, and I still support it wholeheartedly. I just think that lights need a different solution.

Even when the change makes Light mechs twice as tough, twice as survaible and that much longer where you can throw damage down range?

The loss of 1 leg is totally recoverable. Provided you survive that 5 secs at 15% speed penalty, you are then back up to 50% speed which is easily 75+ kph in a max jenner which is a hell of a lot better than 15 Kph you are stuck with now.

Are you really telling me that you would trade all of the above for this:



Simply because you gain this much extra leg hitboxes?



Like i said even if they do manage to hit you in the pelvic area they are diffusing their damage cross 2 potentially 5 hitboxes because of the way i have it set up, as opposed to doing damage all to the ct.

[stjobe]

Carrioncrows, on 30 September 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Are you really telling me that you would trade all of the above for this:

What I am saying is that the legs are to the light what the torso is to a heavy/assault; it's where people aim to kill you. Increasing the most common area to take damage isn't very conducive to survivability. So yes, I'd trade a bigger CT for smaller legs in a heartbeat.

And for the record, I don't think I've ever stated that I'm opposed to your other ideas about legging; I'd love it if the "hit me and I drop back to 15%" went away.

[Carrioncrows]

stjobe, on 30 September 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

What I am saying is that the legs are to the light what the torso is to a heavy/assault; it's where people aim to kill you. Increasing the most common area to take damage isn't very conducive to survivability. So yes, I'd trade a bigger CT for smaller legs in a heartbeat.

And for the record, I don't think I've ever stated that I'm opposed to your other ideas about legging; I'd love it if the "hit me and I drop back to 15%" went away.

Honestly either way it's a non issue for me.

Hitting the pelvis pelvic area is such a challenge to do when hitting a light (exception is the Raven ofc) that I think the change would have zero impact on the frequency of getting legged, at least for lights.

Either way i would still rather take it on the legs than the CT, as the CT will kill you 100% of the time. Your death may follow soon after getting legged but not before you get the chance to throw everything you've got at them.

Probably just personal preference.

=)

[Artgathan]

The Boz, on 30 September 2013 - 03:33 AM, said:

In my experience, the highest value target is a side torso. It has ~half the armor and HP of the center torso, often carries weaponry, losing it kills the attached arm, is sometimes huge and easier to hit from more angles, and the odd XL engine or ammo blast can finish off a mech quickly.
I only go for center torso shots first on mediums and the lighter heavies.

In general (aside from builds that place all their equipment on one side of the mech), if two units get into a slug-fest where one shoots the ST and the other shoots the CT, the CT shooter will win. Yes, the ST shooter will remove a large portion of the CT shooter's firepower, but by then the CT shooter has already dished out so much damage they're going to win anyways.

All this to say: only go for the ST of a mech IF:

• You know there's an XL
  
• The overwhelming majority of the mech's firepower is located on that side (think Hunchbacks, PPC/Gauss Highlanders/Cataphracts)

Most mech are more balanced in their division of firepower, so ST destruction is not that incapacitating. It hurts them, yes, but it doesn't make them useless.

[Carrioncrows]

Updated with the Stalker.

Not much to change on the stalker, though i did make the arm hitboxes slightly bigger to help soak fire from the side torso's and of course the pelvic area divided

I think that's all of them besides the Centurion.

[Tweaks]

Just out of curiosity... I haven't seen a single reply from PGI staff in this thread showing they were considering or interested in these suggestions. Have you heard or read anything that we don't know in this regard?

I'm just saying this because you seem to be putting a lot of time and thought into this, and I'm wondering if it's not all for nothing.

Personally, I've already stated I'm against these changes the way you designed them, but since a lot of people support you, it'd be interesting to know what PGI has to say on this.

Edited by Tweaks, 30 September 2013 - 11:05 AM.

[stjobe]

Tweaks, on 30 September 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Just out of curiosity... I haven't seen a single reply from PGI staff in this thread showing they were considering or interested in these suggestions. Have you heard or read anything that we don't know in this regard?

I don't think the PGI staff posts any more, except for announcements. I haven't seen a post from Paul or Garth, or any of the devs outside the Command Chair in ages.

Edit: Nope, checking the dev tracker confirmed by hypothesis. Not much at all, and none of it outside announcements and the Command Chair.

Edited by stjobe, 30 September 2013 - 11:09 AM.

[Tweaks]

stjobe, on 30 September 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

I don't think the PGI staff posts any more, except for announcements. I haven't seen a post from Paul or Garth, or any of the devs outside the Command Chair in ages.

That's wrong. Thomas is pretty active for one. Just check the post about Knocking down jump jetting 'Mechs, or check this link: http://mwomercs.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&search_app=forums&mid=83395&sid=072457bad39390b4f94204cb9570630a&search_app_filters[forums][searchInKey]=&userMode=content

[stjobe]

Tweaks, on 30 September 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

That's wrong. Thomas is pretty active for one. Just check the post about Knocking down jump jetting 'Mechs, or check this link: http://mwomercs.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&search_app=forums&mid=83395&sid=072457bad39390b4f94204cb9570630a&search_app_filters[forums][searchInKey]=&userMode=content

Yeah, I should have said Russ, Bryan, Paul, and Garth. Thomas "Dizzy Gillespie" (can't fathom his last name any other way ) is the exception to the rule.

[MustrumRidcully]

Tweaks, on 30 September 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

That's wrong. Thomas is pretty active for one. Just check the post about Knocking down jump jetting 'Mechs, or check this link: http://mwomercs.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&search_app=forums&mid=83395&sid=072457bad39390b4f94204cb9570630a&search_app_filters[forums][searchInKey]=&userMode=content

I believe Thomas isn't on the dev tracker? It's been a while since I last looked at it.

[Tweaks]

MustrumRidcully, on 30 September 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

I believe Thomas isn't on the dev tracker? It's been a while since I last looked at it.

That I don't know but he's in the content finder like every other forum member. That's how I find his posts...

[Carrioncrows]

Tweaks, on 30 September 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Just out of curiosity... I haven't seen a single reply from PGI staff in this thread showing they were considering or interested in these suggestions. Have you heard or read anything that we don't know in this regard?

I'm just saying this because you seem to be putting a lot of time and thought into this, and I'm wondering if it's not all for nothing.

Personally, I've already stated I'm against these changes the way you designed them, but since a lot of people support you, it'd be interesting to know what PGI has to say on this.

I put a lot of work into all the threads that I believe matter.

If it doesn't go through it won't be because of failure on my part to explain it. However I also don't expect them to come right out and say: "Hawt Damn, Crow. This is a great idea! We will be using it. Here is 1 Free Internet!"

Sadly I blame myself at the Launch Event for not tackling a Senor PGI guy and getting them to look at this.(*sheepishly*, was rather busy) Until then I guess i'll just have to wait till the next "Ask the Dev's"

*shrug*

I at least like to think it's drawn someone's attention.

[Typatty]

Please go work for PGI designing their hitboxes so that we can all enjoy this game the way it's meant to be.