318 replies to this topic

[AlexEss]

I have to ask, have you actually tested the hit-boxes or are you just going of the component look in the mech lab? It would be good to have some "real world" tests of the actual hit-boxes and then include them in this post.

Beyond that a interesting post,

[Carrioncrows]

Karl Streiger, on 19 September 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Wouldn't it be more the kind of game you like - when the loose of a raises heat for 2 points per second - and reduces the speed to 60%. (virtually removing your mech as effective war machine - not to mention the loose of a second side torso.... although it would be interesting when the arms didn't blow of when the side is gone.... because that means hardly anybody waste there time shooting at arms.

In this meaning - the damage transfer has to stop from legs towards CT.

However next to the size of the hit locations - i really hope that the values for armor is tweaked (i hardly know people but the light mechs that didn't remove armor from the legs)

No because it's your choice to make your mech more vulnerable by taking an XL. It's your choice.

It doesn't change that a mech would still be hard to kill, it's just easier to kill if you have an XL.

Honestly, you don't think XL's would be massively broken if "popping" a torso didn't kill you?

I mean everyone would take XL's there would be no reason to take standards. I guess there would be one reason to take a standard and that is to take a AC20 on in the torso, but even then that would be no contest.

Right now FF needs work

Endo needs a bit more work but it still a valid choice. I have just as many mechs with Endo as i do without Endo it's a valid design choice that promotes build diversity. And build diversity is the key to a long and healthy play.

The XL / STD is almost perfect. Some mechs it's obvious to take a XL and some it's obvious to take a STD (not very many, but Stalker is a HUGE no no for XL's, and that is perfectly fine)

XL / STD promotes build divirsity.

It's why junkies like me and my more spend hours and hours in the mechlab and on smurfy making builds.

AlexEss, on 19 September 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

I have to ask, have you actually tested the hit-boxes or are you just going of the component look in the mech lab? It would be good to have some "real world" tests of the actual hit-boxes and then include them in this post.

Beyond that a interesting post,

I am neither a game designer for PGI or magician, so i can't make changes to the hitboxes.

If they want to hire me, or hell even a week pass, (even a Day pass) i'll make a go of it.

I will be at the launch event, so hopefully I can get 20 minutes to pull a Dev aside and pick his brain about it.

Honestly, I am going more for the chance to express these views and other to the Dev's than I am for the tourney and prizes, though I plan my fair share of "Rep-Re-Zent!"

Edited by Carrioncrows, 19 September 2013 - 05:16 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Carrioncrows, on 19 September 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

It's why junkies like me and my more spend hours and hours in the mechlab and on smurfy making builds.

Hm thats the reason because jukies like me modified Mechs from several TROs to take STD fusion - and after the Light Fusion hit the deck - turning them to LFE engine mechs.

However I understand your statement - if XL doesn't kill you it is like Endosteel and DHS for most chassis the rule.
Although I'm still not 100% convinced that XL popping is good game desing - maybe could reduce the HP of internal structure - but remove popping? Theoretically...you will loose the side torso and with that ~ 30-50% of your armament much faster.

[Carrioncrows]

Karl Streiger, on 19 September 2013 - 02:25 AM, said:

Hm thats the reason because jukies like me modified Mechs from several TROs to take STD fusion - and after the Light Fusion hit the deck - turning them to LFE engine mechs.

However I understand your statement - if XL doesn't kill you it is like Endosteel and DHS for most chassis the rule.
Although I'm still not 100% convinced that XL popping is good game desing - maybe could reduce the HP of internal structure - but remove popping? Theoretically...you will loose the side torso and with that ~ 30-50% of your armament much faster.

There may come a time when they add a legitimate penalty in game that allows side torso's to be popped with an XL without killing the mech.

And as long as the penalty was steep enough. Like (loss of 50% heat efficient, 50% speed, ect ect. I would be ok with this.

It violates B-tech canon in the worst way, but not everything about Btech made sense and PGI has stated this is their interpretation of it. So as long as it has a good dose of "Common sense" I am ok with them making XL's not kills. *shrug*

But until then, "Pop goes the weasel"

=)

[Solomon Ward]

Top Quality post.

Kudos to you Carrioncrows.

[Muffinator]

Rascula, on 18 September 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

Beautiful post and very well explained but...

The Awesome has had a fan base crying out for this kind of work for a very long time now and nothing has happened and the Kintaro was flat out broken rather than just borked hence why it got attention so fast.

So whilst I agree with most of your analysis of the hit boxes, and agree they need some tweeking I think as far as the developers are concerned they are working as planned and I doubt anything will change.

Unfortunately I think this is true. Great post, great idea, but it's been needed for some mechs for a long time and nothing has happened so it either mustn't be a priority or it must be harder than we think?

[stjobe]

Muffinator, on 19 September 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:

Unfortunately I think this is true. Great post, great idea, but it's been needed for some mechs for a long time and nothing has happened so it either mustn't be a priority or it must be harder than we think?

It's probably not that it's hard per se, just that it takes a lot of time, and the 'mech team has had their hands full; first with making sure we get a new 'mech each month, and lately making sure the 24 different Phoenix 'mechs are ready in time for their release on Oct. 15th.

