74 replies to this topic

[HammerSwarm]

TLDR: The design philosophy of hit boxes needs to change. The center torso is far too important to be the easiest to hit target on a mech.

It does not matter what mech it is, be it a commando, a kintaro, an orion, or an atlas. The center torso should not, must not, be the easiest hit box to hit.

Think about it for a moment. what 2 areas on any mech is certain death? The CT and the Cockpit. Why? one houses the pilot, the other the engine, a mech can not function without either. It makes sense.

What we have in MWO is a real time shooter with skill involved.

What do you shoot at? I personally aim at the center torso, it's usually carrying the heaviest armor but I usually hit it. I aim at the cockpit when it's convenient like a catapult or a jagermech and missing will still cause CT damage.

Why is this important? because if the CT is most likely to cause a kill and is the easiest to hit then it is the most likely place to be shot.

Unintended side effects which you may or may not consciously be aware of:

• More XL engines being put in play because no one shoots at/or hits your side torsos.
  
• More weapons, higher alphas, faster deaths.

If being cored is easy, even in mechs intended to have larger side torsos meant to discourage XL engines, than simply it's not going to deter people from running XL engines because no one is going to shoot at higher risk lower reward side torsos.


The proper course of action:
The size of hit boxes on most mechs needs an immediate tuning pass. This tuning pass needs to be a modest adjustment to the size of the center torso for all mechs not intended to be XL engine favorable.

Some mechs are fine:
Obviously some mechs are intended for XL engines, like the Dragon. I play dragons, they are fine the way they are, I get cored, and know I will be cored, but it's expected. When this wouldn't be fine is if a mech with a huge center torso had hit boxes preventing it from being hit their. This is not the case with the Dragon.

In closing:
Think about it. Post your replies. Be critical. The only way to investigate an idea is with critical thinking so please share.

[Khobai]

PGI should increase center and side torso internal structure by 50% or so. Because torso sections definitely get destroyed too quickly on mechs. Critical hits dont even matter because the whole side torso gets blown out before weapons get critted. Its silly.

That would be far, far easier than resizing all the hitboxes on most mechs which would take months to do...

[Mister Blastman]

I wouldn't mind an internal structure increase. I'd help my Blackjack live longer! (Well, that's relative. They're one shotted most of the time anyways so maybe they'll now be hit twice!).

[Monky]

Center torso size should be on-par with side torso size ideally. Its extra armor/structure compared to side torsos would then lend actual survivability to a mech with a standard engine, granting a good reason to not just load in an XL - further the side torsos would be easier targets, making people who run XL engines think twice about their viability.

Currently, for most mechs, XL engines are outright superior in most cases. More weapons, heatsinks, speed, whatever it is you're aiming for, for a usually small tradeoff in survivability. Since the economy (aka R&R) was scrapped, there is no balancing factor for XL engines anymore other than relying on the shooter being smart enough to identify an XL user in the heat of battle and aim appropriately.

Additionally, another shift that needs to happen is reducing the 'protruding CT' effect, where the CT is easily capable of being hit from the side, minimizing the effectiveness of torso twisting. Either the sides of the CT protrusion need to be considered side torso locations, or the models need to be made with that in mind.

A good case in point for that is the Atlas or Stalker vs the Highlander or Victor. Usually, an Atlas or Stalker loses a side torso before going down to CT death so long as the player isn't standing still. This is because the side torso hit boxes are comparable to the CT hit boxes and encourages standard engine use. Highlanders and Victors in comparison have fairly large CT hit boxes, and in game you're likely to die to CT coring without losing a side torso which encourages XL use.

Edited by Monky, 12 September 2013 - 07:33 AM.

[Khobai]

the decision to use XL shouldnt be based on the size and shape of your hitboxes though. Thats entirely arbitrary and ridiculous. You should be able to use an XL engine with any mech and not have to worry about significantly decreasing your survivability.

[Zyllos]

I don't think it matters how you modify the hitboxes/damage/ect.

The culprit is that we are using an armor system that was built around the idea that weapon damage is applied randomly in a game where weapon damage is applied where the player wants it.

Basically, if you modified Classic Battletech to allow players to choose where weapons fire would go, most would either choose the CT or L/R Torso and just ignore the Arms/Legs most of the time.

