33 replies to this topic

[CK16]

Do question guys....should PGI look at addressing some mechs externally geometry?

By that I mean, the external missile lauchers, radar antenna's, and other projections from the mech?

I ask this cause I recall awhile ago that you could shoot off a mechs AMS without having to take off the torsos/arm it was attached too. That it actually has its own hit box, if I am recalling correctly.

Now why couldn't this be applied to say missile boxes for several mechs, the Radar mast on the Rifleman and Jagger? This would make a lot of mechs that are known to just say no to missile racks consider them now (TBR, Warhammer, Thunderbolt, Battlemaster, Summoner, and ect) be more user friendly now with only losing that weapon system(s) sticking up out of thier mech. Think of MW4 and how that affected some mechs? Now it's almost impossible to run say a TBR with any sort of missile racks on the front lines, LRM's being the worst since any smart player easily pin point them off with hardly any effort and the SRM's as well are a good go to aim point for people to nuke the ST off although smaller are fairly easy to hit still. Many of the favorable hit boxes gifted to many mechs become obsolete after a missile rack is added and forces them into a Daka and laser only role(Warhammers, you just don't run missiles on them effectively cause they stick out so much).

So should PGI give these external features separate hit boxes to help more carried builds be use able? This could help alot of mechs I feel with hit boxes combined with pin point aim ect.

Edited by CK16, 26 December 2016 - 10:39 PM.

[Snazzy Dragon]

Involves coding and effort beyond editing a spreadsheet, and doesn't involve new mech packs. Probably won't happen.

[RestosIII]

You don't know how much good will PGI would get from me if they made the Timber's ears a separate hitbox and HP pool. It would make it so I'm not horribly, horribly gimped by daring to run LRMs on a Timber. That, and while we're at it, please make all missiles on the ST's of Timbers go into the missile ears. Not the horrid sight we have now with the Timber SRMs.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

It would be amazing if instead of random RNG (POS RNG) that determines crit damage, but hitting the actual weapons.equipment themselves would actually damage them directly. Like the best way to disarm LRM boats would be to shoot their missile pods.This could also be balanced so that larger launchers will have more HP pool, and smaller launchers have smaller HP.

[Snazzy Dragon]

Shiroi Tsuki, on 27 December 2016 - 12:43 AM, said:

It would be amazing if instead of random RNG (POS RNG) that determines crit damage, but hitting the actual weapons.equipment themselves would actually damage them directly. Like the best way to disarm LRM boats would be to shoot their missile pods.This could also be balanced so that larger launchers will have more HP pool, and smaller launchers have smaller HP.

I would love to crit all those guass rifles floating around..

[Accused]

It will never happen.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

Snazzy Dragon, on 27 December 2016 - 12:46 AM, said:

I would love to crit all those guass rifles floating around..

I would LOVE to run an anti-meta build.
G-Get bullied nerds!

[Kasumi Sumika]

I think Phoenix Hawk's gun also should use the seperated HP and Geometry from Arms.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Kasumi Sumika, on 27 December 2016 - 01:25 AM, said:

I think Phoenix Hawk's gun also should use the seperated HP and Geometry from Arms.

no.

MW4 had this, and it was one of the worst aspects of MW4.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 27 December 2016 - 01:40 AM, said:

MW4 had this, and it was one of the worst aspects of MW4.

You mean one of the best, the only reason it was bad was because Mektek would later abuse it by adding chin racks that obstruct CTs to everything. It allowed things like the Mauler and Timber to not be horribly gimped and still keep their unique missile ear profiles.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 27 December 2016 - 07:40 AM.

[CK16]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 27 December 2016 - 07:39 AM, said:

You mean one of the best, the only reason it was bad was because Mektek would later abuse it by adding chin racks that obstruct CTs to everything. It allowed things like the Mauler and Timber to not be horribly gimped and still keep their unique missile ear profiles.

That was my thoughts on it, it made them alot more user friendly.

[Battlemaster56]

Yes!!! 100x Yes this make running my TBR-D less horrid with it already god size ST's and make my life easier.

[Lostdragon]

I would be interested to see how the game felt of all the hitboxes we currently have got seperated into two or three hitboxes each (3 for most torsos, 2 for most arms/legs). I imagine adding more hitb9xes like that would put a huge strain on HSR, it struggles a lot as it is so even adding two new hotboxes per mech may not be technically feasible.

[Y E O N N E]

Lostdragon, on 27 December 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

I would be interested to see how the game felt of all the hitboxes we currently have got seperated into two or three hitboxes each (3 for most torsos, 2 for most arms/legs). I imagine adding more hitb9xes like that would put a huge strain on HSR, it struggles a lot as it is so even adding two new hotboxes per mech may not be technically feasible.

Always thought the better way to do it would be to cover a 'Mech in a grid of small hitboxes, each with an armor value, so focusing one section on a 'Mech is much harder to since you'd have to strike the same square every time. You could then implement concepts like splash damage and projectile diameter into how damage is dealt to a single region.

