Model Poll

SpkWill · Post by **SpkWill** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:28 pm

Nice tldr. Again I'm just going to point out that I have flown 3000+ hours of alleg and have never once thought "gee I better shoot at the bottom/middle/top of this ship" I don't think anyone's aim is even good enough seeing as we are dealing with projectile/particle guns not hitscan. Aiming in alleg is all about positioning and predicting your opponents movement.

Your post does however point out the major problem with close mapped hitboxes, that they are significantly smaller than autogen hitboxes. Which gives the factions with mapped hitboxes a massive advantage. You try to solve this by scaling up the model but it's still harder to shoot at a mapped model and having some models much larger seems silly to me. You should be consistent with the approach towards models and seeing as close mapping all the hitboxes would be a pain in the arse I really don't see why you would do it.

On the other hand if you are really obsessed and anal about fixing some hitboxes can you start with the $#@!ing base models? I'm $#@!ing tired of ramming invisible @#(!ty models, thanks.

HSharp · Post by **HSharp** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:03 pm

See your making issues where there aren't really any, for one thing the example your using is the dreg sf which hardly matters. Ships don't stay stationary in this game, your not a sniper going for the perfect shot, when im leading my aim on a moving opponent I'm simply not good enough to lead higher or lower to try and exploit some blank space and I am a fairly laggy player. I just watch my shots and see if they land or not. The hull-conforming camp are trying to make an issue of where there isn't one in gameplay, it's nothing to do with vet's losing dps or crap like that but the changes that will affect gameplay as ships become harder to hit for everyone.

All this will do is just make people play on XC more.

Although +1 on changing base hitboxes because that most definitely is newbie unfriendly as vets can exploit that, that being hull conforming I wouldn't mind and wouldn't affect gameplay that much.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:37 pm

SpkWill wrote:QUOTE (SpkWill @ Apr 11 2011, 04:28 PM) On the other hand if you are really obsessed and anal about fixing some hitboxes can you start with the $#@!ing base models? I'm $#@!ing tired of ramming invisible @#(!ty models, thanks.

I'm glad others feel this way too.

Too bad it's far from easy to fix. Rain's fixed palisade is about as good as it gets, but I don't recommend trying to fly inside the apparently open structure with anything bigger than a scout (and even then, go carefully).

As for the ship hitbox thing, as long as ships aren't too much wings or spikes, buttle boxes are fine. The worst offenders have been fixed anyway. IC and GT fighters were painfully bad with the bubble hitboxes. With the close mapped hitboxes there's still plenty to hit on those, and we didn't have to scale them tiny to compensate.

I think the dreg ships will probably be fine with some scaling. Had a good chat with Virulence about them after the SGs yesterday.

guitarism · Post by **guitarism** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:02 pm

I would love to get behind close mapped hitboxes. But too often it feels like the new models are so poorly constructed/impossible to hit that it's pointless.

Fix the models so they are believable and aren't flying wedges, or stay with autogen. Because at it stands now, some of the look pretty, but are just a bit hard to hit.

Remember TF's old ints? You don't want those back, do you?

Jimen · Post by **Jimen** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:13 pm

TurkeyXIII wrote:QUOTE (TurkeyXIII @ Apr 11 2011, 06:43 AM) Again, the cross shows the centre for aiming at, while the circle shows the cone for landing 100% of hits around that target. Compared to the overall size of the model, it's much smaller than the one above. But where are people intuitively going to try to aim when they see the ship? The same spot! (Personally I'd go a bit lower for the possibility of hitting the wings in the lag but that's probably just me). But then the relative size of the cone poses issues. The model is going to need to be scaled up compared to the bubble version in order to bring that cone near to that of most other ships, but if it goes all the way then the ship will be so big that random, unaimed shots will have a chance of hitting the boat-like wings.

I don't know about you, but I'm intuitively going to aim "in the general direction of the ship I'm firing at", watching the stream of bullets and using my instincts to adjust it until I start seeing the damage animations on the enemy ship's hull. Maybe my monitor is just too small or something, but I can hardly even see gaps that small at average dogfighting distances, let alone adjust my aim by 1/4th of a millimeter to target them on a fast-moving ship which moves in erratic patterns.

QUOTE (TurkeyXIII)Those who lag moderately (250-300) will rarely ever get perfect accuracy, but we rarely got that anyway. Then the shots that go wide due to a lag-hop will have a chance at hitting the other pointy bits of hull - levelling the playing field in a manner similar to particle dispersion.[/quote]

This is outright false, because those "pointy bits of hull" are hittable under any hitbox model. In fact, decreasing the hittable area of the ship reduces the chances of it being hit by stray shots, because they now have a chance of veering between the pointy bits of the ship. Those wings are vulnerable even with a bubble-mapped hitbox - but only with a close-mapped hitbox do you have to deal with the fact that >30 degrees of your dispersion cone passes harmlessly through the empty spacebetween the wings.

lexaal · Post by **lexaal** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:47 pm

Question: Do bullets have "bubbles" = do they have a radius? Higher radius bullets = more bubbely hulls even if hulls are tight.

This post is presented by fufi and a caltrop. More bobbles.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:02 pm

Can I just point out that the model hitbox poll was kind of ridiculous? It asked only if players wanted close mapped hitboxes or bubble hitboxes without any sort of explanation of the pros and cons of each. As a result, unless you've read this thread, that poll is going to be way biased in favor of close-mapped hitboxes. I mean who can argue that all other things being equal, the hitbox should conform as closely as possible to the model? So I voted for close mapped hitboxes.

Then i come here and realize that close mapped hitboxes are laggy, create problems with some ships being way harder to hit than others, and create serious gameplay issues. Now I want to change my vote.

I hope you're not planning to actually base any decisions on that crappy poll.

edit: to be specific I am referring to the ASGS poll

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:42 pm

TurkeyXIII wrote:QUOTE (TurkeyXIII @ Apr 11 2011, 02:43 AM) The only ideal model would be one that's a uniform sphere, as then you will always intuitively aim for the centre and your cone of 100% accuracy will cover the entire cross-section of the model from every angle. Those who desire that are welcome to make their own core using the Deb Shield artwork replacing every ship.

Your wish is my command.

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:51 pm

Soap Bubble wars! XD

Icky · Post by **Icky** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:59 pm

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Apr 11 2011, 02:42 PM) Your wish is my command.

"BallCore"