Now, while in CBT, each mechwarrior had a Ballistic Skill value tied with it. In MWO, this skill value is basically the personal skill of each player. Makes sense. But, you could not do all these "Called Shots" with ease that we can now.

Also, when weapons are fired in CBT, each weapon individually hit a different location. We can also see the issue in MWO's translation is that all weapons fired from arms aim at a single point in space and the same for torsos.

Instead of modifying more internal structure points and armor, we need to introduce a system that allows players to aim but not guarantee hits to where they are aiming. I would suggest a CoF system that is location specific (meaning if you fire all your Left Torso weapons, they all hit the "same" random location) and then make each weapon type have modifiers to the CoF.

•Each section (L/R Arms, L/R/C Torsos, and Head) produces their own single CoF
◦All same section weapons would produce a single random CoF location
•Lasers fire in the same pattern as they are physically mounted on the mech
◦All same section Lasers fire in the same pattern that they are mounted, landing in the same pattern but randomly hitting the center of that pattern within the CoF
◦Lasers have small deviations in their CoF
•Ballistics always produce a unique CoF, regardless of mounted location
◦Always produces a new random location within the CoF, regardless if they are mounted in the same location or not
◦Ballistics have large deviations in their CoF
•Missiles produce their own patterns
◦Ignores CoF
•The CoF increases/decreases in base size dependent on movement/actuators/ect
◦x0.75 base size @ standing still
◦x1.0 base size @ 0-66% throttle (walking)
◦x1.5 base size @ 67-100% throttle (running)
◦x2.0 base size when jump jetting or falling
•Maximum range determines the actual size of the base of the CoF
◦Short ranged weapons mean their accuracy is worse at a distance and long ranged weapons mean their accuracy is better at close ranges
•Lasers base CoF is 1.0m at their maximum range (all lasers)
•Ballistics base CoF is based on caliber/weapon type
◦AC/2 is 2.0m
◦AC/5 is 2.2m
◦UAC/5 is 2.2m
◦AC/10 is 2.5m
◦AC/20 is 3.0m
◦Gauss Rifle is 2.5m
◦PPC/ER PPC is 2.0m

What this would do is produce unique roles for each weapon, especially for lasers due to each mech having a unique physical mounting hardpoint pattern. Ballistics always produce a CoF for each firing of the weapon, thus mounting location do not have much meaning other than armor protection and aiming source (Arm or Torso). Missiles also do not have much noticable different and actually ignores CoF, thus moving at maximum speed or not moving at all effects missiles in no way.

What this will do is provide more spreading of damage but still provide ways for players to generally aim at locations. So if you want to take out the CT, keep aiming for it. Some of that damage will hit the Left/Right Torsos also, giving more general survivability to locations, more importance to hitting a critical hit when you hit a location to destroy a weapon/equipment, and have arms/legs take damage overall instead of being mostly ignored except in unique situations.

I really think this is the direction that MWO needs to go. A CoF that still allows for aiming but does not guarantee hitting a location you aim at but overtime, your aiming will be more important. That means for each minute detail when firing will not matter unless the target is basically dead in a location but over a longer period, if you can continue aiming at the same location, you will be guaranteed to hit more often at where your aiming.

This is what I hope PGI will see that this game will absolutely need a definitive fix for the pin point accuracy.

Edited by Zyllos, 12 September 2013 - 07:49 AM.

[HammerSwarm]

Khobai, on 12 September 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

the decision to use XL shouldnt be based on the size and shape of your hitboxes though. Thats entirely arbitrary and ridiculous. You should be able to use an XL engine with any mech and not have to worry about significantly decreasing your survivability.

What? If an XL had no drawbacks then why not always use an XL engine? If you're always using an XL engine why even have standard engines? Some mechs obviously are made for/to take advantage of XL Engines. Look no further than the Dragon. You can hardly hit the side torsos there. That's an obvious one.

Zyllos, on 12 September 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

I don't think it matters how you modify the hitboxes/damage/ect.

How could it not matter? I am a pretty good shot but I am not an aim-bot. I can hit mostly center torso but when you get firing ballistics weapons, start getting hit by ballistics weapons, add in moving around some shots miss. It's going to happen, I assume to everyone. Tuning the CT vs Side hit boxes to shift damage to the side torsos has to work unless you have perfect accuracy.

