27 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Yeah, it's an established fact that the Mechlab doesn't represent the hitbox locations seen ingame. http://mwomercs.com/...x-localisation/ provides a handy guide to where the hitboxes actually are.

[Dimento Graven]

Elli Gujar, on 21 October 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Yeah, it's an established fact that the Mechlab doesn't represent the hitbox locations seen ingame. http://mwomercs.com/...x-localisation/ provides a handy guide to where the hitboxes actually are.

So, are you saying this "is not" a bug?

I disagree. I'm not sure it makes sense to include part of a 'mechs arms as side torsos.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

That's not the arm, actually. It's the socket casing around the arm joint. When the arm's blown off, that casing remains.

And no, it's not a bug. PGI designed it that way. I don't claim for a moment to know what their reasoning behind it is, but it's a clearly intentional part of the way they designed the game, or it would have been changed long ago when they were testing the Cataphract (or during testing/shortly after going live for the other 'mechs for their own various hitbox weirdnesses, vis a vis the CT hitbox change made to the KTO.). It's been that way for as long as Cataphracts have been in Live, and is definitely not a recent change.

Not to say that I particularly agree or disagree with the decision, but it's one that was made and done with quite a while ago.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 21 October 2013 - 12:26 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Well I'd agree with your assessment that the location is a 'socket casing', except for the fact that the Cataphract is equipped with 3 arm actuators:


If the cataphract had no shoulder actuator, only a the upper and lower actuators, I'd agree with you, however, in this case, it specifically says, "shoulder". So including the "shoulder" as part of the side torso is incorrect. Either that, or equipping a "shoulder" on the cataphract is wrong.

One of the two needs to be corrected.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

No.

This is not a bug.

This is the Mechlab area designations being different than the during-play hitboxes.

Your diagram is nice, but doesn't actually have any relevance.

What you are trying to say is 'I don't like that the shoulder of this 'mech isn't counted as the arm'. There is nothing wrong with this dislike or thinking that this attribute of the CTF chassis is silly. In fact, I agree with you entirely that it's conceptually silly that the thing's shoulder casing counts as side torso when it's shot.

However, the fact remains that it is not, in fact, a bug.

A bug is an error in the game that causes it to function in a way it was not designed to. The game was designed intentionally to function in this (admittedly somewhat silly) way, ergo this is not a bug.

The whole 'socket casing' thing is the most Occam's Razor-y thing I can come up with to explain it, so it's the explanation that I use in my head. Whether or not you agree with it is up to you, but doesn't make me 'wrong'.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 21 October 2013 - 01:02 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Elli Gujar, on 21 October 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

No.

This is not a bug.

This is the Mechlab area designations being different than the during-play hitboxes.

Your diagram is nice, but doesn't actually have any relevance.

What you are trying to say is 'I don't like that the shoulder of this 'mech isn't counted as the arm'. There is nothing wrong with this dislike or thinking that this attribute of the CTF chassis is silly. In fact, I agree with you entirely that it's conceptually silly that the thing's shoulder casing counts as side torso when it's shot.

However, the fact remains that it is not, in fact, a bug.

A bug is an error in the game that causes it to function in a way it was not designed to. The game was designed intentionally to function in this (admittedly somewhat silly) way, ergo this is not a bug.

How do you know that the Cataphract hit boxes, were in fact, designed this way with intent?

I haven't found statements from PGI on it in either direction as yet, and considering that PGI has gone back and corrected other 'mechs with hit box/hit detection issues, at this time there seems to be more evidence supporting that this is a possible bug.

[Redshift2k5]

The big clue that this is "intentional" is the way they modeled the side torso after an arm is destroyed. The large 'shoulder' cowling remains in place as part of the side torso. I can't be 100% accurate, but you could always pose it as a question in Ask The devs, send it to Ekman's twitter, or file a support ticket if you need more definitive answer.

[Dimento Graven]

Redshift2k5, on 21 October 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

The big clue that this is "intentional" is the way they modeled the side torso after an arm is destroyed. The large 'shoulder' cowling remains in place as part of the side torso. I can't be 100% accurate, but you could always pose it as a question in Ask The devs, send it to Ekman's twitter, or file a support ticket if you need more definitive answer.

Again, I disagree that 'left over' graphics indicate 'intent'. I've yet to find any other 'mech that suffers such huge disparity of its arms vs. side torsos.

I don't think this was intentional, I think it's just an oversight and everyone else has been 'assuming' that it's actually ok.

