96 replies to this topic

[Ghogiel]

Dimento Graven, on 22 October 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

And repeating the same stupid thing over and over as you're doing doesn't make your argument any less moronic.
Let me ask you, did you think PGI was stupid when they brought the Locust, Shadowhawk, Thunderbolt and BattleMaster into the game? After all, all 4 'mech chassis and all their variants are straight from CBT.

Where's your posts insisting that PGI create their own fresh 'MWO based' content?

Comparing a video game to 'law' is an inane argument, not really even worth responding to.

I'm not using precedents from some game prior to CBT as a justification for 'mech size variability in MWO, I'm using the same precedents from CBT that PGI has used in their decision making up to this point.

If you can't understand that, then you don't even understand the discussion, and it's not worth arguing with you and you truly can be ignored with zero loss to the discussion.

I don't even need to point out your argument is invalid just> Mech sizes in MWO =/= mech sizes in CBT.

[Strum Wealh]

Dimento Graven, on 21 October 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

I'll see what I can do, though, it'd be even easier if the Testing Grounds would include the 'mechs in question. I can't ever remember having seen a Jager, or Treb, or even an Awesome in the Testing Grounds... That in of itself is kind of odd now that I think about it...

There is a JM6-DD in the Crimson Strait testing grounds, in area B5.

[Dimento Graven]

Ghogiel, on 22 October 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

I don't even need to point out your argument is invalid just> Mech sizes in MWO =/= mech sizes in CBT.

I never said the 'mech sizes in MWO had to match CBT either, I just pointed out that there was 'variability' in the scaling in CBT, so it's not unreasonable to expect 'variability' in MWO.

It's actually UNREASONABLE to expect some 'sacrosanct' adherence to a what was AT BEST only a general rule of thumb...

Do you see me pitching a fit because the Locust doesn't match the CBT scaling? No. Nor did I join in on the 'fit pitching' when the Kintaro came out larger than expected.

See? You really didn't understand the discussion.

Strum Wealh, on 22 October 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

There is a JM6-DD in the Crimson Strait testing grounds, in area B5.

Thank you VERY MUCH! I was unaware of that. After work, I'll do some testing. See if I can't duplicate some of the simultaneous unrelated hit box damage I've been seeing in game on that chassis.

[Ghogiel]

Dimento Graven, on 22 October 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

I never said the 'mech sizes in MWO had to match CBT either, I just pointed out that there was 'variability' in the scaling in CBT, so it's not unreasonable to expect 'variability' in MWO.

It's actually UNREASONABLE to expect some 'sacrosanct' adherence to a what was AT BEST only a general rule of thumb...

Do you see me pitching a fit because the Locust doesn't match the CBT scaling? No. Nor did I join in on the 'fit pitching' when the Kintaro came out larger than expected.

See? You really didn't understand the discussion.

I did understand. Just you cannot into reasons for mech scales.

[meteorol]

Dimento Graven, on 20 October 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

As it is, they seem to die 99.9999999999999% of the time due to side torso coring, and why?

Because everyone and their grandmother shoots the side torso, and nothing but the side torso. As long as 95.7% of the jager pilots use a XL engine, noone will even think of attacking the CT. Damage on multiple parts of the mech is caused by lasers swept across the mech or the HSR doing the same wonky stuff it does on all mechs.

[Dimento Graven]

meteorol, on 22 October 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

Because everyone and their grandmother shoots the side torso, and nothing but the side torso. As long as 95.7% of the jager pilots use a XL engine, noone will even think of attacking the CT.

True that, but if the side torso hit boxes are incorporating part of the arm, then they may be bigger than intended, and need to be reduced.

Quote

Damage on multiple parts of the mech is caused by lasers swept across the mech or the HSR doing the same wonky stuff it does on all mechs.

I absolutely understand how lasers damage is registered, and I can tell the difference between a "laser sweep" and a PPC/ballistic round too. It truly looks like 1 round of non-sweeping projectile is coming at me, but registering in two sometimes totally disparate locations on my 'mech.