As Carrioncrows says, once the Phoenix 'mechs are done the 'mech release schedule is filled until April 2014, so they have about 6 months to do other stuff, including a pass over the already released 'mechs.

[Marmon Rzohr]

+1 Excellent work.

Hope PGI's crew sees this and forwards it. Careful hitbox adjustments would, I think, make the game much more interesting, as there would be better rewards for both careful aiming AND good piloting.

[Carrioncrows]

Marmon Rzohr, on 19 September 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

+1 Excellent work.

Hope PGI's crew sees this and forwards it. Careful hitbox adjustments would, I think, make the game much more interesting, as there would be better rewards for both careful aiming AND good piloting.

That's the quote I was looking for.

Great hitboxes reward careful aiming AND good piloting.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Quality stuff. I would miss coring mechs by shooting them in the junk, though.

[Mahnmut]

Very nice write up. With some intelligent changes to hit boxes we could see many sub-par mechs become viable choices. I hope PGI takes notice of this...

[Mudhutwarrior]

I bought one called Launchdaysad. It truly was sad. Cant stand toe to tow with about anything.

[Mahnmut]

Actually the more I think about it, I don't necessarily agree that side torso's should always be the same size as the center torso. I think it's fine for some mechs to have them a little smaller so they are naturally more suited to using an XL, if only for a a little diversity. What I do think is important is using the leg and arm hitboxes to cover parts of the center/side torso's as illustrated in the OP.

Personally I would love to see most mechs have centurion style survivability Battles would feel much more epic!

[C u j o]

Carrioncrows, very logical explanation of hitbox locations. It is my opinion that if implemented it would be a much improved game experience for players. I hope PGI is llistening.

[Carrioncrows]

Mahnmut, on 19 September 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

Actually the more I think about it, I don't necessarily agree that side torso's should always be the same size as the center torso. I think it's fine for some mechs to have them a little smaller so they are naturally more suited to using an XL, if only for a a little diversity. What I do think is important is using the leg and arm hitboxes to cover parts of the center/side torso's as illustrated in the OP.

Personally I would love to see most mechs have centurion style survivability Battles would feel much more epic!

As long as it makes sense and is logical.

Take a look at the Jenner here



As you can see if you were looking directly at the mech straight on you'd see that the Center torso is the biggest hitbox with the side torso's not changing all that much from the original hitboxes.

But from the Side view above you can see the Side torso's is presenting the biggest hitbox.

That's the idea behind Intelligent Hitboxes is that the largest hitbox should always be the one directly facing you. Seems simple enough but a few mechs have missed that mark.

And of course there will be some mechs where it may or may not be possible (can't think of any) and by all means there are some mechs where using an XL is less of a risk than using a STD.

But even looking at the Jenner above, you would still use an XL engine on that mech, and most people wouldn't even have the slightest issue with it. Chances are you would take "MORE" damage before you were brought down because now you would start absorbing damage on the side torso's.

But lets say you are a crazy mamba jamba and wanted to run with a STD Engine with just a few medium lasers. That should be a legit tactic and you should be rewarded for your piloting skills by soaking damage in your arms and side torso's until they collapsed but still remain functional. That should be a legit build. People should ponder the pro's and con's of running a XL for weight and speed or a STD for the increased survability in a brawler like capacity.

[Syllogy]

The highlights you see in the mechlab are not a true representation of the actual hitboxes.

[Carrioncrows]

Syllogy, on 19 September 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

The highlights you see in the mechlab are not a true representation of the actual hitboxes.

Ofc not.

But the hitboxes i've displayed are the Actual hitboxes of the mech. (to the degree that I can determine in actual gameplay)

I am not using the mechlab as a guide on hitboxes.

I am using the actual in game model to determine where the hitboxes are. I.E - I hit you here, it registers damage here, so on and such as.

Easy enough to do if you make friends and call in a favor and a few seconds of time in a match with a small laser.

[Fut]

Karl Streiger, on 18 September 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

While I still hope for a system using mor hitboxes than 7 - you post is well writen and makes sense.

I'm with you on this one - The Mechs need more hitboxes than they currently have.
But I love the way the OP has redesigned them - it makes way more sense this way.
Let's hope that PGI catches on to this.

[Karl Streiger]

Fut, on 19 September 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

I'm with you on this one - The Mechs need more hitboxes than they currently have.
But I love the way the OP has redesigned them - it makes way more sense this way.

It does...i just recognized it with the Jenner- it will share the same vulnerability of the Stalker - vs flanking fire...and i really like the idea behind.
Actually it doesn't matter much if you shoot a mech from 90° or from 0° - you almost hit the CT anyhow - when the lighter armored side torso can be hit positioning your mech become more important

[Mister Blastman]

I don't want my side torso easier to hit in a Dragon nor a Jenner. No thanks. Dragon needs melee combat and a use for that claw. That's what it really needs.

For the Orion... I haven't driven one yet. The hardpoints are too darned low for me but it tempts me every day to try it. If only that ballistic slot was in a arm.