Either way, if the design is intended, why haven't they corrected the visualization in 'mech lab. Seems like it should be a 1 man hour correction to redraw those lines, and the correction would carry over into UI 2.0 design as well, so it seems stupid to NOT fix it in 'mech lab, IF, 'mech lab has it wrong.

Otherwise if 'mech lab is right, then the hit boxes are wrong and SHOULD be fixed. Agreed?

[Ironwithin]

The in-game hitboxes are made for gamebalance reasons and do not reflect the mechlab "highlighting" of components.

You can see the same behaviour in almost all 'mechs if you select the front CT and turn the view around. The highlighting occurs on parts that are on the back side of the 'mech, too, while those parts in-game count as rear CT or sometimes even rear ST.

_{Mind you, I did NOT say I like or dislike how hitboxes are placed on 'mechs.
That is a whole other mess.}

Edited by Ironwithin, 21 October 2013 - 01:16 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Ironwithin, on 21 October 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

The in-game hitboxes are made for gamebalance reasons and do not reflect the mechlab "highlighting" of components.

_{Mind you, I did NOT say I like or dislike how hitboxes are placed on 'mechs.
That is a whole other mess.}

But we're back to, why have the actual hit box locations disparate from the 'mech lab.

Why go out of their way to obfuscate and/or confuse actual hit locations?

Either way, a correction is needed.

[Ironwithin]

Dimento Graven, on 21 October 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

But we're back to, why have the actual hit box locations disparate from the 'mech lab.

Wondered that myself quite often. It sure as hell would make more sense, on all 'mechs. It's not a bug though, maybe call it an "intentional design flaw".

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Then by all means go put a correction topic in the 'Suggested Features' forum, instead of insisting that there's a bug.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 21 October 2013 - 01:25 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Elli Gujar, on 21 October 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

Then by all means go put a correction topic in the 'Suggested Features' forum, instead of insisting that there's a bug.

I don't think they actually 'intended' to have the 'mech lab show locations so differently from how the game locates the hit boxes, OR, I don't think PGI intended to have the UPPER ARM/SHOULDER to be counted as part of the side torso.

Therefore, either way, bug, and the topic is correct as is.

[ShinVector]

LOL..
You can always submit a ticket to PGI rather than argue with the people in the forums.
They then will reply with 'by design. Case closed.'

[aniviron]

Dimento Graven, on 21 October 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

How do you know that the Cataphract hit boxes, were in fact, designed this way with intent?

I haven't found statements from PGI on it in either direction as yet, and considering that PGI has gone back and corrected other 'mechs with hit box/hit detection issues, at this time there seems to be more evidence supporting that this is a possible bug.

You can tell that their intent is for the mech lab highlights to not match the in-game hitboxes because no other mechs work this way. The cataphract is not unique or special. I will repeat this for you:

Every single mech in the game has different hitboxes in the game compared to what the mechlab shows. Every single one. There is not one exception.

That's because what makes for sensible gameplay (or at least PGI's version of it) is different from what people expect to see when they click on a part in the mech lab; wouldn't it look odd to see the shoulder cowl on the CTF not included in the arm? So they made a compromise, so you get a nice-looking mechlab with non-indicative hitboxes. They aren't even calculated the same way, so it doesn't really make sense to use the same system for both.

Sorry, it's not a bug, it's a design decision. They've been aware of the fact that it works this way for many months, especially since it was brought up in an ATD a while back where someone pointed out that you could fix the Awesome by giving it the hitboxes the mech lab has instead of what it currently has; the dev response indicated that everything was "working as intended."

[Modo44]

Dimento Graven, on 21 October 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

So, are you saying this "is not" a bug?

It is not a bug. The mechlab locations need to be big enough for easy clicking, and some actual hitboxes (e.g. the heads) are not.

[Dimento Graven]

aniviron, on 21 October 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

You can tell that their intent is for the mech lab highlights to not match the in-game hitboxes because no other mechs work this way. The cataphract is not unique or special. I will repeat this for you:

Every single mech in the game has different hitboxes in the game compared to what the mechlab shows. Every single one. There is not one exception.

That's because what makes for sensible gameplay (or at least PGI's version of it) is different from what people expect to see when they click on a part in the mech lab; wouldn't it look odd to see the shoulder cowl on the CTF not included in the arm? So they made a compromise, so you get a nice-looking mechlab with non-indicative hitboxes. They aren't even calculated the same way, so it doesn't really make sense to use the same system for both.

Sorry, it's not a bug, it's a design decision. They've been aware of the fact that it works this way for many months, especially since it was brought up in an ATD a while back where someone pointed out that you could fix the Awesome by giving it the hitboxes the mech lab has instead of what it currently has; the dev response indicated that everything was "working as intended."

