Tesunie, on 20 November 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:
PGI made some changes and simplified the hit box shapes. Beyound that, I didn't see no "They where broken and we fixed them". I see them applying a new hit box system on them that is being applied to all mechs now. Otherwise, then the Atlas, Awesome and Orion must have been buggy too, running by your same logic.They must have had bad hit boxes that were resulting in them being invincible as well (seen as I've come across more than one red CT Internal Atlas that wouldn't die despite being out numbered).
See, we're back to ultra denial from a Spider lover here. Why do I say that? Because he ignores the other sentence and then tries to apply faulty logic, based on the missing information he's ignoring. Let's look at the whole quote on hit boxes, and I'll do my best to interpret:
Quote
Hitbox Tuning
Atlas:
- Hitbox geometry aligned better to the render geometry.
- Tighter corridor for Center Torso (it's smaller and sides are bigger).
- Pelvis adjusted for damage disbursement to left and right leg instead of all center torso.
- This BattleMech will still be investigated.
Awesome:
- Head hitbox reduced by 35%.
- More of the shoulder regions now apply damage to L/R Side Torsos rather than Center Torso.
- Pelvis split to apply damage to Left and Right Leg instead of Center Torso.
- Center Torso has been reduced by approximately 15-20%.
Spider:
- Hitbox geometry reduced in complexity and increased in size to encompass components more thoroughly.
- Split Pelvis to apply damage to Left and Right Leg instead of Center Torso.
- The Left REAR Torso and Right REAR Torso have been increased in size by approximately 10%.
- The front Center Torso has been increased in size (around the chest area) by approximately 10%.
Orion:
- Head hitbox reduced by 30%.
- Split Pelvis to apply damage to Left and Right Leg instead of Center Torso.
- Front Center Torso decreased in size by approximately 10%. Side torsos increased by about 5% on each side.
Atlas-
Atlas hit boxes were wrong, they had to realigned to match the visual.
They decided the CT was too big and the ST's were too small.
They added the 'thong'.
They believe their might be more issues.
Awesome-
They decided the head hit box was too big.
They decided the ST's were to small, and the CT too big.
They added the thong.
They decided the CT was too big.
Spider -
They found the hit box geometry was 'too complex', AND, that hit boxes weren't completely covering the components. The first part may not indicate a problem, the second part, definitely does.
They added the thong.
They decided the rear ST's were too small.
They decided the front CT was too small.
Orion-
PGI decided the head hit box was too big.
The thong was added.
They decided that the front CT was too big, that the ST's were too small.
In none of the other 'mechs do I see any indication that they'd found that the hit boxes were to small to completely cover the components.
The Spider, by far, sounds like hit had more work done to it. No other 'mech had geometry issues.
Quote
Just because they made changes to a mech doesn't mean that there was necessarily a problem with that mech, just means that they improved it.
Except where they specifically mention that the hit box sizes needed to be increased to 'thoroughly cover' the components.
I'm sorry they didn't use the words, "broke" and "bug" and "we f'd up", but that's the world of spin we live in now.
Quote
Why is it whenever someone says something counter to what you say, they must be "wanting to keep their broken spiders"?
PS: Did you see my long posts (4 of them total) a page or two ago? I noticed you conveniently didn't respond to the screen shots and analysis provided from my testing.
I don't have to respond to your EVERY post in this thread, nor do I give a {Scrap} about "static" screen shots. Also, here's my response: You're analysis is wrong. Why: REASONS!
It's about the same level of response I got with full motion video posts.
Plus the fact that the appeared to me to be obvious ploys to hijack the thread from discussing the Spider's issues.
Quote
Most of us weren't denying anything. Many of us posting here was saying "We don't know if the Spider has a hit box issue, as other issues make it hard to impossible to determine this". Shall I quote and post my 4 previous posts from a short while back?