Whether that's a function of bad hit boxes, or HSR, it needs to be addressed, agreed? In the former, it may only affect a few 'mechs, but it's something that should be addressed so that they don't continue making the same mistake in other future 'mechs, and if it's the later it's affecting ALL 'mechs (only those with 'thin spots' are effected by it more noticeably) and either way needs to be addressed.

That's why I think it needs to be 're-examined' by those with access to the appropriate debugging utilities and back end data to more exactly determine what the real problem is.

I'm not necessarily 100% convinced there is a problem, maybe only 95%, and that's why I'm saying it should be re-examined, and IF there is an actual problem, that problem SHOULD be fixed.

I can't think how that's an unreasonable position, but I'm sure the mass of chowder heads out there will find something...

[Dimento Graven]

Ghogiel, on 22 October 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

...Just you cannot into reasons for mech scales.

I'm sorry, I think you missed a word or two in that sentence, can you restate it?

Edited by Dimento Graven, 22 October 2013 - 01:15 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Dimento Graven, on 22 October 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Thank you VERY MUCH! I was unaware of that. After work, I'll do some testing. See if I can't duplicate some of the simultaneous unrelated hit box damage I've been seeing in game on that chassis.

You're welcome.

Also, some results from my own testing (using one of the centerline Medium Lasers mounted on my Centurion):

• Shooting the front and sides (relative to the JM6) of the "spoiler" counts as hits to the front of the CT, but shooting the back of the "spoiler" (e.g. standing behind the JM6 and shooting the trailing edge of the airfoil or the back of the "stalk/stem") counts as hits to the rear of the CT.
  
• Shooting the sides of the boxy structure at the small of the JM6's back (that is, the part that sticks out, just above the torso-twist joint) counts as hits to the appropriate side-torso, while shooting it dead-on from behind the JM6 counts as hits to the rear of the CT.
  
• Shooting the side of the lower torso (the "pelvis"; there are a couple of corners that stick out beyond the legs that one can hit with careful aim and a still target) counts as hits to the front of the CT, while shooting it dead-on from behind the JM6 counts as hits to the rear of the CT.
  
• Only the center window pane counts as a headshot; shots directed at all of the other windows are counted as hits to the front of the CT.
  
• Other than the specific points listed above, the diagram shown in the hitbox thread (duplicated below) seems to be generally correct (including how the "flanges"/"blinders" and the dangly-bits at the JM6's "armpits" are considered to be part of the side-torsos), with the additional consideration that shots directed at the sides of the side-torsos (including the aforementioned "flanges"/"blinders" and dangly-bits) are counted as hits against the front of the side-torsos.

[Krivvan]

Dimento Graven, on 22 October 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

It's actually UNREASONABLE to expect some 'sacrosanct' adherence to a what was AT BEST only a general rule of thumb...

People complain (or at least the more intelligent ones do) about medium mech sizes because of balance reasons. Not because it doesn't make sense in canon or whatever.

No one cares that size variability is possible because it happened in CBT. That is irrelevant.

The problem is whether medium mech sizes are a problem for the gameplay of MWO itself.

Edited by Krivvan, 22 October 2013 - 02:38 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Regarding the test, the actual hit boxes aren't at issue, are they? It's been known for a long time that the hit boxes didn't line up with the mechlab locations (I expect UI 2.0 to help with that discrepancy). The hypothetical problem is that some single hits impact multiple hit locations, no? Try to trigger that problem while recording.

Also, Testing Grounds is not ideal for any bug investigation. It uses an old build of the game, and is entirely client-side, while a live environment is server-authoritative (which is a likely source of some hit registration issues). Far better to drop with a team mate in the mech you want to test and go off on your own to test your kit. Sure your team might complain, but it's for the greater good, right? Absent a Public Test Server your options are limited.

[meteorol]

Dimento Graven, on 22 October 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

I absolutely understand how lasers damage is registered, and I can tell the difference between a "laser sweep" and a PPC/ballistic round too. It truly looks like 1 round of non-sweeping projectile is coming at me, but registering in two sometimes totally disparate locations on my 'mech.