Zyllos, on 12 September 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

Instead of modifying more internal structure points and armor, we need to introduce a system that allows players to aim but not guarantee hits to where they are aiming. I would suggest a CoF system that is location specific (meaning if you fire all your Left Torso weapons, they all hit the "same" random location) and then make each weapon type have modifiers to the CoF.

Just say no to random number generators. We're not playing table top. This is a live action game where I have skills. I don't want to point my mech at an arm hit fire and have that shot despite my best efforts go off course. It takes my skill totally out of it.

Monky, on 12 September 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

Center torso size should be on-par with side torso size ideally. Its extra armor/structure compared to side torsos would then lend actual survivability to a mech with a standard engine, granting a good reason to not just load in an XL - further the side torsos would be easier targets, making people who run XL engines think twice about their viability.

I think we're onto the same goal but how much would you have to add to say statistically match a 15% narrower center torso? Would BT purist cry about the idea of additional internal HP?

Monky, on 12 September 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

Currently, for most mechs, XL engines are outright superior in most cases. More weapons, heatsinks, speed, whatever it is you're aiming for, for a usually small tradeoff in survivability. Since the economy (aka R&R) was scrapped, there is no balancing factor for XL engines anymore other than relying on the shooter being smart enough to identify an XL user in the heat of battle and aim appropriately.

A good case in point for that is the Atlas or Stalker vs the Highlander or Victor. Usually, an Atlas or Stalker loses a side torso before going down to CT death so long as the player isn't standing still. This is because the side torso hit boxes are comparable to the CT hit boxes and encourages standard engine use. Highlanders and Victors in comparison have fairly large CT hit boxes, and in game you're likely to die to CT coring without losing a side torso which encourages XL use.

I agree totally about the atlas. Shooting the torsos off is easier because they are impossible to miss. They are as wide as the center torso but wrap all the way around. Perhaps they could balance this by shifting some armor points from side torsos to center torsos rather than re-engineering the hit boxes. I'll think about this.

[Corvus Antaka]

I agree. Personally I think that standard engines should increase center torso internal hitpoints by double, and as you note currently too many mechs have too big center torsos thus almost always favouring an XL engine since most mechs just get cored anyhow.

The stalker is a prime example of a standard engine favour with it's tiny CT, and the orion the XL. This is and always has been a difficult issue to balance in mech games. Beyond moving to segmented 9 square hitbox torsos.

imho it is fine as it is now, but PGI needs to give us some more mechs with smaller CT and/or have standard engines boost internal damage taken by double, on only CT or even on the entire torso, whatever balance testing favours. This may however cause too much of a balance issue in favour of standard engines and slow game pace down to much.

Still, XL engines currently seem the norm. in CB standard was more viable, and monitoring this seems wise.

[PEEFsmash]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 12 September 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

I agree. Personally I think that standard engines should increase center torso internal hitpoints by double, and as you note currently too many mechs have too big center torsos thus almost always favouring an XL engine since most mechs just get cored anyhow.

The stalker is a prime example of a standard engine favour with it's tiny CT, and the orion the XL. This is and always has been a difficult issue to balance in mech games. Beyond moving to segmented 9 square hitbox torsos.

imho it is fine as it is now, but PGI needs to give us some more mechs with smaller CT and/or have standard engines boost internal damage taken by double, on only CT or even on the entire torso, whatever balance testing favours. This may however cause too much of a balance issue in favour of standard engines and slow game pace down to much.

Still, XL engines currently seem the norm. in CB standard was more viable, and monitoring this seems wise.

Standard engine DOUBLING internal hitpoints? This is by far the stupidest thing I have ever heard someone (who regularly posts) say on these forums. My mind is seriously blown at the absolute incompetence this post shows regarding balance feedback.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 12 September 2013 - 10:46 AM.

[OneEyed Jack]

HammerSwarm, on 12 September 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

Just say no to random number generators. We're not playing table top. This is a live action game where I have skills. I don't want to point my mech at an arm hit fire and have that shot despite my best efforts go off course. It takes my skill totally out of it.

Well... it's not a live action game, but I'll just assume you meant real-time.

So, setting that aside, it's a real-time game based on an IP in which targeting computers are responsible for the actual coordination and alignment of weapons to where the shooter intends (since you're not actually sighting down the barrel). And those targeting computers aren't very good. That's why even weapons fired together will hit different locations.