I don't know, looking over the linked estimations of hit box locations vs. most other 'mechs most are a HELL of a lot closer than the Cataphract arm/side torso confusion, PLUS, the newer 'mechs are darn near 100% consistent in their 'mech lab representation.

You're making a large assumption, and that's an exaggerated assumption at that.

Unlike you, I've actually done REAL research on the issue and I've actually been comparing the link provided earlier which has what are believed to be "known" hit box locations against what's represented by those locations in 'mech lab.

Here's what I've found:
Commando - Only difference is the head/torso representation, it's probably over 90% correct.
Spider - Same
Raven - Same, only the head representation is actually a lot closer than the previous 2, meaning it's nearly 100% correct
Jenner - Same, though the head/ct representation is WAY off on this one.
Locust - As far as I can tell, it's 100% correct

Cicada - Only difference is head/torso representation, somewhere in the 90's in correctness though.
Hunchback - Same as above, though the head representation is only slightly off in 'mech lab, it's ~98% correct.
Centurian - Same as above, though it's probably only 90% correct
Blackjack - Same as above, ~95% correct in head/torso region
Trebuchet - Same as above, ~90% correct in head/torso region
Kintaro - Don't own one, can't validate myself.
Shadohawk - Haven't seen the hit box locations published on those yet.

Cataphract - We've already established SIGNIFICANT differences, video was part of the OP
Dragon - Very close, slight difference in head/torso representation, at least 90% correct
Catapult - Same as above
Jagermech - Suffers the same issue as the Cataphract in the arm/side torso region. The arms are represented as having a larger area, and the side torsos are represented much smaller. This needs to be corrected. Interestingly enough the head/torso area is 100% correct as far as I can tell.
Quickdraw - As far as I can tell it's 100% accurate.
Orion - Don't own one, can't check.
Thunderbolt - Haven't seen the hit box locations published on those yet.

Atlas - Almost 100% correct. When clicking the head it appears to be trying to highlight the very center "nose area" of the head in 'mech lab though, which is interesting.
Stalker - Appears to be 100% correct as far as I can tell.
Highlander - Appears to suffer from the same issue as the Cataphract and Jagermech, the arms and side torsos are not represented accurately, the head is 'nearly' accurate, but includes the two side 'windows' when highlighted, it's in the 90 percentile range for accuracy though.
Awesome - The arms and side torsos are really represented wrong in 'mech lab, and the head is close to as wrong as the Cataphract.
Victor - Mostly correct, only the head is represented as taking up slightly more area than the actual hit box location.
BattleMaster - Haven't seen the hit box locations published on those yet.

The 'mech lab representation has ZERO to do with in game play, other than in this case for a few 'mechs setting up some really unreasonable expectations as to where the hit box locations actually are.

Are ALL 'mechs "exact to the pixel" representations? No, of course not, but, I haven't yet run across any that are as misleading as the Cataphract, Jager, and Awesome is. Most are pretty much on the money, and it's mostly the older 'mechs that have issues representing the 'head' of the 'mech.

There's no REASONABLE 'game play' reason to LIE to the players like that, so it MUST be broken.

You can be emphatic about your wrong assumptions, but really, it seems you're just arguing to make yourself feel smart.

Please rethink your arguments, and research them next time.

Also, I would think that after the Founder's Atlas debacle, you'd understand that problems can creep into the system, and prior to that, what was it? The Kintaro everyone hated because it was supposedly too big/too easy to kill because of the size of its hit boxes?

I don't believe jack or **** what any PGI programmer 'says' until its actually posted in writing FROM PGI somewhere, and even then you can't believe them, or have you forgotten that PGI had at one time promised there'd be no third person view, and no cooling packs?

Edited by Dimento Graven, 21 October 2013 - 11:17 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Modo44, on 21 October 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

It is not a bug. The mechlab locations need to be big enough for easy clicking, and some actual hitboxes (e.g. the heads) are not.

See my previous post above, and also think about the current UI and the component selector located in the lower left hand corner of the 'mech lab, then rethink your answer please...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 21 October 2013 - 11:04 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Ultimately, everyone keep this in mind:

Even if the CURRENT hit box locations are 100% 'working as intended', there is ZERO value in having those locations MISREPRESENTED in the 'mech lab.

So either 'mech lab needs to be fixed, or the hit box locations are wrong.

I think the hit box locations are wrong on the Jager and Cataphract, at the very least, and maybe a little questionable on the Awesome.

But again, at the very least one or the other needs be corrected...