60 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

hitboxes if simple common sense were applied


Simple fact is, all mechs should be given the maximum protective hitboxes they are capable of, as intentionally gimping hitboxes is a stupid idea for balancing. Then when one has decent hitbox designs, one can realistically see what mechs need defensive quirks to account for poor geometry, the same way mechs with low hardpoint counts/poor locations should more likely receive quirks than those who have good hardpoints.

Further more, it's lore role should be considered when deciding whether a mech should be offensively or defensively biased when it comes to quirks. The Rifleman is a good example of one they got mostly right, with it being the original literal glass cannon of Battletech. No structure, but solid offensive quirks. The Archer is a good example of one they got very very wrong. (As honestly are the Marauders and Warhammers)

[Mcgral18]

MauttyKoray, on 23 May 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

Now, the left groin CT triangle is a ME issue, I just haven't cared enough to fix it (the second pass, along with checking those other items I'm not sure about)


Claws are completely decorative, I should add, and do not have a hitbox (at least, nothing converged on them)

[Antares102]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 May 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

hitboxes if simple common sense were applied


Simple fact is, all mechs should be given the maximum protective hitboxes they are capable of, as intentionally gimping hitboxes is a stupid idea for balancing. Then when one has decent hitbox designs, one can realistically see what mechs need defensive quirks to account for poor geometry, the same way mechs with low hardpoint counts/poor locations should more likely receive quirks than those who have good hardpoints.

If i had a chance i would also vote for those hitboxes.
I would also prefer better shield arms to any type of quirk the KDK has right now.

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 May 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

hitboxes if simple common sense were applied


Simple fact is, all mechs should be given the maximum protective hitboxes they are capable of, as intentionally gimping hitboxes is a stupid idea for balancing. Then when one has decent hitbox designs, one can realistically see what mechs need defensive quirks to account for poor geometry, the same way mechs with low hardpoint counts/poor locations should more likely receive quirks than those who have good hardpoints.

Further more, it's lore role should be considered when deciding whether a mech should be offensively or defensively biased when it comes to quirks. The Rifleman is a good example of one they got mostly right, with it being the original literal glass cannon of Battletech. No structure, but solid offensive quirks. The Archer is a good example of one they got very very wrong. (As honestly are the Marauders and Warhammers)

I would totally trade all the quirks for this in a heartbeat.

[Tordin]

Those hitboxes... PGI really did it the messy way, guess theres a reason but still
Kudos to Bishop for how it really should be like.

[Solis Obscuri]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 May 2016 - 12:45 PM, said:

Heck I think the archer and rifleman still need proper mapping to, don't they?

That's pretty easy, the Rifleman is all CT, the Archer is all ST.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tordin, on 24 May 2016 - 11:00 AM, said:

Those hitboxes... PGI really did it the messy way, guess theres a reason but still
Kudos to Bishop for how it really should be like.

I'd cheerfully accept employment from PGI designing hitboxes and quirk balance.

[Ultimax]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 May 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

hitboxes if simple common sense were applied


Simple fact is, all mechs should be given the maximum protective hitboxes they are capable of, as intentionally gimping hitboxes is a stupid idea for balancing. Then when one has decent hitbox designs, one can realistically see what mechs need defensive quirks to account for poor geometry, the same way mechs with low hardpoint counts/poor locations should more likely receive quirks than those who have good hardpoints.

Further more, it's lore role should be considered when deciding whether a mech should be offensively or defensively biased when it comes to quirks. The Rifleman is a good example of one they got mostly right, with it being the original literal glass cannon of Battletech. No structure, but solid offensive quirks. The Archer is a good example of one they got very very wrong. (As honestly are the Marauders and Warhammers)

I like that mock up.

I'd also like to see the entire crotch section of assaults & heavies switched to leg hitboxes and not torso.

This would lengthen their TTK.

Lights are probably better off as it is now as their legs are often targeted, I'm not really sure which is better for mediums as it's kind of chassis specific.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ultimax, on 24 May 2016 - 12:50 PM, said:

I like that mock up.

I'd also like to see the entire crotch section of assaults & heavies switched to leg hitboxes and not torso.

This would lengthen their TTK.

Lights are probably better off as it is now as their legs are often targeted, I'm not really sure which is better for mediums as it's kind of chassis specific.

IDK about completing removing the crotch, but I'd be all for reducing it to banana hammock status.

Lights still seem to spread/get the benefit of the doubt from hitreg/hsr more than most mechs, especially against lasers and such. When HSR is against them, they can get rekt pretty fast, but more often than not I find that its because most people running lights are so used to brazenly getting away with crap that they get lazy on the actual piloting side.

Boggles my mind how often I can land a double ac20 shot in one leg, clearly, and have it spread or barely register damage.

Does happen with other weight classes too, but not near as often, nor is it as difficult to reacquire and repeat.

I still see Lights brazenly, in every match just running in between the legs of entire lances of heavy and assaults. And I ain't just talking when I get dropped with underhivers.

Still, would be OK with that if Oxides and Jenny IIs weren't able to get behind and absolutely wreck assaults so easy.

I'm a mediocre Light Pilot. But when I'm running one, the only thing I fear tends to be other Light Jocks. Heavies and Assaults are only an issue if I get stupid.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 24 May 2016 - 12:58 PM.