[Anjian]

I have seen in another mech game (not any of the Mechwarrior series) have a separate hitbox for the external weapon which you can literally blow off. The weapons have their own HP. However the mechs do not have any arms or limbs, the weapons just attach to the arm socket, close to the Jagermech or Rifleman in design. Without any arms, that's a massive reduction in overhead for hitboxes, since you only have the torso, weapons and the legs, and this compensates for the overhead with hitboxes and HP sets for the externally mounted weapons. If there is an arm, it would be so tiny, it only serves as a fixed or flexible ball joint, would require no HP but would not shield the torso if the weapon is destroyed. You can optionally choose a shield as a weapon though, its basically is a static HP/hitbox device, that protects the torso till it runs out.

Adding hitboxes and HP sets to weapons would greatly add to the complexity underneath MWO, the mech designs are already more complex with separate hitboxes for the arms, left, right and center torso. Each weapon would also require their own separate size hitbox and HP. The game isn't built in the most solid for foundations, and its already creaky. We need to simplify, reducing complexity increases the speed of processing, less lag and most of all less bugs.

[RestosIII]

Anjian, on 27 December 2016 - 07:27 PM, said:

I have seen in another mech game (not any of the Mechwarrior series) have a separate hitbox for the external weapon which you can literally blow off. The weapons have their own HP. However the mechs do not have any arms or limbs, the weapons just attach to the arm socket, close to the Jagermech or Rifleman in design. Without any arms, that's a massive reduction in overhead for hitboxes, since you only have the torso, weapons and the legs, and this compensates for the overhead with hitboxes and HP sets for the externally mounted weapons. If there is an arm, it would be so tiny, it only serves as a fixed or flexible ball joint, would require no HP but would not shield the torso if the weapon is destroyed. You can optionally choose a shield as a weapon though, its basically is a static HP/hitbox device, that protects the torso till it runs out.

Adding hitboxes and HP sets to weapons would greatly add to the complexity underneath MWO, the mech designs are already more complex with separate hitboxes for the arms, left, right and center torso. Each weapon would also require their own separate size hitbox and HP. The game isn't built in the most solid for foundations, and its already creaky. We need to simplify, reducing complexity increases the speed of processing, less lag and most of all less bugs.

To the people wanting it for anything but missile boxes: I don't think it's a good idea. But something massive like the Summoner and Timber Wolf missile racks? Those would be relatively simple and wouldn't be around in large numbers during matches, so I don't see how it'd be a problem.

[Anjian]

RestosIII, on 27 December 2016 - 07:29 PM, said:

To the people wanting it for anything but missile boxes: I don't think it's a good idea. But something massive like the Summoner and Timber Wolf missile racks? Those would be relatively simple and wouldn't be around in large numbers during matches, so I don't see how it'd be a problem.

Missile launchers can be made small, like I have seen with another mech game. Or they can be slanted to lower height, e.g. Mad Cat Mk IV from the Dark Age era. I don't think its hard to adopt the launchers you see on the Mark IV.




Usually the big external weapons, particularly with other mech games, happen to be the big cannons and guns. They tend to be so big, its generally a phallic expression like the massive big swords you see swinging around in fantasy games.

You can see from this example, the missile launchers are literally dwarfed by the phallic cannons.

[CK16]

Anjian, on 27 December 2016 - 10:50 PM, said:

Missile launchers can be made small, like I have seen with another mech game. Or they can be slanted to lower height, e.g. Mad Cat Mk IV from the Dark Age era. I don't think its hard to adopt the launchers you see on the Mark IV.




Usually the big external weapons, particularly with other mech games, happen to be the big cannons and guns. They tend to be so big, its generally a phallic expression like the massive big swords you see swinging around in fantasy games.

You can see from this example, the missile launchers are literally dwarfed by the phallic cannons.

But that would just be wrong for the TBR....I would be pissed if they made them so out of proportion and not right for a Timberwolf...It would not be a Timberwolf with the Savage Wolf's launchers.

[Anjian]

How would slanted launchers not look right on the Timberwolf when its on its 4th generation successor.

The Mad Cat Mark II also features slanted launchers, but the old artwork would have to be redone since in my opinion its way too tall.

Note the weapons actually internal weapons encased inside an "arm" which is more BT parlance, rather than huge completely external weapons.

Edited by Anjian, 27 December 2016 - 11:00 PM.

[Snazzy Dragon]

Anjian, on 27 December 2016 - 10:57 PM, said:

How would slanted launchers not look right on the Timberwolf when its on its 4th generation successor.

The Mad Cat Mark II also features slanted launchers, but the old artwork would have to be redone since in my opinion its way too tall.

Note the weapons actually internal weapons encased inside an "arm" which is more BT parlance, rather than huge completely external weapons.

The more I see the mad cat mk II the more I question its potential hitboxes..