Whether that's a function of bad hit boxes, or HSR, it needs to be addressed, agreed? In the former, it may only affect a few 'mechs, but it's something that should be addressed so that they don't continue making the same mistake in other future 'mechs, and if it's the later it's affecting ALL 'mechs (only those with 'thin spots' are effected by it more noticeably) and either way needs to be addressed.

With the HSR being the worst it has been in months, it's rather hard to tell if there are any hitbox issues. Before the HSR is fixed, you can't even tell for sure which part of the enemy mech you hit. The HSR is so broken right now (atleast for 100+ ping players shooting other 100+ ping players) that the game is closer to TT than it ever was before. Roll a dice every time you use your weapons.

Just yesterday i shot a pract with undamaged center front torso. I did hit him with 2x AC5 to the undamaged front CT. This shot cored him with alteast one shell being registered to his deep red rear side torso (yellow frontal side torso armor). The guy went totally nuts in the chat.

With the HSR being broken like this, we just can't make any established statement about hitboxes of a certain mech. They need to adress the broken HSR for sure. SRMs have a chance to hit of like 50% if you are lucky. It's totally broken right now, and it is a top priority issue. We can hope it will be solved in about 6 months.

Edited by meteorol, 23 October 2013 - 01:43 AM.

[Ghogiel]

Dimento Graven, on 22 October 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I'm sorry, I think you missed a word or two in that sentence, can you restate it?

It's one of those intentional internet grammar mistake memes.

[Tahribator]

It's a freaking long-range support mech, it's supposed to be vulnerable.

PGI shafts either CT's or ST's of support mechs to emphasize their role. They usually punish the mechs with torso weapons with huge CT's and ones with arm mounted weapons with huge ST's. Only true brawlers have somewhat balanced hitboxes, like the Atlas, Quickdraw, Centurion, Victors, Orions(no it doesn't have huge CTtitis). Still, having larger ST's enables a mech to brawl efficiently because of increased survival, but since %99 of JM pilots have XL's that advantage works against them.

If they gave every mech balanced hitboxes then they'd have removed a unique aspect from this game. Having hitbox syndromes limits the respective mechs to their intended roles.

Now, there are some mechs with straight out broken shapes like the Dragon(mostly because of it's tabletop shape), and the Awesome(outrageous scale). But they have their own threads already.

Edited by Tahribator, 23 October 2013 - 02:11 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Krivvan, on 22 October 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

People complain (or at least the more intelligent ones do) about medium mech sizes because of balance reasons. Not because it doesn't make sense in canon or whatever.

No one cares that size variability is possible because it happened in CBT. That is irrelevant.

The problem is whether medium mech sizes are a problem for the gameplay of MWO itself.

I question the 'intelligence' of anyone completely emotionally intransigent on any particular point. You and your ilk screaming and QQ'ing the 'balance, balance, balance' mantra have got to realize that the game is in danger of being 'balanced' right into mediocrity in a lot of ways.

Quite a few of the measures PGI has made to 'balance' the game have eliminated variety, made features of the game truly usable only to a skilled elite class, while pushing the vast majority over to using the same 'cheese' builds, AND, have limited pre-made grouping options to 4 or less or 12, complicating setting up matches with the 5-11, AND, have completely eliminated a key feature that has turned itty bitty lights into no skilled leg humping annoyances and so on...

You can't have perfect balance without destroying variety. In the games with 'perfect' balance realm there's Checkers, Tic-tac-toe and Solitaire.

In the name of balance it seems some people want every 'mech to have the same equal usability as every other 'mech, and that's just silly. In the name of balance some people want a 20 ton Locust to have an equal chance in a brawl with a 100 ton Atlas, again, silly.

Ghogiel, on 23 October 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

It's one of those intentional internet grammar mistake memes.

Ahh, I see, again with the 'too cool to communicate as an adult'... Got ya!

[Dimento Graven]

Tahribator, on 23 October 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

It's a freaking long-range support mech, it's supposed to be vulnerable.

I question the validity of exact text of that argument. It's a 'mech, all 'mechs are vulnerable, true. However, by your argument, if a Jager is loaded out with short and medium range weapons (such as in the cheese AC/40 builds), it's no longer 'long-range support' so therefore the 'vulnerability' of the side torsos should then be eliminated no? I mean, that would be a valid conclusion based off an exact interpretation of your sentence, no?

