318 replies to this topic

[Carrioncrows]

Karl Streiger, on 11 October 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:

even if you hit the leg - they are so low armored that it is still serious damage

Well that's more of an issue with non-jumping heavies and assault pilots using legs as their Dump stat.

[EoRaptor]

Carrioncrows, I've thought about this type of rebalancing before, but I've never been able to put together a post explaining it all in such a detailed manner.

I'm going to be a bit of a johnny-come-lately, and ask if you had considered obfuscating the seam between to areas a bit. Right now, there is a clear straight de-mark, yet I was thinking if the seam was irregular, say like a sawtooh or zipper, that it might help with survivability, but without reducing or emphasizing one area over the other. This would apply most directly to the seams between RT, CT and LT. If you reduce the CT hitbox to increase survivability it's fine, but making it an arbitrary 'absolute' always ends up with a tipping point between wide enough to hit and kill easily, and too narrow to hit at all. If the join was zig-zaged, the actual area of the abutting hitboxes could still be reasonable, yet the damage would naturally be spread between them.

From a design standpoint, this is the most difficult to implement, and would consume more time, but it isn't any harder for the hit detection system to work with.

e: Sorry, my original post made me sound like a ***. Thank you for putting together your original post, and putting the effort into making visual examples for each mech.

Edited by EoRaptor, 11 October 2013 - 06:45 PM.

[Chronojam]

Do this.

Then remove ghost heat.

[stanley pain]

File this thread under Pipe Dream, or It'll Never Happen because PGi....

[Carrioncrows]

EoRaptor, on 11 October 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

Carrioncrows, I've thought about this type of rebalancing before, but I've never been able to put together a post explaining it all in such a detailed manner.

I'm going to be a bit of a johnny-come-lately, and ask if you had considered obfuscating the seam between to areas a bit. Right now, there is a clear straight de-mark, yet I was thinking if the seam was irregular, say like a sawtooh or zipper, that it might help with survivability, but without reducing or emphasizing one area over the other. This would apply most directly to the seams between RT, CT and LT. If you reduce the CT hitbox to increase survivability it's fine, but making it an arbitrary 'absolute' always ends up with a tipping point between wide enough to hit and kill easily, and too narrow to hit at all. If the join was zig-zaged, the actual area of the abutting hitboxes could still be reasonable, yet the damage would naturally be spread between them.

From a design standpoint, this is the most difficult to implement, and would consume more time, but it isn't any harder for the hit detection system to work with.

e: Sorry, my original post made me sound like a ***. Thank you for putting together your original post, and putting the effort into making visual examples for each mech.

I get what you are saying and the idea is do-able, but as long as it's logical and makes sense I don't see an issue with doing something along those lines.

[Jenovah]

Mister Blastman, on 19 September 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

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.

You can hit the CT on an Orion from any- and I mean ANY angle. I've noticed it a lot since I've been grinding my 3 Orion's up. Rarely do I finish a match with any armor on my CT assuming I didn't get cored. And because of how large the CT is brawling is LOL... So I use it for long range plinking and call it the dodo bird- because without JJ's I'm flightless XD

[DEHK]

That was a marvelous post Carrioncrow, cheers!

PGI: this guy is talking sense. He isn't a founder so perhaps he IS in your target demographic. I am willing to bet he could edit an xml file faster than once every two weeks as well.

I hope I get put on watch for my derision, they might catch me not updating this game for another few of months.

EDIT:oh I see CarrionCrow has more than 5 posts, I suppose that makes him part of some rabid battletech fan base and thus properly ignored by the establishment.

Edited by DEHK, 13 October 2013 - 12:06 AM.

[Kmieciu]

Karl Streiger, on 11 October 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:

Maybe you should add a second picture with a "fixed" pelvis area.

Althoug I have to admit - that i just started shooting at this area - after i have seen your pictures

even if you hit the leg - they are so low armored that it is still serious damage

I taught everyone in my corp to aim at the pelvis and now Stalkers don't seem that durable any more.
Thanks Crows!

