Shadow Hawk Ct Seems Huge
Started by Kh0rn, Sep 09 2017 09:36 AM
12 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 09 September 2017 - 09:36 AM
I just thought I might post something here to see what the general vibe is but ever since I branched out to pick up the Shadow hawk I have noticed that it seems to have a larger then normal CT torso, despite the amount of torso twisting I do the RT and LT take moderate to minimal damage at best while the CT, regardless of torso twisted takes all the damage, I don't remember Shadow hawk having such a large CT. Just wanting to know if any one else has noticed this ?
#2
Posted 09 September 2017 - 09:43 AM
I think it's more that people are more focused on hitting center mass.
#3
Posted 09 September 2017 - 09:50 AM
The tech release put out a lot of AC options that are harder to twist from. Additionally builds are synergizing better making it easier to put more damage in a smaller area. I was finding I couldn't spread damage as well as I did before the update.
#4
Posted 09 September 2017 - 09:54 AM
Ruar, on 09 September 2017 - 09:50 AM, said:
The tech release put out a lot of AC options that are harder to twist from. Additionally builds are synergizing better making it easier to put more damage in a smaller area. I was finding I couldn't spread damage as well as I did before the update.
That and I think the engine de-sync made it a little harder to roll damage in the high end mediums. Not a lot, but I think it's noticeable.
#5
Posted 09 September 2017 - 10:02 AM
Well I took it to the training ground, swapped out of it into another mech so I could see the hitboxes for myself and I discovered something pretty scary, its CT is indeed larger then it should be, Here are two crude paint pictures showing it now and showing where the RT and LT actually connect to the CT
This is its CT at the moment its huge

This is how it should be by looking at where the two side torsos connect to the CT
This is its CT at the moment its huge

This is how it should be by looking at where the two side torsos connect to the CT
#6
Posted 09 September 2017 - 10:05 AM
Trust me, you do not want that much ST on an IS Medium. Just ask the Uziel.
#7
Posted 09 September 2017 - 10:23 AM
The Shadowhawk's hitboxes are good the way they are. Don't talk PGI into ruining my favorite mech
#8
Posted 09 September 2017 - 10:25 AM
Yeah, the hit boxes are good enough.
I'll agree it tends to accumulate damage in the CT, more so than some other humanoids which spread the damage more perfectly, assuming identical twisting habits.
Just think of it as a free pass to run an XL engine.
I'll agree it tends to accumulate damage in the CT, more so than some other humanoids which spread the damage more perfectly, assuming identical twisting habits.
Just think of it as a free pass to run an XL engine.
#9
Posted 09 September 2017 - 10:41 AM
Yes, the CT is on the larger side, which makes it a rather XL friendly mech. Nowhere near as big as the Kintaro's though. Does not need a fix imho.
#10
Posted 09 September 2017 - 10:43 AM
The SHD has one of the best IS hitbox. Last thing you want is for people to easily target your st. You can twist some damage if you work the legs and the arms gets a good share.
#11
Posted 09 September 2017 - 10:49 AM
Yea I just wanted to know if its suppose to be this large but yea I guess it is a pass for a XL engine.
#12
Posted 09 September 2017 - 11:21 AM
Ruar, on 09 September 2017 - 09:50 AM, said:
The tech release put out a lot of AC options that are harder to twist from. Additionally builds are synergizing better making it easier to put more damage in a smaller area. I was finding I couldn't spread damage as well as I did before the update.
Ah that's what it is, I couldn't figure out why I seem to be getting CT cored more often, I'd assumed I was getting worse at playing the game.
#13
Posted 09 September 2017 - 04:28 PM
I have been running my Shadow Hawks in faction and quick plays for nearly two years. It does fine...though I still question PGI's "volumetric scaling" somewhat on several mechs, the hit boxes are okay.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users