Now you'll probably want to say something to the effect of the IP needs to be ignored, to which I'll preemptively reply with: Toss off, if you ignore the IP, then it's no longer the game advertised by the name and there's already random-generic-mecha games out there you could go play. Of course, I don't get to make the decision, and the increasingly disappointing staff at PGI seems to be ever more willing to desecrate the IP in more and more ridiculous ways.

I don't actually support CoF, but a convergence system that would have caused shots to be spread unless you take the time to allow weapons to converge, but which could be adjusted for for single weapon shots with player skill, would have been ideal. Big, pinpoint alphas would require remaining exposed longer, quick snap-shots could be moderately accurate with single weapons (still crappy targeting computers) or more spread out with multiple weapons. Alas, it shall never be, since PGI decided it's just easier to pervert everything BT/MW.

BTW: RNGs don't remove skill, they just use different skills. Twitch is not the only skill set there is. Being able to tactically account for uncontrollable variables is most certainly a skill.

(For the pedantic Hodors out there that will jump on it, even IS mechs have simple targeting computers that do the same job, to a lesser degree, than the advanced Targeting Computers (note the caps) of the Clans.)

[Zyllos]

HammerSwarm, on 12 September 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

Just say no to random number generators. We're not playing table top. This is a live action game where I have skills. I don't want to point my mech at an arm hit fire and have that shot despite my best efforts go off course. It takes my skill totally out of it.

So you think that if you fire 5 AC/2's at the same time, they should all hit the exact same location at the same time?

If you fire 4 Medium Lasers, 1 Head, 2 Left Torso, and 1 Center Torso, they should all hit the exact same point?

Also, with a CoF, are you saying that your aiming doesn't matter even if you aim to the left of a mech, it's still going to hit somehow? Or if you aim at the Center Torso, you haven't mitigated the chances of it NOT hitting the Center Torso?

A CoF does not mean 100% random. If you have a player that is bad at aiming (meaning this person can only just aim torwards a mech, not so much keep it Center Torso) vs another player good at aiming, that good aiming person, with the exact same mech, will win almost every time due to their ability to control the odds.

If you know 100% where weapons will fire every time, then why aim for anything else other than the most damaged spot and even have armor locations? Why not just do a total health pool like other FPS games? Sure, you will sometimes hit other locations, but that is not how armor is set up in this game. I can't weigh 50% of my armor into my torso to mitigate people aiming at it all the time.

That is the issue with this game.

[PEEFsmash]

Zyllos, on 12 September 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

If you have a player that is bad at aiming (meaning this person can only just aim torwards a mech, not so much keep it Center Torso) vs another player good at aiming, that good aiming person, with the exact same mech, will win almost every time due to their ability to control the odds.

But right now the better player can win EVERY time. Why would we want bad players to randomly win on occasion when we can have skill determine the outcome at a higher rate without CoF?

[HammerSwarm]

Zyllos, on 12 September 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

So you think that if you fire 5 AC/2's at the same time, they should all hit the exact same location at the same time?
(post shortened to save space, you should read it above)

Are said weapons all in one location? Say an arm? is that arm tied to my aim point? then yeah.

One of my pet peeves with this game is the convergence aspect of all of the weapons. As if each weapon had actuators moving it in real time with the aim point. It is what it is.

For skill to be a factor results need to be repeatable. If you want weapons mounted in the body to fire straight ahead I can deal with that but I need to know where they are firing before I pull the trigger. Knowing that can be based on putting an aim point in the screen or by playing countless rounds and knowing my mech. Either way it's not a cone of fire.

[General Taskeen]

Yes sick of taking CT damage 90% of the time even though "twisting" is a part of Mech Warrior - Jenner, Dragon, Blackjack, Cicada, Awesome. Short of twisting 100+ degrees and spinning in place, quality control passes needs take place for CT hitboxes THROUGH and THROUGH.

[Fut]

HammerSwarm, on 12 September 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

TLDR: The design philosophy of hit boxes needs to change. The center torso is far too important to be the easiest to hit target on a mech.

I've been saying for awhile now that the hitboxes are all too big.
Each hitbox that's currently on a Mech should be divided into sections.