[Revis Volek]

kapusta11, on 23 May 2016 - 12:46 AM, said:

Here, made a better pic for comparison. IMO Banshee has it worse because of protruding head and would die just as fast giving how many mechs double tap for 80 damage right now.

Still would change it to something like this:



And then remove quirks.

Thats to much ST, the top angled pain should be CT while the bottom of the angles should be ST.


Split it 50/50 on on that center area.

[Bishop Steiner]

Be great if McGral was willing to work on mapping these things with those who don't necessarily agree with him.

It's a great way to ensure confirmation bias doesn't creep in, because it keeps people with like opinions and agendas from simply reinforcing each other's PoV.

Revis Volek, on 24 May 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

Thats to much ST, the top angled pain should be CT while the bottom of the angles should be ST.


Split it 50/50 on on that center area.

too much CT already. Don't need to make the default aim point (sternum to collarbone) even larger. As the single worst design feature is too large a CT.

On a Clan Mech, lose an ST, you still function. But if everything just gets sucked into the CT, that's pretty irrelevant.

[Tina Benoit]

Heya,
Fixes on this issue will be applied next patch (in June).
The CT will be symmetrical and smaller, however maybe not as small as some may expect.

Mcgral18, on 22 May 2016 - 12:19 PM, said:

Another questionable point on my diagram is the lower ST panel, under the missile hardpoint...I realize I didn't check that point and just assumed it's also ST. Could be CT, need another target to double check.

This is currently CT but a small portion will be changed to side torso.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tina Benoit, on 24 May 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

Heya,
Fixes on this issue will be applied next patch (in June).
The CT will be symmetrical and smaller, however maybe not as small as some may expect.



This is currently CT but a small portion will be changed to side torso.

any word on the ST/Arm interface?

something along those lines?

Seriously, I have no issue with the current toughness (it is a tradeoff for the firepower/mobility), would just prefer if it's success was not Quirk dependent.

Also... you better be running yours PINK!

[Ultimax]

Tina Benoit, on 24 May 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

Heya,
Fixes on this issue will be applied next patch (in June).
The CT will be symmetrical and smaller, however maybe not as small as some may expect.



This is currently CT but a small portion will be changed to side torso.

Great news, I think most of us agree with how Bishop mocked up the separation between Arm & Side Torso as well.

[cazidin]

Tina Benoit, on 24 May 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

Heya,
Fixes on this issue will be applied next patch (in June).
The CT will be symmetrical and smaller, however maybe not as small as some may expect.



This is currently CT but a small portion will be changed to side torso.

Wait. There IS a hotfix planned and that will go into effect soon... but they decided to push off the CT fix until June when in the past we've seen that hitbox changes are relatively easy to do.

[Raso]

Tina Benoit, on 24 May 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

Heya,
Fixes on this issue will be applied next patch (in June).
The CT will be symmetrical and smaller, however maybe not as small as some may expect.



This is currently CT but a small portion will be changed to side torso.

Would it ever be possible to actually have a diagram of all of the hit boxes of all of the mechs so that rather than having to do guess work and investigation we could clearly see what they are? That seems like the sort of information that should be easily accessible and not privy only to die hard fans who dig and pry for this sort of information?

[Revis Volek]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 May 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

Be great if McGral was willing to work on mapping these things with those who don't necessarily agree with him.

It's a great way to ensure confirmation bias doesn't creep in, because it keeps people with like opinions and agendas from simply reinforcing each other's PoV.

wut?


If someone doesnt wanna drop with you they dont wanna drop with you, cant force them to bud.

McGral is about as unbiased as it gets as far as i know, if that in fact the jab your were taking at him.

[Bishop Steiner]

Revis Volek, on 25 May 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:

wut?


If someone doesnt wanna drop with you they dont wanna drop with you, cant force them to bud.

McGral is about as unbiased as it gets as far as i know, if that in fact the jab your were taking at him.

And that's the problem with the internet...everyone assumes things are jabs and personal attacks.


Simple fact? NO ONE is unbiased. The best way to have the least bias in results is when people who don't share the same PoV work the same problem. Otherwise EVERYONE, me, McGral, yourself will suffer from some degree of confirmation bias. And even those who are less prone to bias, have blindspots.

That's not a jab, that's just a fact.

[Snowbluff]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 May 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

Simple fact is, all mechs should be given the maximum protective hitboxes they are capable of, as intentionally gimping hitboxes is a stupid idea for balancing. Then when one has decent hitbox designs, one can realistically see what mechs need defensive quirks to account for poor geometry, the same way mechs with low hardpoint counts/poor locations should more likely receive quirks than those who have good hardpoints.

I don't know if it's really a negative balancing thing. Keep in mind the cannons are on the smaller side torso. I think they meant to have the cannon side last longer. :l

Did they do something similiar on the Marauder?

[ScarecrowES]

Pauldrons still have to be mostly or all ST because of the missile boxes extending outward from the standard 1st pos missile boxes. We knew this would be likely before the Kodiak launched, and I argued as much.

Having the pauldrons mostly ST has had no negative effect on side torso vulnerability, as they're so far off the mark that they're only a factor under LRM fire. I have yet to have ST armor stripped off before CT armor on any Kodiak drop, and rarely ever lose a ST before I'm killed.

I think the pauldrons are fine the way they are. They're almost completely obscured from the side anyway.