[Karl Streiger]

I have to ask a request.
Would it be possible to split the hitlocations into halves?

For example the Left Torso of the Stalker would be split between front left torso and rear left torso.

Intstead of 12 critical slots it would have 6 criticals in the rear - protected by the arms = including XL engine and ammunition - but targetable through the rear and a frontal CT including the missile and energy weapons.

Its only a new born idea nothing I have planed for long

[HammerSwarm]

I support part 2 whole heartedly, the CT hitbox is too wasy to hit on many mechs leading to coring being the most viable strategy and XL's being more prevelant because you can be cored so easily. This has a correlation with time to death which I don't like. Want to make an A/C 20 Jager more rare? don't increase the wicked ghost heat, rather increase the side torsos leading to XL death.

[YueFei]

This should receive more attention, so up to the top it goes.

[Carrioncrows]

Guys i appreciate it, but don't sweat bumping this anymore on my behalf. They have either seen it or not either way I am going to divert less time trying to help them improve the game and spend more time just playing it.

Thx for you're support all.

[Kaijin]

Carrioncrows, on 18 September 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

Killing the legs shouldn't kill your mech. Only killing the Engine should kill your mech.

Kill 1 Leg - Reduces you to 15% movement for 5 secs then you are permanently reduced to 50% top speed. Additional hits on the legs won't hamper your speed at all.

Kill 2 legs - Knocks you down, you get back up and you are permanently reduced to 15% top speed for the rest of the game.

Love your work with hitboxes, but I cannot say the same about this. Limbs on a mech have actuators which facilitate them functioning as limbs. When a limb is destroyed, those actuators are destroyed. If a mech has no leg actuators, then it's not getting up again once it's fallen down.

While losing both legs technically wouldn't kill a mech, it's safe to say that a mech without legs has lost it's relevancy. In the game MPBT:Solaris, a double-legged mech could soldier on...by becoming a stationary turret with a firing arc limited to what could be seen torso-twisting while flat on one's back. While there were a very few lucky shots made from that position, most managed to avoid that firing arc, and if they were nice, they'd cockpit the downed mech, freeing the unlucky pilot from the match. Trash talkers got left staring at the sky for the remainder of the match. We didn't have spectator mode back then.

[Merit Lef]

Great work! And would love to see those changes implemented. Battles would last a lot longer, give a touch of diversity to the chassis, and give a greater chance for tactics and counter attacks. Plus any love to the Awesome is needed.

[Chronojam]

Carrioncrows, on 15 October 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

Guys i appreciate it, but don't sweat bumping this anymore on my behalf. They have either seen it or not either way I am going to divert less time trying to help them improve the game and spend more time just playing it.

Thx for you're support all.

Perhaps this is worth making an Ask The Devs question.

[Carrioncrows]

Chronojam, on 16 October 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

Perhaps this is worth making an Ask The Devs question.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2826860

[C E Dwyer]

Carrioncrows, on 23 September 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

The changes are less to do with aesthetics and more to do with gameplay and balancing.

But you right a hood ornament would be pretty cool. Though from what I understand PGI will be implementing ways' to customize your mechs. I.E. Different Atlas's heads you can choose from and things like that.

Different Atlas heads......is this MWO/BT or is this Wurzle Gummidge "yeth Aunt thally, go mah finkin head on today".

[Chronojam]

Carrioncrows, on 16 October 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2826860

That's actually how I found this thread, but I wasn't sure if it was considered inappropriate to crosslink directly to somebody's question -- people have been in trouble for doing that.

[Carrioncrows]

Chronojam, on 16 October 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

That's actually how I found this thread, but I wasn't sure if it was considered inappropriate to crosslink directly to somebody's question -- people have been in trouble for doing that.

oh. I wonder why.

Well considering it's a direct answer to your question can't imagine anything wrong with it.

[Karl Streiger]

Well at least it will be answered in the ATD 49 - really curious about the answer