- Each Arm and Leg should be divided into 3 sections (Upper, Mid, Lower).
- Each Torso Section should be divided into 5+ sections (Dead center, then smaller boxes around that)
- Head should have a front and back.

The armor points should stay the same, but with the added hitboxes, it'll be much much harder to place two Uber-Alphas into the exact same location with multiple shots in quick succession.
In the end, it'll make all Mechs much tougher to kill.

[One Medic Army]

PEEFsmash, on 12 September 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

But right now the better player can win EVERY time. Why would we want bad players to randomly win on occasion when we can have skill determine the outcome at a higher rate without CoF?

Couple of reasons:

• It makes the game less predictable, which in turn makes the game less boring over long periods of play.
  
• It actually helps retain new players, since they do stand a chance against experienced players.

Also if necessary we could just have a "no CoF" mode, similar to how TF2 has non-randomized servers. I bet most people wouldn't play them though, just like how they're not very common in TF2.

[Pale Jackal]

Yeah, I find it unfortunate that XL engines feel superior to STD engines 80%+ of the time.

There are three 'mech types I own where I used a standard engine: Centurion (of course!!!), Jaeger, and Highlander.

HGN is my only assault 'mech. However, even though the Highlander is an assault 'mech, if I lose a side torso, most of the time my CT is going to blow up soon anyways, so I have zero problem with putting an XL on my HGN 733C and I'd put them on the other HGN if I had the crits.

Jaegers and Centurions both feel like good fits for standard engines, and running around with half your weapons destroyed while still making a difference feels great. I wanted the CTF-4X to be another zombie 'mech, but the CT is so big that there's no point to a standard engine in a CTF, unless you want to use an AC20 in a CTF-1X for the fun of it.

If you lose your center torso 10 seconds after losing your side torso, then the STD engine didn't really help, now did it?

Edited by Pale Jackal, 12 September 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[PEEFsmash]

One Medic Army, on 12 September 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Couple of reasons:

• It makes the game less predictable, which in turn makes the game less boring over long periods of play.
  
• It actually helps retain new players, since they do stand a chance against experienced players.

Also if necessary we could just have a "no CoF" mode, similar to how TF2 has non-randomized servers. I bet most people wouldn't play them though, just like how they're not very common in TF2.

If you want dicerolls go to Vegas. Bad players should not stand a chance against players who are better than them. They should stand a chance against players of their own skill level. A perfect game would have the more skilled player winning 100% of the time. That isn't always possible due to incomplete information, and randomness of scouting direction, etc. However, in full-information games, any randomness should be eliminated from gameplay mechanics so that skill will triumph in as many cases as possible, and nothing to lower the frequency of those cases should be tolerated.

Dumbing down the game and making bads sometimes win important fights due to diceroll mechanics is what you want?! Really?

[Angel of Annihilation]

Khobai, on 12 September 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

the decision to use XL shouldnt be based on the size and shape of your hitboxes though. Thats entirely arbitrary and ridiculous. You should be able to use an XL engine with any mech and not have to worry about significantly decreasing your survivability.

Totally defeat the purpose. Using an XL should always be a trade off of survivability verse saving weight for more weapons, armor and equipment. Otherwise there would be zero reason to use anything but an XL, they are just too good not to use if they don't effect your survivability.

Also it totally astounds me how dense people are in general. Their is two reasons why most of the damage you take is to the center torso.

One - the CT is the center mass on your mech. By pure instinct alone, anyone shooting at a target will always aim for center mass because you have a better chance to at least hit somewhere even if your a poor shot.

Two - The CT is a guarenteed kill every time. The only other target that guarentees a kill is the head and it is tiny in comparision.

I mean seriously, it should be pretty obvious that no matter how small the CT is in comparison to the ST, it will always be the place hit most often.

[HammerSwarm]

One Medic Army, on 12 September 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Also if necessary we could just have a "no CoF" mode, similar to how TF2 has non-randomized servers. I bet most people wouldn't play them though, just like how they're not very common in TF2.

No new modes. They're not splitting 1pv and 3pv so they'd not split this. Predictability is the basis of skill. I don't know where my golf ball will land but because I have spent years of my life making my swing reliable and the results predictable I get it right most of the time. When I don't it is because I did something wrong. Not because my seven iron was either a six or an eight iron depending on the dice roll.