Quote

PGI shafts either CT's or ST's of support mechs to emphasize their role. They usually punish the mechs with torso weapons with huge CT's and ones with arm mounted weapons with huge ST's. Only true brawlers have somewhat balanced hitboxes, like the Atlas, Quickdraw, Centurion, Victors, Orions(no it doesn't have huge CTtitis). Still, having larger ST's enables a mech to brawl efficiently because of increased survival, but since %99 of JM pilots have XL's that advantage works against them.

I totally acknowledge the Jager has thinner side torsos than other 'mechs of its class, the issue is though, are the side torsos unintentionally 'thinner' than they should be because of hit box misplacement? If the hit boxes have become screwed up (in much the same way as the Founders Atlas head hit box had been) it's possible that when shooting one body part CT, ARM, or LEG, the side torso may be taking damage it shouldn't. So instead of blowing off an arm, or leg, or coring the CT, you're hitting the side torsos. On other 'mechs without an already thin side torso, this might not be so noticeable, but on a 'mech intentionally designed with thin side torsos it can be a real issue.

Quote

If they gave every mech balanced hitboxes then they'd have removed a unique aspect from this game. Having hitbox syndromes limits the respective mechs to their intended roles.

We're not talking about eliminating 'balanced' hit boxes, we're talking about fixing, potentially, broken ones.

Quote

Now, there are some mechs with straight out broken shapes like the Dragon(mostly because of it's tabletop shape), and the Awesome(outrageous scale). But they have their own threads already.

I disagree that the Dragon or Awesome is 'broken' (though I do question the design intent of the Awesome, or ANY 'mech where there's significant deviation of 'mech lab component location vs. actual hit box location like the Awesome, Jager, Cataphract, and Jenner).

It's quite easy, and very much cheaper, for PGI to claim that a non-game breaking mistake is "working as intended", and it's a practice quite common in the gaming industry (damn near every game has stuff in it that's obviously not right, but the developers don't want to bother fixing) so it wouldn't surprise me if the Awesome (and other 'mechs) hit boxes are actually wrong. Like you say though, these 'mechs have their own threads.

But, regardless of the status of the hit boxes as far as 'mech design goes, as a 30+ year BattleTech fan, I PREFER the 'mechs of ANY computer simulation representing the BattleTech universe to keep ALL 'mechs to their original CBT scales, regardless the consequences to my own notions of 'balance'.

AND FOR THE RECORD, LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT: 'Balance' is in the eye of the beholder.

What YOU might consider "balanced" might not be so from my perspective.

For example: There are many that believe, as I had mentioned before, that a 20 ton Locust should have an EQUAL chance in a brawl against a 100 ton Atlas. This is a silly notion of balance in my opinion. The only time a Locust should have a chance against an Atlas is if the Locust pilot has really good skill, and the Atlas is a complete noob, or a drunken *****. Beyond that, in a one on one brawl the Atlas should win, pretty much every time.

So, leaving unintended extra thinness to ANY 'mech (be it Jager, Dragon, Locust, Atlas, et al) isn't 'balance', it's just vindictive, petty, silliness that has ZERO to do with 'balance'.

[Lefty Lucy]

Dimento Graven, on 23 October 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

If the hit boxes have become screwed up (in much the same way as the Founders Atlas head hit box had been) it's possible that when shooting one body part CT, ARM, or LEG, the side torso may be taking damage it shouldn't. So instead of blowing off an arm, or leg, or coring the CT, you're hitting the side torsos. On other 'mechs without an already thin side torso, this might not be so noticeable, but on a 'mech intentionally designed with thin side torsos it can be a real issue.

You keep bringing this up with absolutely zero evidence that it is a reproducible phenomenon or bug.

[Dimento Graven]

Lefty Lucy, on 23 October 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

You keep bringing this up with absolutely zero evidence that it is a reproducible phenomenon or bug.

That, I am working on.

But it's no different than 99.9998% of the other posts on this forum.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 23 October 2013 - 09:39 AM.