Model Poll

[SumVeritas]

QUOTE (TurkeyXIII @ Apr 12 2011, 08:35 AM) They should be scaled up further than that; to the point where the smooth, no crack, no pointy parts, no holes section of the hitbox is almost as large as the original section. The hittable surface would then be larger - how much larger depends on the individual model.

Hey Icky, are you going to form your own opinion or just reiterate that of some guy you know?

And what does this mean exactly, that we're gonna end with dreg ints the size of a corv¿?
now, seriously, i think new models and autogen is a good compromise.

[Icky]

QUOTE (TurkeyXIII @ Apr 12 2011, 08:35 AM) Hey Icky, are you going to form your own opinion or just reiterate that of some guy you know?

I've expressed my opinion. You have expressed yours.

I understand and appreciate you are very knowledgeable about creating cores and such, but that doesn't mean you know anything about how to balance hitboxes for ship-to-ship combat.

A talented aerospace engineer doesn't necessarily have a clue about dogfighting.

If you want to know what the requirements, strengths, and weaknesses are for a new aircraft talk to the top gun pilots (Weed etc).

[MrChaos]

My respect for all things eye-tal-yon continues to grow although I can tell you that only the fact Fiat <> Fix It Again Tony in this century came as surprise

Gents and Lady(ies)

The point would be the engineer designs the ship, the pilot dogfights it exposing the unintended weaknesses and strengths, the engineer goes back and tweaks the design (in some cases @#(! cans the whole ugly design abortion), the pilot flies it exposing new things etc etc. If you have to listen to only one... listen to the pilot engineer


Some Most of the new models where made with no thought to realities of game coding, mechanics and balance. The solution of just making them bigger when they suck on toast is a nice and all to the faction "owner" but welp the better approach would be to @#(! can the abortions and redesign the models from the ground up. The alternate approach of making bubbles to deal with the @#(!ty model issue could be seen as a bit of a band aid approach too. By this I mean close or bubble whichever you choose should be made with an eye towards the game play you desire not something to fix an inherent flaw in a ship's model.

At the end of the day what peaked my interest was the idea we can reduce lag depending on the option choosen. If this is, in fact, the actual case it seems more important then having a "pretty" model and "realism".


edit: After logging off for the night I had a thought, one I'm not sure I've ever heard before but then again I am not an avid reader of this section of the forum. First I confess without embarassment that the meat and potato numbers I can't be assed to keep up on it, nor do I need the heartburn over how some of the discusssions go on the game mechanics.

It seems to me a key weakness of the bubble method, at least to the form fitting advocates, is the bubble requires vet level clue to know where each one is for each faction and core. Why not represent the hit box as a semi-transparency that mimicks the glow of the shields (as a section view perhaps)? For the ships that don't have any shields at all you could add shields with almost no health ( 1 health for example). What it would do is give the newbie and voobie a visual representation (at leat until the dog fight got started) of the hitbox for each ship, faction, and core. While not perfect, it s intuitive that if you shoot inside the glowing outline you'll do damage and over time one will get a feel for the hitbox of the ship. A vet still has the advantage, of course, but the newb gets learned about one aspect of the game faster.

Now I think we are talking code change too. *shrug* The complexity of it, hell even the feasibilty I have only a foggy notion. I had an "out of the box" idea, as far as I know, and simply taking it for a profunctional walk around the park for all the dogs to sniff its butt.

oh my goodness not only did I voice an opinion but also present an idea too. Go easy on me you big old meanies

[Dorjan]

Maybe a good mid-point is to make a closed map solid hitbox.

So they've not got little cracks which will cause the bullets to miss no fault of the pilot (due to spread and chance) and make it easier to balance.

This will get rid of 99% of the "I shot invisible space" complains as they are normally the outer wings etc (like a tall tailfin connected to a wide wing).

So long as the body mass is made to be an even size for most of the ships then this can be the case.

HOWEVER:

With our current man-power, art department and resources. Surely cutting the corner and just throwing the hitboxes to the auto-generator for the most part is the smart thing? Then correctly the clearly messed up models (like the IC fig, which btw, no one complains about so that was done RIGHT. Solid middle mass with a "nice" touch of being able to shoot the wings rather than anything else).

TD:DR:

Bubble them, then touch up.

[FazzBumm]

how about we get rid of all that wings on our space combat ships ? Wouldnt this solve most of the hitbox problems ?

[LANS]

QUOTE (FazzBumm @ Apr 13 2011, 07:57 AM) how about we get rid of all that wings on our space combat ships ? Wouldnt this solve most of the hitbox problems ?

But then our ships would have no radiators and we would surely boil alive inside!

[takingarms1]

QUOTE (MrChaos @ Apr 12 2011, 11:10 PM) It seems to me a key weakness of the bubble method, at least to the form fitting advocates, is the bubble requires vet level clue to know where each one is for each faction and core.

One of the real whores can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think pilots aim at specific places on specific models to score hits. Rather, you lead the ship in empty space where you think it's heading, and then watch your bullets and adjust your fire until you see/hear the bullets hitting. There is a particular animation and sound associated with it, and I believe that is what vets look/listen for. It really has nothing to do with the actual ship model at all, as you are rarely if ever actually aiming directly at the model.

The biggest impact to newbs/voobs I think is the reticule color change. Vets don't pay attention to it, but the newbs/voobs usually aim based on where the reticule turns green. I don't think close or bubble hitboxes changes the effectiveness of this very much, because using the reticule in this way is usually a recipe for getting podded regardless of the style of hitbox.

In short, close vs bubble hitboxes has nothing to do with needing a vet-level clue, and won't really affect the difference between vets/voobs/noobs in actual combat situations. Vets will still own you, and voobs/noobs will still suck, regardless of the hitbox style used.

[badpazzword]

QUOTE (TakingArms @ Apr 13 2011, 06:08 PM) It really has nothing to do with the actual ship model at all, as you are rarely if ever actually aiming directly at the model.

For example, you are rarely if ever actually defending a stationary objective like a constructor near a rock, where ships tend to slow to an halt as shown in the video I linked above.

[Dorjan]

QUOTE (TakingArms @ Apr 13 2011, 04:08 PM) One of the real whores can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think pilots aim at specific places on specific models to score hits. Rather, you lead the ship in empty space where you think it's heading, and then watch your bullets and adjust your fire until you see/hear the bullets hitting. There is a particular animation and sound associated with it, and I believe that is what vets look/listen for. It really has nothing to do with the actual ship model at all, as you are rarely if ever actually aiming directly at the model.

For me, I aim in space predicting the movements not to just hit the ship but to where I predict the biggest area of the ship is hopefully going to be.

I'm no where near a top dogfighter though.

[Patman3]

I make the reticle green, then make the other guy an E.





I'm aware the reticle is often wrong.