And what's wrong with having a root problem that effects EVERY MECH IN THE GAME to be solved before trying to approach a problem that EFFECTS A SINGLE MECH IN THE GAME? Wouldn't fixing the problem involving more mechs be more beneficial? That was all I'm pointing out. Nice "snide" remark on me though...
If you don't believe that most of the Spider advocates aren't denying an issue, then your comprehension is faulty, and if you don't think making statements to the effect, "Fix EVERYTHING ELSE FIRST, THEN, touch my Spider" doesn't SCREAM, "wanting to keep your broken Spider" to everyone else who has acknowledged and reasoned that there is an issue with Spiders, well, again... Comprehension.
Quote
I've done testing. I've taken screen shots. I found a problem of the shoulder hit boxes being slightly (and by slightly, I mean very very minor) too small on the Spider after the arm(s) were destroyed. The damaged sections sticking out didn't seem to have a hit box.
I've done testing, provided full motion video and found issues that, while minor to you, when combined with the other known issues with HSR, hit detection, etc., add up to a major problem with a particular chassis.
Quote
However, I found instead to my surprise, that the Jenner had more "hit transfer issues" than the Spider seemed to. The Jenner also had a rather large black hole for damage in the shoulder joint after the arm was destroyed. Why aren't you complaining about that more? I found it. Shot into it several tests in a row (restarting testing grounds to retest) and provided screen shot evidence of the issue as well. You, conveniently ignore the posts.
I ignore your posts on the Jenner because this is a Spider thread. Again, just like the 5 year old trying to get out of trouble by tattling on his sibling, the Spider lovers try and make an issue with another 'mech MORE of a priority. It was an obvious ploy I decided not to validate it by responding, but since you've made such an issue of it, there you go.
If you'd like to start a thread on Jenners, I'd be more than happy to join in on it and call for the problems to be fixed. However, as this is a thread on SPIDER issues, I choose to not let the conversation be hijacked for any significant duration.
Quote
Out of everyone, you are the one who is "ignoring information and facts that go counter to your argument", not us. I investigated the issues on Testing Grounds, and saw none of the issues your older videos from several patchs back found.
OMG! OH MY F'ING GAWD! I ignore the facts that don't apply to the Spider, I don't give a rats butt about the Jenner in this thread. As far as my videos go, the ones I created and posted are WERE NO WHERE NEAR as old as you're trying to make them out to be. Hell the one I created in testing grounds is now only
ONE patch old so I don't want EVER want you try that again.
And you wonder why I've started to ignore your posts.
Quote
I also was able to replicate the damage transfer bug you reported, however on more than just the Spider proving that it wasn't a Spider specific issue. Someone else posted that video of a Cataphrat taking hits but no damage for 15 solid seconds (no paper doll damage and no health percentage drops). And yet, you refuted it all as irrelevant, or just ignored it and never responded.
I pointed out the issues with the movie. We don't know this person's ping at the time, we say a significant problem with the video stopping for a period of time, where we lose information at a CRITICAL analysis juncture (was the paper doll showing damage flash or not, we don't know, the video froze during that period), but yet again here we have that dissemination, "Oh, you can't fix Spider yet, there other bigger 'mechs that have problems, you gotta fix first before touching my Spider..."
Again, you want post that in a Cataphract specific thread calling fixes, by all means do so, BUT THIS AIN'T THE F'ING CATAPHRACT THREAD, STOP TRYING TO HIJACK IT...
Quote
Later on today, when I get a chance, I shall be testing the new changes in the game on the testing grounds. I shall report back here with what I find then. I do not wish to say anything definitive on the subject about the changes done to the Spider (and other mechs) till I get a chance to test them myself and see what has changed. However, from what I am hearing here, they were so minor as to almost be nonexistent (besides the split of the pelvic area into legs).
Changes were made, I saw probably 50 percent less Spiders in game yesterday, based on that observation I surmise that some people are noticing the Spider is a bit less unreasonably hardy.
Edited by Dimento Graven, 20 November 2013 - 01:43 PM.